Geo-engineering and the Environment

Debate between Angus MacDonald and Kerry McCarthy

Monday 23rd June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy]

I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend. I have received quite a lot of correspondence on that, which MPs have passed on from their constituents. I have answered written questions—which are in the public domain—and replied to queries on both those points. I will try to express as clearly and vehemently as I can that we have no plans for SRM.

On the supposed chemtrails issue, that is a term used by some people who claim that the white trails seen behind high-altitude aircraft on clear days contain undisclosed chemical agents intended for a covert atmospheric spraying programme. They are, in fact, as my hon. Friend said, contrails, which form when warm, moist aircraft exhaust fumes mix with cold air at altitude. Under certain atmospheric conditions, contrails can persist and spread out to form cirrus-like clouds before disappearing. There is no deliberate spraying of chemicals in the skies over the UK for climate modification. We are not in favour of SRM and have no plans to change that position; I will say more on that in a moment, but first I want to add a little more on greenhouse gas removals.

Making Britain a clean energy superpower is one of the five missions of this Government, delivering clean power by 2030 and accelerating progress towards net zero across the economy by 2050. I note the comments from the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) about the UK being off track to do that. We will be publishing our carbon budget delivery plan by October; as she said, the previous Government were taken to court for failing to produce adequate policies to match the ambition. Obviously, there is no point in setting targets unless they can be delivered. We will set out our plan in due course, and then talk about the seventh carbon budget and meeting our nationally determined contributions.

We must do everything we can to reduce greenhouse gas emissions—that is our starting point. We need that effort to be shared across all Government Departments, and we need everyone to play a role.

[Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)]

I hope this is not too much of a diversion, but the Minister will know that mains gas is 6p per kWh, largely imported and certainly a carbon fuel, while renewable energy is selling at 24p per kWh. We cannot get the public behind us as long as the environmental tariffs are on the renewable energy and not on the carbon fuel. May I have her opinion on that?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I will not be tempted too far down that path, other than to say that it is very much on our radar. We know that renewables are the cheaper option, but that needs to be reflected in the prices that people are charged. Today, we announced measures in our industrial strategy to bring down energy prices for industry as part of industrial decarbonisation, but on the consumer side it is a work in progress, and the hon. Gentleman can expect to hear more soon.

The starting point is reducing emissions. We know that emissions are hard to abate in some sectors, and that we will not be able to do it fully. Greenhouse gas removal technologies will therefore be important to balance those residual emissions. That is recognised internationally by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and by our independent Climate Change Committee, whose latest advice to Government for setting the seventh carbon budget modelled around 36 megatonnes a year of engineered removals by 2050 to help us reach net zero.

Greenhouse gas removal approaches fall broadly into two categories: nature-based approaches, such as afforestation; and engineering-based approaches, such as direct air carbon capture and storage, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, biochar, and enhanced rock weathering.

I know that both the hon. Members for South Cotswolds and for South Cambridgeshire are passionate about nature-based approaches, which can play an important role in removing and storing carbon dioxide at scale, while delivering a range of additional environmental improvements, such as improvements in biodiversity, air quality and soil health. Those co-benefits are important, too.

We are acting on nature-based approaches. In March, we announced the creation of the Western forest, the first new national forest in over 30 years. It will see 20 million trees planted across the west of England in the coming years, which I very much welcome as a Bristol MP. We also plan to expand nature-rich habitats, such as wetlands and peat bogs, including restoring hundreds of thousands of hectares of peatland—we also seek to promote such work internationally.

We are in the middle of London Climate Action Week, and many visitors from Brazil are talking about what they seek to do for their tropical forests’ “forever facility” at COP30. I was excited to hear what the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said about whales and giant kelp, as I have been talking to my officials about the role they play—it is good to have scientific back-up for my views. During London Climate Action Week, we are focusing on the important role of the voluntary carbon and nature markets in securing investment for blue carbon and our forests.

However, we know that nature-based approaches need to be complemented by engineered solutions to remove carbon dioxide at the speed and scale necessary for us to meet our targets. Many countries agree with us on the important role that GGRs will play, and large-scale removal projects are currently operating or being planned around the world. We are also committed to supporting the deployment of engineered GGRs.

Access to carbon capture, usage and storage infrastructure is vital for many GGR technologies, and the Government are supporting the development of the CCUS network by allocating £9.4 billion in capital budgets over the spending review period. The network needs regulation, and we have an established environmental regulatory regime, with several regulators evaluating the environmental impact of GGR and CCUS projects.

Any GGR project deployed in the UK must comply with the relevant regulations and planning processes to ensure it is managed responsibly and that any environmental impacts are addressed, including impacts on biodiversity, pollution and local communities. We will continue to work with the necessary Departments, regulators and other public bodies to ensure that the UK’s regulatory environment is well placed to support the deployment of GGRs without causing environmental harm.

We take the integrity of removals very seriously. A robust GGR standard, including monitoring, reporting and verification, will be crucial in instilling public and investor confidence that removals through engineered GGR projects are genuine and verifiable. In other words, when someone says they have removed 1 tonne of CO₂, at least 1 net tonne of CO₂ must have been removed from the atmosphere once emissions relating to the entire process are taken into account, and we have commissioned the British Standards Institution to develop those assessment methodologies.

Although the petition refers to geo-engineering in a broader sense, solar radiation modification is possibly why it has attracted so many signatures. As I have said, SRM is a set of technologies that could cool the Earth, largely by reflecting some of the sun’s energy back into space. However, the consequences of SRM are currently poorly understood, with significant uncertainty about the possible risks and impacts of deployment.

I make it clear for the record that the Government are not deploying solar radiation modification and have no plans to do so. There will be no spraying of chemicals in the skies over the UK for SRM, geo-engineering or climate remediation. Our priority is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from human activities and to adapt to the unavoidable impacts of climate change.

However, we do need to understand the potential risks and impacts of SRM. We have a very clear commitment not to deploy it, but we need to understand what would happen if other people chose to. That includes engaging with the Met Office Hadley Centre climate programme, the Natural Environment Research Council and the Advanced Research and Invention Agency, the coverage of whose climate cooling research programme has triggered some of the concerns we are talking about today.

ARIA is an independent research body that was set up by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. Although it is sponsored by that Government Department, it has complete autonomy on its project choices, which goes to the point about whether that is the best use of public money, as ARIA is responsible for its own choices. It is conducting cautious, controlled research aimed at improving the understanding of SRM risks and impacts, but it is not deploying SRM technologies. I say again that its research will not release any toxic materials, nor will it alleviate the urgent need for increased decarbonisation efforts. There is no substitute for decarbonisation, which is why we are pressing on with our missions for clean power and net zero.

The science is clear that, without rapid action, we risk irreversible damage to the planet’s biosphere. To halt global warming, the world needs to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions, which includes the UK’s emissions. I hope I have reassured the hon. Members present, and the constituents they represent, that the Government are not deploying SRM technologies and have no plans to do so, and that the environmental impacts of greenhouse gas removal technologies—the other wing of geo-engineering—will continue to be monitored as those technologies scale up in the UK.

Renewables Obligation Certificate Scheme

Debate between Angus MacDonald and Kerry McCarthy

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy]

I should have known the hon. Gentleman would be on top of things and would be aware of the Minister for Energy’s visit, but it is important that we have that continual dialogue and that the hon. Gentleman comes along to these debates to ensure that the Northern Ireland voice is heard.

I do not want to go too far off piste from the subject of the debate, but to respond to what the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), had to say, I am an MP from Bristol, so the Severn estuary, the Severn barrage, the Severn tidal lagoons or whatever are very much on my radar. I went up to the Orkneys last summer to look at what they are doing on harnessing wave energy there, and it was very interesting.

On grid capacity, we know that grid capacity is a real issue, in terms of both our ambition for clean power by 2030 and our wider industrial decarbonisation. The Secretary of State likes to talk about the “four horsemen” standing in the way of us getting there, and grid is very much one of those. We have brought in Chris Stark, the former chief executive of the Climate Change Committee, to head up mission control on that issue, and he is working daily on how we can unblock and accelerate projects within the grid.

To the hon. Member’s point on farmers, I agree with giving farmers support to diversify, and energy from waste or anaerobic digestion and so on is part of that. I met two of the DEFRA Ministers earlier this week—although it might have been last week; it all becomes a bit of a blur—and I am in constant conversation with them about how we can work together on that and on our local power plan, which will be part of GB Energy. Hopefully there will be pots of money available for some of those community projects in rural areas, possibly on farms that he has talked about.

I understand that the company that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) mentioned, GE Vernova, is doing innovative things on grid solutions. That is the sort of high-tech new approach that we need if we are to solve the problems that we have talked about, and I congratulate her on speaking up on behalf of a company in her constituency.

Turning to the actual debate, the experience of recent years has reinforced what we already knew: we cannot rely on fossil fuels. We need clean power to reduce vulnerability to volatile global fossil fuel markets, to give us energy security and reduce the cost of energy, and to tackle the climate crisis. That is why one of the Prime Minister’s five missions is to make Britain a clean energy superpower by delivering clean power by 2030 and accelerating to net zero. Electricity generated by renewables and nuclear power will be the backbone of a clean electricity system by 2030.

I have told the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) how disappointed I am with the Opposition’s U-turn on this issue. I understand the position they are coming from and that there has been a change from the stance that they adopted in Government, but I have not heard from him what the answer is for our future energy security. What is the answer to dealing with the global fossil fuel markets? What is the answer to tackling the climate crisis? What is the answer to bringing down bills in the long term?

[Mr Angus MacDonald]

I wonder if the Minister could put herself in the position of somebody from the island of Skye who wakes up in the morning, opens his windows, and sees beautiful mountains in the background —it is always sunny there and there are no midges. He sees the wind turbines, but then he goes and looks at his heating and realises he is paying four times as much to get energy from those turbines. Meanwhile, there is negligible community benefit coming to that area. Can she position herself in that person’s or that household’s shoes?

[Kerry McCarthy]

As I said to the hon. Member, that issue that has been debated numerous times here, and it is not really the subject of today’s debate—but nice try on getting it in there. He might want to secure his own Westminster Hall or Adjournment debate on it. As I said, it is very much on our radar to look at the fairness in the system and to make sure that energy is affordable for everybody and that there are community benefits as we roll out that clean power ambition. All those issues are talked about in the Department on a daily basis.

Before I move on from the hon. Member for West Suffolk, I will say that the urgent question on carbon budget 7 was not granted because there is a process for the Government to respond to the analysis given to us from carbon budgets, and we will follow that process. First, though, we have to deal with the carbon budget delivery plan. Before looking to CB7, we must look at how we meet the obligations contained in current carbon budgets.

The previous Government were taken to court because their plan was not deemed adequate. They presented another plan, and the courts again found that it was not adequate, so we now have a deadline from the courts to produce our carbon budget delivery plan this year to show that we are back on track. That is very much our first priority. I am sure that once that is published, we will debate that and then carbon budget 7 as well, but we have to show that we are back on track before we start looking into the future.