Climate Change

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) on securing the debate. As far as I am concerned, we should debate this all day, every day, because the message needs to be heard loud and clear out there. Those who want to delay climate action are denying our children and grandchildren a future. They should be honest about their intentions and reasons for saying what they do. I will speak about three broad areas: science and the very real threat now and in the future; the myths and misinformation peddled by opponents of action; and the benefits of taking climate action, which my hon. Friend set out very well indeed.

I turn to the science on climate breakdown. We see the impact now, with heatwave days in the UK over the last few years, 88% of which would not have happened without the impact of climate change. There are 2,000 excess deaths a year in the UK alone as a result of excess heat, and 90% of our healthcare facilities are vulnerable to overheating. We face flooding and its consequences for food insecurity and the difficulty of growing crops—and that is just in this country, let alone around the world. Equally, we see heat and drought affecting our food production, and that threat to food production means rising prices and shortages.

There are impacts on biodiversity and on national security, with consequences such as conflict over scarce resources and migration because people are not able to live in certain places. The latest science suggests that unless we take action right now, parts of southern Europe—let alone the rest of the world—will be uninhabitable in as little as 15 to 20 years’ time, and by the end of the century billions of people will not be able to live where they are. That means they will not have anywhere to live. If we think we have a migration crisis now, we have seen nothing yet.

Let us deal with the myths. First, there is the idea that because we are responsible for only 1% of global emissions, we should not take action. Well, 30% of emissions come from countries that are responsible for less than 1% of emissions. If none of them take action, where is the motivation for China, India and other large countries—the United States is a bit of a lost cause at the moment—which have a far greater impact?

[Alistair Strathern]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument. Doubters of the net zero agenda often suggest that, because it is an international problem, we should go slower. Does he find it utterly bizarre that some suggest we can get other countries to go faster by going slower and engaging less ourselves? Actually, we need to be leading the way in the best traditions of Britain.

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend is right. Actually, our global leadership through COP, which my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke mentioned, and the fact we have set our nationally determined contribution—unlike some countries—is hugely important. We were ahead of the game with the Climate Change Act 2008 and the 2050 net zero target set by Theresa May. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke also mentioned Margaret Thatcher —when I came here, I never dreamed that I would be quoting her, but I have become more inclined to do so on this issue, if on no other. That fracturing of the consensus in the House is deeply worrying.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

Last year in Staffordshire, we had a Reform county council elected, which undeclared the climate emergency—I did not know that that could be done. What I find most frustrating about that is not only that climate change poses a risk, but that there is an opportunity for jobs in Staffordshire. In Stafford, the largest employer specialises in wind turbine technology and high-voltage direct current valves—the Secretary of State came to visit recently. Does my hon. Friend agree that there are opportunities for this country and not just risks?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend is right. I hope that her constituents and the businesses in her constituency can take full advantage in spite of the damage that the appalling party she mentioned is trying to do not just to the climate to our economic prospects.

Let us look at the cost of a failure to take action. Last July, the Office for Budget Responsibility said that failure to act on climate has an economic cost. The Climate Change Committee put a figure on it: 7% of GDP will be lost by 2050 unless we take climate action. If we do not want to believe the Climate Change Committee or the OBR, let us try the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries—a pretty reputable bunch that anybody on the right of politics ought to listen to. Its prediction is that the global economy will be cut by 50% between 2070 and 2090 unless we take action internationally right now. That means leadership by this country of the sort we have been discussing.

The public are being led to believe by the siren voices on the right in politics—let us be clear, they come from both main right-wing parties—that costs will go up. Well, I have news for them: the costs of investing in our networks and in our infrastructure to generate electricity will be there whether we do that with renewables and low-carbon generation or with fossil fuels. The cost is there whatever we do, but it is better to do that through low-carbon sources for all the reasons that my hon. Friend gave earlier.

Let us deal with the claims about the North sea. Yesterday, the leader of Reform, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), made a comparison with Norway. In Norway, the Government did not sell off the production company—it is state owned, and they have control over it. Norway also did not have the same rush to extract oil and gas from the North sea that we had in this country. By the way, Norway was clever, because it set the boundaries between the UK and Norway sectors for the extraction of oil and gas. As a result, it has far more reserves than we do, and it has control, unlike us. As has been said, whatever we do, and however much we change the production capacity, we cannot set the price—not that we could do it soon anyway, so it would not affect the current concerning situation with the conflict in Iran.

We have to be honest about what is going on here, and we have to give confidence to people that ours is the right approach. It is true that we can improve our energy security, reduce prices and take the action we need to on climate as they are inextricably linked; we have to make that case. We also have to give confidence on the jobs mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham), to support the supply chain and to make the case for the co-benefits to be had in health from taking action, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers).

On the economy, the clean economy is growing three times as fast as the rest of the economy. The Government have taken action, including with the clean energy jobs plan and apprenticeships. Apprentices like those I saw at Cavendish Nuclear in Warrington just a few weeks ago are starting to make the difference in good, well paid, high-skilled jobs. With allocation round 7, this country is demonstrating again that we are the place to invest in the low-carbon economy. In the actions of Great British Energy through Sizewell C and the small modular reactors programme we see examples of the Government leading the way again.

We have to continue taking that lead, we have to continue busting those myths, and we have to keep reminding people that this is not a choice that our children and grandchildren want to have to face. Let us take that action now, let us keep making the case, and let us ensure that we prevail in the debate on the climate over those who would undermine, who would damage and who would destroy.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

I thank the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy), my fellow member of the all-party parliamentary group on climate change, for securing this debate. The climate and nature emergencies are the most pressing issue of our time. They go to the heart of every area of Government, and we ignore or sideline them at our peril. A suppressed national security assessment report, partly released in January in response to a freedom of information request, warns:

“Every critical ecosystem is on a pathway to collapse”,

threatening UK national security and prosperity. Let us give that a moment to sink in. The first job of any Government is to keep their citizens safe, yet there is a yawning gulf between climate reality as recognised in that national security report and the actions that the Government are undertaking.

As we have heard, ambitious action now makes economic sense, too. Failing to tackle the climate and nature crises will cost far more in the long term than investing properly now. The Climate Change Committee, the Government’s own specialist advisers, recently crunched the numbers and worked out that for every pound spent on reaching net zero, the benefits outweigh the costs up to fourfold. That is a good return on investment. Crucially, the Climate Change Committee recognises that the benefits of climate action will be felt in all areas of our lives. Warm homes and better public transport will have huge benefits for our health and wellbeing, and will save the NHS money, too. The health service spends £895 million a year just as a result of cold and damp homes. While the Government are grasping the big picture in some areas, such as growing clean energy, for example, all too often that is not being done in a joined-up way. It does not feel like they are aiming for the massive social and environmental wins that acting boldly and thinking genuinely long-term could secure.

Last year, the Chancellor scrapped the energy company obligation scheme in the autumn Budget. It required energy companies to pay into programmes that cut fuel poverty. The impact of that cut falls not only on the 8.9 million households classed as fuel poor, but on jobs. The Installation Assurance Authority Federation, a leading representative body in the retrofit sector, found that a staggering 12,100 skilled professionals have been made redundant since the end of the ECO scheme was announced in the Chancellor’s Budget. A further 79,000-plus may be made redundant within the next 12 months. Such fragmented policy making, where a gap is left between an old scheme and a new scheme, puts jobs at risk and undermines ambitions on warm homes.

I acknowledge the commitment of the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, and of the Minister, to this agenda. I also acknowledge the degree to which they appear sometimes to be thwarted by the Treasury and others that seem singularly incapable of grasping that building a strong, resilient economy will be an impossibility inside an environment going haywire. They also seem to be thwarted by those who seem unwilling to understand that delaying action and an overreliance on techno fixes, such as carbon capture and storage, are paving the way for a cliff edge of social chaos and economic freefall when we should be planning for an orderly, fair, controlled transition.

Continuing to subsidise the fossil fuel industry is downright dangerous when the extraction and burning of fossil fuels is still the main driver of global warming. Burning the fossil fuels at the proposed Rosebank oil field would release more than the combined annual emissions of all 28 low-income countries globally. That is all without any evidence that that oil would bring down costs at home, because prices are set on the global market. Rather than propping up the oil and gas giants, I have been calling on the Chancellor to end the £2.7 billion of tax breaks given every year to fossil fuel companies. Instead she should fund a jobs guarantee to support workers currently employed in oil and gas to move into new green jobs.

Climate adaptation must become much more prominent, too. The Government’s climate watchdog has warned us that preparedness for extreme weather in this country is disjointed and piecemeal, and that has consequences for all our constituents, for public services and for the economy. That brings me full circle back to my opening point: the climate emergency has ramifications for every single Department and every aspect of all our constituents’ lives. That is why there was such a large appetite for the climate emergency declaration that I pioneered as a councillor in Bristol in 2018. After adopting my climate emergency declaration, Bristol ramped up its ambitions, and the idea has since spread across the UK and internationally. It shows the public’s appetite to go further and faster to protect our planet for future generations. While recognising the good work done so far, we still need vastly more ambition across government. No stone can be left unturned if we want to operate within safe climate limits.

[Bill Esterson]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Carla Denyer]

I am just coming to an end.

We must leave no stone unturned, whether it is housing standards, taxation, jobs, transport, energy, defence or food. That is my main message today, and I hope the Government are open to hearing it. It is important that we look at climate change across every single Department, because that is how we will build a safer, more positive, more equal and happier country together.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriet Cross]

No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that we have made huge progress and yet others have not been following our lead, so why would we make our industry less competitive? Why would we ensure that investment goes down in our country just to virtue signal and for no one to follow?

We will look at what is happening today. To be very clear—I think this needs saying—disagreeing with the Energy Secretary’s approach to energy policy, and questioning the speed and cost of moving towards renewable energy, does not make one a climate change denier. That is tedious; it is a lazy argument made by those who want to close down the debate—those who believe that decarbonisation must always be the No. 1 priority, at the cost of all else. That is the inherent problem with the current debate on climate change and carbon emissions. It has become a pursuit of what is perceived to be the perfect response—the purist approach to the climate—over what is pragmatic and what is practical. It does not prioritise the public, prices, industry or energy security.

[Bill Esterson]

The hon. Lady is four minutes into her speech and she has talked about the reduction in emissions, which is largely the result of the dash for gas, which predated the last Conservative Government—actually, it happened under the previous Conservative Government. So far, she has talked about her opposition to what this Government are doing. She has not yet told us anything about what she thinks the next steps in taking climate action should be. Is she going to do that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Katie White]

I thank the hon. Lady very much for her kind invitation. I will consider it and get back to her.

Finally, I thank the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), who raised some important issues around health. He also championed the role of science. I too have always thought that science is crucial, but since entering this role, I have found British scientists to be fabulous. They are at the heart of telling us what the problems are and at the heart of innovation, so I pay tribute to them.

I want to assure the House that this Government remain totally committed to limiting global warming to 1.5°C, and that doing so is at the heart of our agenda. As my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke knows, we have been talking about these issues for more than two decades, which means that we can sometimes become desensitised to the urgency of the challenge. But we in this House have a responsibility to be honest about the gravity of what is at stake. The truth is that the world is getting hotter at an alarming rate—the past decade has seen the 10 warmest years ever. The Amazon has seen the worst droughts on record, partly as a result of deforestation, and in the Arctic and Antarctic global warming is driving geopolitical competition over the resources lying beneath the ice.

I recently spoke to Ministers from the Caribbean who told me about the horrific damage caused by Hurricane Melissa. Here in Britain, we are in no way immune, with recent storms such as Goretti flooding homes and cutting off power. Heavy rainfall has cost farmers hundreds of millions of pounds, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern). Extreme heatwaves have disrupted almost every aspect of our lives.

The Office for Budget Responsibility is also clear that rising temperatures pose a huge threat to our economy and could wipe billions off our GDP in the years to come if we do not act. That is why, as our national security strategy sets out, tackling climate change and nature loss is vital for both global stability and our national resilience. As the Prime Minister said, there can be no national security without climate security. Let me be clear, though, where we face severe challenges, we are absolutely capable of meeting them. We are the generations with the power and the opportunity to act and build a cleaner, more secure and more prosperous future for our children and grandchildren. That is why we are stepping up on the global stage once again and showing real leadership with our mission to achieve clean power by 2030 and accelerate to net zero across the economy.

[Bill Esterson]

I know that we are talking about the climate, but the events in Iran are a salutary reminder of the need to take action because of the reliance on global fossil-fuel prices. A new report from Reuters suggests that 17% of Qatar’s next five years of LNG supply has been destroyed by the overnight attacks. Does that not remind us how critical it is, for the energy security reasons that my hon. Friend set out, as well as for the climate reasons, that we get off the roller coaster of fossil fuels as fast as possible?

[Katie White]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that. He is exactly right. When it comes to our energy policy, the way that we work at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is by balancing the trio of emissions and environmental concerns, energy security, and price. It is within that trio that we operate all our policies.

The transition to clean energy is a historic opportunity to improve people’s lives in this country. It is the route not only to lower emissions and climate security—vital though they are—but to lower bills, warmer homes and cleaner air. It is the best way to revive industrial regions and create good jobs and new opportunities for young people.

As the unfolding conflict in the middle east reminds us, home-grown, clean energy is also the way to ensure our energy independence and protect British people from the impacts of events beyond our borders. As we saw four years ago when Russia invaded Ukraine, as long as our energy costs are set by international oil and gas markets, we will always be exposed to price shocks. That is why accelerating the shift to clean, domestic power is a national security imperative, not a “nice to have”.

The Climate Change Committee has been clear on that too. Its recent advice on carbon budget 7 confirmed that delivering the clean energy transition is the most cost-effective path ahead for the UK economy. In fact, its research shows that household bills would rise by nearly 60% from a future fossil-fuel spike if we fail to deliver on our clean power mission. Pursuing this path is therefore not an agenda or activism—and I can assure the shadow Minister that I am not a purist. It is common sense, and it is our patriotic and economic duty.

We have made huge progress in the less than two years that we have been in power. Since July 2024, over £90 billion of investment has been announced for home-grown, clean energy. We have lifted the onshore wind ban in England and approved record amounts of renewable energy. We have launched Great British Energy—our first publicly owned energy company for 70 years—and we have kick-started our new golden age of nuclear with the greatest investment in new nuclear power for half a century, including plans for our first small modular reactors at Wylfa on Anglesey. We also held Europe’s biggest ever offshore wind auction, alongside the largest ever procurement of solar projects in the UK, collectively securing enough clean energy to power the equivalent of 16 million homes. At the heart of this mission is a determination to support communities and create the good clean energy jobs of the future.

Last week I visited the Bridgend Ravens rugby club in Wales, which has just partnered with Electricity Cymru to install solar panels and LED lighting. This has slashed the club’s bills and allowed them to host the country’s first carbon-neutral rugby game. At a nuclear skills academy in Derby, I was lucky enough to meet—and was massively impressed by—Gracie, a 17-year-old apprentice who is the fourth generation in her family, and the first female, to train up to work in the clean energy revolution. She recognised that she is in the right place at the right time: helping to tackle the climate crisis, drive growth and ensure our energy security.

I know that there are those who doubt the impact that Britain can have on global emissions, but they underestimate this country’s potential and forget that we have already made a huge difference. We were the first country to pass a climate change Act and set up our own independent body on climate change—a move since been replicated by over 70 countries.

I would like to take a moment to applaud the Conservatives for their leadership at COP26. It is evident that the choices that we make in Britain influence the course of global action and, in doing so, help to protect future generations here and abroad from the impacts of the climate crisis. Our clean energy mission at home gives us the perfect platform to continue leading by example on the world stage. People want us to show leadership. They see what is happening in the world and they expect us to play our part.

I am pleased to confirm that the UK has delivered on our commitment to spend at least £11.6 billion on international climate finance over five years by the end of this financial year. We are working to ensure that that money makes a genuine difference for those on the frontline of the climate crisis, supporting stability and security across the world. Since 2011, we have helped 137 million people adapt to the effects of climate change, whether it is creating a renewable-powered clean water supply in Mexico or building infrastructure that can withstand extreme weather in the Caribbean. We have also provided 89 million people with improved access to clean energy, including solar-powered cold storage to help prevent food waste in Kenya—[Interruption.] I will speed up a little, as I hear the Whip’s cough. We have made more commitments, including a £6 billion commitment to international climate finance. On top of that, we will generate an additional £6.7 billion of UK-backed climate and nature-positive investments.

To those who still doubt the effectiveness of global climate action, I say this: before the Paris agreement in 2015, the world was on track for 4°C of global warming by 2010, but thanks to the commitments made since, we have brought that down to 2.3° to 2.5°. That is still a terrifying figure, but the difference for millions of people around the world is literally life or death. It is also a source of optimism, because it shows that the ambition is there.

I remind the House that keeping 1.5° in reach is only half the story. The crisis in Iran and the Gulf is yet another wake-up call to the fact that the UK’s energy system does not work. Our critics like to talk about the cost of transition, but the previous Government spent £44 billion on supporting households and businesses after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. We are totally committed to clean energy, to working with partners around the world to keep the Paris goal within reach, and to building a secure, more prosperous Britain for today and for future generations.