Climate and Nature Bill

Carla Denyer Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 24th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bowie]

I will not. I have given way a few times and other Members want to speak, so I want to make some progress.

Aligning to the targets, which the Bill would oblige the Secretary of State to achieve, would require even more drastic action to reduce emissions. The Secretary of State has already signed the country up to an even stricter target of cutting emissions by 81% by 2035—something the Climate Change Committee said will require people to eat less meat and dairy, take fewer flights, and swap their boilers for heat pumps and their petrol cars for electric vehicles at a pace that will require taxes and mandation. That is not sensible, nor is it feasible.

Let us turn to the objective to include import emissions in the scope of our carbon budgets. Zero Hour correctly identifies that the current carbon budget system focuses on territorial emissions, rather than consumption emissions—in other words, we count the carbon emissions of what is produced within our own borders, rather than the carbon emissions of products that are produced overseas, shipped in and then used within the UK. Some may think that underplays our true contribution to global emissions, and they may have a point, because if we shut down our oil and gas sector, for example—as the Labour party seemingly wants to do—that will not mean that we consume any less oil or gas; it will just mean that we ship it in from overseas as liquefied natural gas, which has four times the carbon emissions in the production process. We may have reduced our territorial carbon emissions and stuck to our carbon budgets, but we would actually be increasing our carbon emissions overall. That, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) likes to say, is carbon accounting gone mad.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

Does the shadow Minister recognise that the point he makes about emissions from imports not being counted rather undermines the point he was making earlier, when he boasted about the territorial emissions that were reduced when he was in government, which may be the very point that the sponsors of the Bill are trying to make?

[Andrew Bowie]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question, but how do we get away from the problem of double accounting for those emissions? If, for example, India is counting them as part of its global emissions and we start to count them too, in addition to what we are doing within our borders, how will we ever get an accurate picture of emissions across the globe? If we were to take into consideration the global effect of our consumption emissions and the carbon footprint of what we import, the British people would soon realise that there is no way to decarbonise consumption as rapidly as possible, as the Bill seeks, without a huge economic challenge, and that is not recognised in the Bill.

That brings me to the next aspect of the Bill: the requirement—not just the ambition—that the UK ends

“the exploration, extraction, export and import of fossil fuels…as rapidly as possible.”

I am sorry to say that that is not a serious proposal. Even the Climate Change Committee has said that oil and gas will remain a crucial part of our energy mix for decades to come—something that the Secretary of State and his Ministers have accepted. As we have been saying, turning off the taps in the North sea will result only in higher imports—something the Labour Government seemingly accept.

But even worse, the Bill would require us not only to completely end domestic exploration and production, but to end the import of fossil fuels. Just this week, on Wednesday, gas power stations provided 65% of the UK’s electricity. Just 2% came from wind power and 1% came from solar. If the Bill is successful and we end not just the extraction but the import of all fossil fuels as rapidly as possible, MPs who are backing it will have to explain how we keep the lights on when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine.

[Carla Denyer]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Andrew Bowie]

I will make progress, because I know more Members wish to speak. When the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine, we simply do not have the technology available—we do not have enough clean power from batteries or long-duration electricity storage—to meet demand. That speaks to the major contradiction in the Bill: it talks about protecting the British countryside from development, but it would require an incredible roll-out—at pace and scale unprecedented—of renewable technologies, pylons, substations and battery storage facilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

Last week, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero and I were invited to see a play called “Kyoto”. [Interruption.] It looks like other Ministers were also there; I did not spot them. The play tells the story of the international climate negotiations in Kyoto, including the pivotal role that the late great John Prescott played in working collaboratively to forge a binding agreement between countries with vastly different politics and that agreed about very little. I found the play so moving and inspiring, and I thought I saw that the Secretary of State did, too. The next morning, I wrote to him, asking if he would be willing to have a call with me about this Bill and how we might be able to work together. I did that because this crisis is too big and too existential to leave to a party machinery whose prime motivation seems to be simply to be seen to win, as we saw reported in the news yesterday.

This Bill was first tabled by the first Green MP, Caroline Lucas, four years ago. It is and always has been a chance for collaborative, cross-party endeavour. It is supported by many of the Government’s Back Benchers, and the Labour party itself pledged agreement with its principles not long ago. If the Government support it today, they will share in the credit of its success. We will all win if the Bill goes into Committee and emerges as strong as possible, supported across the House.

I understand that the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) has agreed not to push it to a vote today, in exchange, it seems, for just a meeting with the Secretary of State for Energy and Net Zero and a video, with an agreement to work together but with no specific commitments. That is her decision. [Interruption.] Let me continue, please. That is her decision. I am sad about it, but I wish her well and hope it works out.

However, Madam Deputy Speaker, I cannot tell you how disappointed I was, and how disappointed millions of people will be, to learn how the Government have behaved. They ignored the CAN Bill campaign for months, only finally agreeing to meet its promoter 10 days before this debate—coming to the negotiation table with almost nothing new, demanding a promise not to push the Bill it to a vote in exchange for no regulation, no legislation, no new targets. That is peanuts. After 10 days of negotiation, incredibly, the offers got worse—until, late last night, the best that the Government could offer was a meeting with the Secretary of State, a non-specific offer to work together, and a video.

The climate is why I got into politics and I am not giving up that easily, so I have stood up today to say to the Government, “Please, give us real commitments, binding decisions, legislation, timetables and consequences.” The existing legislation to which the Government are working is based on science that is out of date, taking us back to a time when we thought that 2°C was a safe level of warming. It takes no account of the emissions from products and services that we import, no account of emissions from aviation and shipping, and no account of emissions from other greenhouse gases such as methane. In other words, it chooses not to count the tricky stuff and then slaps itself on the back for doing so jolly well at the easy stuff, and, as we have heard over and over again today, it does not join up climate and nature legislation or policy in any way.

So I say to the Government again, “Please, please commit yourselves to real, binding, bold legislation that reflects the way in which the science has evolved since the Climate Change Act 2008, which was groundbreaking in its day but which has now been superseded by the climate science.” If they will not do so, I, as one of the Bill’s sponsors, will take this Second Reading to a vote. If they really think that they can look their constituents and their children in the eye—

[Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Carla Denyer]

I would like to finish this point. If the Government really think that they can look their constituents and their children in the eye and say, “Look, we couldn’t help it; there was party politics; I had to think of my career,” I say to them, “Go ahead.”

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

I, too, have seen “Kyoto”, and I have spent 20 years attending all the climate negotiations. Given that the hon. Member has spoken about cross-party consensus and the need to build the necessary political momentum, will she show respect for the huge efforts made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage)? She did receive commitments that will enable us to move forward—not at the pace that we want, but together—and I am very worried about the way in which the hon. Member is undermining the efforts that have been made to move forward with this.

[Carla Denyer]

I do have a huge amount of respect for the hon. Member for South Cotswolds, who has worked incredibly hard over the years—decades—as an environment campaigner, and for months since she first proposed this Bill.

[Adam Thompson]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Carla Denyer]

I want to make some progress. I respect the hon. Member’s choice, although I disagree with it and I am sad about it. This Bill has been going for four years and has had cross-party support throughout. The position of the lead proposer on this iteration of the Bill is to accept a negotiation without specific promises. My position is that stronger negotiation and getting the Bill to Committee stage is needed—

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Carla Denyer]

I anticipate that I will answer many of the points that hon. Members want to make, so I will make a little progress.

Even I do not love every clause of the revised version of the Bill. I would prefer its climate target to make explicit reference to the 1.5° limit and the UK’s fair contribution towards it. I very strongly disagree with the last-minute insertion of a presumption against large renewable projects, which was made without consulting the co-proposers. But the fundamental principles of the Bill are sound: laws based on the science, tackling climate and nature as one and doing things with people, not to people. It has the level of ambition that the science demands. It contains enough positive measures for me to give it my full support, putting aside my differences about those points.

In the debate on Second Reading of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, we heard powerful arguments about how it could be improved, but the House voted for it to progress because there was an agreement that it warranted further scrutiny, including potential amendments. The same applies today. If Members agree with the principles but want to change some specifics, let us debate that. In that case, I ask them not to block the Bill today, but to join me in voting for Second Reading and then to debate together, on a cross-party basis, how to make it better together.

[Adam Thompson]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Carla Denyer]

I am on my final sentence. Let us set aside party allegiances for a moment. We can show bold leadership together.

[Dr Savage]

I admire the hon. Member’s passion and commitment to the cause. I am afraid I was not in the Chamber to hear the beginning of her speech, but from what I have been able to gather, let me take the opportunity to set the record straight. I very much believe that we do need cross-party consensus. I have been willing and eager to have conversations with the Government. I have been an environmental campaigner for the last 20 years. I have tried the placard-waving and I have marched in the streets. That has an important role to play, but there is a reason that I chose to come to this place: to take the policy approach. As the third party, the only way we can do that is by working with the Government.

[Carla Denyer]

With the greatest of respect to the hon. Member, taking a Bill containing binding legislation to Committee stage for line-by-line scrutiny is not placard-waving. Voting for the Bill today is voting for a liveable future. I hope that is what we all choose.