Climate and Nature Bill

Freddie van Mierlo Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 24th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bowie]

Absolutely. That is one reason why I am so proud of the contracts for difference scheme, which over our time in government supported emerging and developing technologies to ensure that we get the transition right to the tune of billions of pounds.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman spoke of the need to focus on the provisions of the Bill, so will he outline which provisions he is opposed to? Is it net zero ambitions, increasing net biodiversity, or developing a nature and biodiversity plan?

[Andrew Bowie]

If the hon. Gentleman would have some patience, I am about to turn to the exact provisions that we take issue with.

The Bill states that it is

“to require the United Kingdom to achieve climate and nature targets”

and it calls for an immediate end to exploration, extraction and—crucially—imports of fossil fuels. That would involve not only laying off hundreds of thousands of workers and undermining our energy security, but shutting down our chemicals industry and putting at risk our ability to keep the lights on. The Bill would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to publish annual targets and bind the Secretary of State to take to take “all reasonable steps” to achieve them. As we have seen, setting arbitrary legally binding targets with no plan for how to achieve them is a mistake.

The Bill would also establish a climate and nature assembly to direct the Secretary of State’s strategy—a body that the Secretary of State would be legally bound to follow if any of the measures it proposed had the support of 66% of its members. Those members would be unelected and unaccountable, unlike Members of this House. That is not how decisions are made in this country, and it is not how decisions should be made. Laws and decisions are taken in this country by this Parliament, and are introduced mostly by the Government, who command a majority in this House. The Government are held to account in this House by elected Members, and we in turn are held to account by our constituents. We cannot outsource our responsibilities to an unelected, unaccountable and remote institution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie]

I agree in part with my hon. Friend—indeed, the committee has neglected some of its responsibilities—but I want to make progress on the Bill, which does not address the Climate Change Committee.

Clause 1 would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to achieve the climate and nature objectives that it sets out, as if mere will alone could bring those objectives into reality. One objective is that the UK

“reduces its overall contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions to net zero at a rate consistent with…achieving its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) emissions reduction targets”

in accordance with the 2015 Paris agreement. That would entail reducing UK emissions in line with the 1.5° objective.

Clause 2 explains that the strategy that the Secretary of State would be duty-bound to produce and then take every possible step to achieve

“must include measures that…will achieve the objectives specified”

by

“limiting the United Kingdom’s total emissions of carbon dioxide, including territorial emissions”

to levels in line with the Paris agreement’s 1.5° objective. What does that mean? The Bill stops short of providing year-on-year limits for overall emissions, but does not indicate that our current carbon budget system is not sufficient for the objectives of the Bill.

Zero Hour, the climate campaign group behind the Bill, thinks that the UK’s carbon budgets are no longer sufficient to achieve 1.5° and that, once we include emissions from the goods we import, the UK’s total carbon footprint will exceed its share of the global carbon budget for a 67% chance of 1.5° by more than a factor of two.

[Freddie van Mierlo]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and she is right that we are investing more than ever in flood defences. I am now going to make a bit of progress.

We know that we are living through an age of extinction, and that damaged ecosystems are less able to absorb the emissions that we continue to create. Last year was not just the hottest year on record, but the first to record an average global temperature above the internationally agreed 1.5°C threshold.

From the Valencia floods to the Florida hurricanes, from typhoons in the Philippines to droughts and wildfires in the Amazon, and of course the devastating wildfires that have left thousands under mandatory evacuation orders in Los Angeles, we saw extreme weather exacerbated by climate change last year. Dr Friederike Otto of Imperial College London called 2024 a “reality check” and said that it

“showed just how dangerous life is at 1.5C.”

This is not somebody else’s problem; this is not our children’s problem—this is our problem. As our Prime Minister has said, climate change knows no borders. It threatens national security and economic stability. Our mission is to end poverty on a liveable planet, so the days of sticking our head in the sand and betraying future generations are over. We are changing course.

[Freddie van Mierlo]

Many hon. Members have spoken ably of the importance of rivers and waterways and the nature contained within them. Will the Minister continue to work on that issue and address the shameful legacy of the Tories?

[Mary Creagh]

I am going to speak at great length on flooding and water and the measures we have already taken—I have several pages on that.

Let me say what this mission-driven Government are all about. We know one of our missions is to make the UK a clean energy superpower, including accelerating to net zero emissions while seizing the economic opportunities that come with that. We are back in the business of climate leadership and will restore the UK’s position as a global leader on climate action, delivering at home and working abroad with our international partners.