Geo-engineering and the Environment

Roz Savage Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 701963 relating to geo-engineering and the environment.

The petition was started by Antoinette Taylor and opened on 23 December 2024. As of 12 June 2025, it had gathered more than 159,000 signatures. Just two of those signatures were from my South Cotswolds constituency, so I clearly did not step up to lead this debate in an effort to win votes. I am here because I believe this issue matters deeply for our future and for the future of the planet on which we rely for life.

Geo-engineering is a broad term used to describe a range of large-scale interventions in Earth’s climate system, so I will start by clarifying a couple of definitions. Geo-engineering falls into two main categories: carbon dioxide removal and solar radiation management. The petition calls for a pre-emptive ban on both. CDR is about drawing carbon out of the atmosphere and can involve technology such as carbon capture, or nature-based solutions such as restoring forests, peatlands and grasslands. I have absolutely no problem with the latter. Trees do not need subsidies, peatlands do not break, and healthy soils not only store carbon but improve water quality, mitigate flooding and support biodiversity. They are our natural allies in the fight against climate change.

SRM is a different matter. It aims to reflect sunlight back into space by various means, such as using aerosols sprayed into the stratosphere, whitening clouds or even placing mirrors in orbit. SRM does not remove carbon. It does not stop ocean acidification. It does not reduce fossil fuel use. It masks the symptoms while the root cause, our fossil fuel carbon emissions, goes unchecked. Whatever options we consider as we confront the climate crisis, we must not be distracted from our overriding mission to tackle the key cause of climate change: our reliance on fossil fuels.

Let us talk about the risks of SRM. First, there is the issue of unintended consequences. Humanity does not have a good track record on this. Our weather systems are immensely complex, interconnected and not well understood. Altering sunlight could potentially disrupt monsoons or shift jet streams, or trigger droughts in some regions while causing floods in others. According to a report by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, SRM could delay ozone recovery by decades. It could disrupt rainfall patterns, and would do nothing to stop our oceans absorbing carbon dioxide and forming the carbonic acid that is affecting the viability of phytoplankton, which are essential for life on Earth, generating half the oxygen we breathe.

There is also the problem of scientific control. We cannot conduct a controlled experiment with SRM. We do not have two planets, one on which we conduct SRM and one on which we do not. There is no planet B to test it on. Once SRM is deployed, we are in effect launching a planetary experiment, with no ability to reverse it if things go wrong. As the petitioners have highlighted, even if SRM “works” in the short term, there is a risk that our climate will become dependent on continual injections. If the injections stopped for any reason, which in our turbulent geopolitical world is entirely possible, we would risk a phenomenon known as termination shock: a sudden extreme spike in global temperatures, which would be potentially catastrophic for life on Earth.

As for the chemicals used in SRM, the aerosols under consideration include sulphates and even aluminium. The matter is still being researched, and there is no definitive link between aluminium and conditions such as Alzheimer’s, but many scientists remain cautious about prolonged exposure. Sulphates are precisely the chemicals that we worked so hard to eliminate under the Montreal protocol, because of their role in depleting the ozone layer. We should consider carefully the possibility that deploying SRM could put us in direct violation of the protocol, which is one of the most successful international environmental agreements ever forged.

We must consider the human cost of climate change and any measures that we might take to mitigate it. Who decides the thermostat setting? Who gets more rain, and who goes without? Can we even control these things? The risks of failing to invest in technology to tackle the root causes of climate change threaten serious regional disruption. As always, it will almost certainly be the poorest and least responsible for the crisis who bear the brunt of the fallout.

Some will argue that we are still doing too little, too late to mitigate climate change, and I agree with them, but that does not mean that SRM is the right answer. SRM could take us out of the frying pan and into the fire. Instead of reaching for techno fixes, we need to do what we already know works: cut fossil fuel use, restore nature and—gosh—maybe even look at changing our behaviour, because at some point, sooner or later, behaviour change must be part of the picture. If we are honest, none of the technologies yet available to us—not even the most advanced forms of carbon removal—can keep pace with our current levels of consumption.

Globally, we are still emitting about 40 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide every year. If we continue on our current path—as an environmental campaigner for more than two decades, I very much hope we do not—we are headed for about 2.7° of warming by the end of the century. We know that the consequences of that level of warming include rising seas, more intense storms, loss of crop yields, the mass displacement of humans, accelerating biodiversity loss and heatwaves that will put many, many lives at risk.

Although carbon capture is often talked about as a solution, the reality is sobering. It is, for sure, less perilous than SRM, but the vast majority of carbon capture projects are still very small in scale, and many use almost as much energy to capture carbon dioxide as was emitted in the first place. To scale carbon capture up to a level at which we could even begin to think about continuing business as usual would require enormous amounts of infrastructure, energy and funding.

Meanwhile, it is increasingly clear that we have to transition away from fossil fuels. I am talking not ideologically but economically. The energy return on fossil fuels is falling. In the early days of oil, when we could just stick a nodding donkey in the ground anywhere in Texas and hit oil, we got about 100 barrels out for every barrel-worth of energy invested; today, the figure is down to close to 20 and still falling. At some point, the economics will simply stop making sense. Fossil fuels are finite, and the cost of extraction is rising, so given that we know we will have to make the transition at some point, sooner or later, why not do it sooner? The question is not whether we will move on, but whether we will do it on our own terms or wait until crisis forces our hand.

Some argue that we live on a planet on which the climate has always changed, but historically it has changed slowly, giving species time to adapt. The most dramatic climatic shifts took place before humans came on the scene. Our western civilisation has evolved during an unusually stable climatic period—the Holocene. Our infrastructure, food systems and settlements were all built around that stability. Shake the foundations and the whole structure becomes precarious. The rate of change we are now seeing is unprecedented in human history. Ironically, that puts us, in many ways the most adaptable of species, among the most vulnerable species on the planet.

I want to end on a positive note. This is not a story of despair. Yes, the situation is urgent, but it is not hopeless. If we act boldly and act now, we can still turn it around. Let us redirect investment away from planetary-scale experiments of dubious feasibility. I am not saying we are currently investing in such work; I am saying we should shift our focus away from technologies that may or may not deliver benefits and may or may not deliver catastrophic side effects. Let us instead focus on realistic, viable solutions that we already know work. Let us prioritise emissions cuts, the restoration of nature and behavioural shifts. Let us resist the easy temptation of silver bullets and choose instead the hard but honest work of transition. What is at stake is not just the climate, but our shared future. It is about not just statistics but the stories of people, places and ecosystems that deserve to survive and thrive.

I will finish by quoting the American farmer, poet and activist Wendell Berry, who said that the

“care of the earth is our most ancient and most worthy and, after all, our most pleasing responsibility. To cherish what remains of it, and to foster its renewal, is our only legitimate hope.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Savage]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) for highlighting possible solutions, particularly the ocean-based solutions that are very dear to my heart.

This debate seems to be one of those rare occasions where we find multi-party consensus. I am tremendously reassured to hear that the Government have no plans to deploy SRM in this country. It was interesting to hear a bit more about the work of ARIA, and I trust that its work will not open a door. Humanity has form, and once we know that something is possible, we are not always very good at holding ourselves back from deploying it. I trust that there will always be the utmost transparency, and I am very reassured to hear about the Government’s work with the British Standards Institution to ensure full transparency and accountability in the work done in that domain.

I will wrap up with a personal reflection. During my years of rowing solo across oceans to raise awareness of our climate and nature issues, I learned the hard way that we cannot fight mother nature. We cannot flout her laws and expect to win. Ultimately, she always has the final word, and the wiser path is to work with her. I hope that we will continue to emphasise nature-based solutions, as we can never go wrong with those. I fully appreciate that this is a climate emergency and that urgent action is needed, but let us not forget that mother nature can also be our greatest ally. We urgently need to act, not with hubris, but with humility, courage and care for the wellbeing of future generations.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 701963 relating to geo-engineering and the environment.

Battery Energy Storage Sites: Safety Regulations

Roz Savage Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

As the MP for South Cotswolds and an environmental campaigner who has spent decades campaigning for climate action, I would like to raise serious concerns about the unchecked expansion of BESS facilities. Earlier this year, I brought the Climate and Nature Bill to the House because I believe in having a fast, fair and science-led transition away from fossil fuels, but I also believe in doing so properly—safely, transparently and with communities at the heart of the process. Unfortunately, that is not what we are seeing in the case of the proposed Lime Down solar farm in my constituency.

The Lime Down proposal would industrialise over 2,000 acres of rural farmland and introduce a 500 MW battery installation right next to the railway line from London Paddington to south Wales. That is not just a visual or environmental concern, but a serious safety issue. We have already heard a lot about the low risk, but very high consequence, of a fire at such a facility. If such a fire were to break out, the consequences would be devastating for both infrastructure and public safety.

Members have already referred to many examples of fires that have taken place, so I will not repeat them, but I want to emphasise that the location of battery storage facilities is absolutely crucial. Right now, there are no national safety regulations tailored to best technology. There is no requirement for thermal containment, no mandatory fire suppression and no clear guidance for local planners. Under the Government’s new Planning and Infrastructure Bill, BESS projects would be removed from national oversight altogether, piling even more responsibility on to under-resourced local authorities. That does not look like thoughtful climate planning; it is a top-down proposal on a massive scale, with too many unanswered questions and too little engagement with the people who live nearby. Despite the obligatory consultations, residents close to Lime Down feel understandably overlooked in a process that should prioritise both safety and consent.

We should look closely at the companies behind Lime Down. The developer, Island Green Power, is now fully owned by Macquarie bank, a global investment firm with a track record that should give us all pause for thought. During its time leading the consortium that ran Thames Water, Macquarie extracted billions in dividends while letting infrastructure crumble and rivers fill with sewage. It is an asset management company. Its job is to make money, and it does it well. It is not a public utilities company. It is not interested in home-grown, community-led energy; it is interested in profit. It is not here to protect the beauty of the British countryside or to invest in long-term sustainability. Its business model is simple: build big, move fast and maximise returns, whatever the cost to people, nature or public trust.

We need a better alternative. Instead of handing vast developments to multinationals with sketchy records, we should be investing in community-owned energy projects—initiatives that are more resilient, more trusted and far better suited to rural areas such as South Cotswolds. Projects such as Westmill Solar and the Low Carbon Hub have shown how communities can lead the way on clean energy, cutting emissions while boosting local economies.

Let us not confuse scale with ambition. Our net zero future should be safe, smart and fair, not shaped by the profit margins of distant shareholders. We can and must do better if we are going to get to net zero without alienating the public and driving them into the arms of campaigners who would do away with the net zero enterprise altogether.

Oral Answers to Questions

Roz Savage Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on the problem. That is what vehicles such as the national wealth fund and GB Energy are looking to resolve. We are of course open to it, and we will do what we can.

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

11. Whether he has had discussions with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on nature-based solutions to help tackle climate change.

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

25. Whether he is taking steps with Cabinet colleagues to support nature-based solutions to climate change.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Kerry McCarthy)]

We know that nature-based solutions have a key role to play in climate mitigation and keeping to 1.5°C at home and abroad. I have met the Minister for Nature, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), and the Government have appointed two special representatives for climate and for nature, who will be working closely together too.

[Dr Savage]

The climate and nature crises are now recognised as inextricably interlinked—we cannot resolve the climate crisis without addressing the nature crisis—but that is not recognised in current legislation. Will the Minister meet me to discuss my Climate and Nature Bill and its potential to achieve the Government’s stated goal of integrating UK climate and biodiversity policy?

[Kerry McCarthy]

We are not convinced that the Bill is necessary as a well-developed legislative framework with legally binding targets is already in place, including, of course, the Climate Change Act 2008 and the carbon budgets. However, I appreciate the action on both climate and nature and the hon. Member’s commitment to both. I believe that our offices are already trying to find a date for us to meet.

COP29

Roz Savage Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

COP29 concluded with a deal that, while welcome, leaves much to be desired. I must stress that we need bolder, more decisive action if we are to face the greatest challenge of our time: the climate crisis. I know that the right hon. Gentleman’s heart is in the right place and has been for many years. We first met in the run-up to COP15 in 2009, and I express my thanks to him for his staunch leadership in the intervening years. I express Lib Dem support for a brave programme of action going forward and our willingness to work with his Department to help the UK step up and seize this opportunity for climate leadership.

While we welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to ambitious emissions targets for 2035, commitments alone are not enough. Immediate action is needed to insulate homes, reduce energy costs and ensure that no one has to choose between heating and eating. The delay to Labour’s warm homes plan until spring 2025 is unacceptable when millions of people, including 1.2 million pensioners, face a cold and unaffordable winter due to the cut in the winter fuel allowance.

In my South Cotswolds constituency and all across the UK, we have seen at first hand the devastating effects of climate change, and never more so than over the last few days, with floods and storms becoming more frequent and severe. Towns and villages in my constituency, such as Purton, Great Somerford and Cirencester, have been severely affected by flooding, and we need urgent action now to mitigate climate change and help our communities adapt to the likely impacts now and in the future.

I associate myself with the thanks already expressed to the brave men and women of our emergency services in the aftermath of Storm Bert. Climate leadership must prioritise solutions that protect communities and restore nature. Natural flood defences, such as wetlands—

[Mr Speaker]

You have used your two minutes.

[Dr Savage]

My apologies—I thought I had five minutes.

[Mr Speaker]

The Whips need to be giving you better instruction.

[Dr Savage]

May I finish with a question? Will the Secretary of State commit to including natural flood defences as a central part of the £5.2 billion flood defence spending to ensure that communities like those in the South Cotswolds are better protected from the worsening impacts of climate change while addressing biodiversity loss?

[Ed Miliband]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question and support for ambitious action, which is important.

Let me pick out a couple of the points she made. First, the point about the devastating effects of the climate crisis already being apparent is important. Part of the danger is that those effects will end up being the new normal, and we will just think of them as part of life. They are part of life in a sense and, as she said, we need the right flood defences in place and so on, but we also need to realise that those effects will get significantly worse if we do not act. Future generations will, frankly, hold us in infamy, saying, “You knew about the scale of the devastation and had seen a preview of what was to come, and you decided you couldn’t act,” so she is absolutely right.

Secondly, let me gently correct the hon. Lady on the warm homes plan. We are getting on with the warm homes plan; indeed, announcements were made last week about actions that will help over 300,000 families benefit from homes upgrades next year. There were announcements about heat pumps and a whole range of actions to help families do better and lower their energy bills.

I will make one more point, which is part of what the hon. Lady was saying: this is a climate crisis and a nature crisis. It is a climate and biodiversity crisis. It was a bit disappointing that the nature part of the agenda at COP did not get the attention it deserved, and that will be important for COP30 in Brazil.

Renewable Energy Projects: Community Benefits

Roz Savage Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall, and hon. Members for their fascinating contributions. I rise to speak on an issue that is very dear to my heart, as an environmental campaigner rowing alone across three oceans to raise awareness of the ecological crisis and now as the Member for South Cotswolds about to present the climate and nature Bill—my private Member’s Bill—in the House tomorrow.

There is both promise and peril in renewable energy. The Liberal Democrats wholeheartedly welcome the steps being taken to revitalise British investment in renewables, which will start to rectify the missed opportunities of the previous Conservative Government, who never seemed to grasp the scale, scope and speed required to avoid environmental disaster. These new initiatives hold the promise of lower energy bills, high-quality jobs, greater energy security and the chance of actually meeting our net zero targets, but we must proceed with caution and wisdom.

The proposal for an excessively large solar farm in my constituency serves as a stark reminder of how renewable energy projects can backfire when poorly conceived. The solar development has provoked a visceral negative response from local communities, because it is the wrong size, in the wrong place and has the wrong ownership—foreign ownership. By allowing unsympathetic developments to mar our beautiful countryside, we risk alienating the very public whose support we need.

We need only look to the cautionary tale of our water companies to understand the perils of allowing foreign profit-driven entities to monopolise our essential utilities. The owners of companies such as Thames Water have prioritised profits over the needs of customers and the health of our natural environment, resulting in higher bills for customers, a lack of investment in infrastructure, and toxic pollution that is killing our precious waterways. We cannot afford to repeat those mistakes in our renewable energy sector; the transition to clean energy must prioritise the needs of our communities and the protection of our environments over the profits of distant shareholders.

Communities have to be involved, and it is clear that there is a significant gap in the GB Energy Bill around community energy. The Liberal Democrats firmly believe that communities living near large-scale energy infrastructure should receive tangible benefits. We are ready and willing to work collaboratively with the Minister and his Government to ensure that those benefits are guaranteed in the Bill. Our vision includes large energy suppliers working with community schemes to sell locally generated power to local customers at discounted rates; guaranteeing that community benefit funds receive a fair share of the wealth generated by local renewables infrastructure; empowering local authorities to develop renewable electricity generation and storage strategies; and giving small, low-carbon generators the right to export their electricity to existing suppliers on fair terms.

The success of our clean-energy economy, our ability to tackle the cost of living crisis, and the realisation of our climate targets all hinge on community buy-in. We need to win hearts and minds and persuade people that net zero projects are good for their communities, their pockets and our future national economy and security. To that end, we urge the Government to enact the necessary regulatory changes to truly support community energy. Community benefits for energy schemes should be guaranteed and community energy schemes should receive discounted rates for the clean electricity they contribute.

I will end on a personal note. As someone who has witnessed at first hand the beauty and fragility of our natural world during my ocean rowing expeditions, I am deeply committed to ensuring that our transition to renewable energy does not, in the process, destroy the beauty of the natural countryside we are working so hard to preserve for future generations. We need to get the balance right, and people have to be part of that equation.