Asked by
of Ullock
To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they intend to take in
response to the ruling of the High Court on 3 May that their
carbon budget delivery plan was not sufficient to meet legally
binding targets.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs, and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office () (Con)
My Lords, we are immensely proud of our record on climate change,
having gone further and faster than any other major economy in
cutting our carbon emissions. The Carbon Budget Delivery Plan
sets out more than 300 policies and proposals which the
Government have put in place to reach their carbon budgets. The
judgment focused on the decision-making process and did not
criticise the policies themselves. We will publish a new report,
compliant with the court order, within 12 months.
of Ullock (Lab)
Thanks to ClientEarth and its partners bringing a judicial
review, the courts have now told the UK Government not once but
twice that their climate strategy is not fit for purpose. The
Government believed they could get away with the “vague and
uncertain” plan that was referred to in order to deliver the
carbon budget delivery plan. They have now had to pledge to do
another redraft within the next 12 months. I ask the Minister:
why should we trust the Government to do a better job this time,
or is it going to be third time lucky?
(Con)
The Government are determined, as all of us who supported the
Climate Change Act are, to live by the legal requirements we set
for all Governments to hit the carbon budgets. The Carbon Budget
Delivery Planwas not criticised for the measures it included. It
was criticised in the judgment for the information provided to
the Secretary of State. We totally accept that. We accept the
ruling and will respond. We will make sure that we are putting in
place measures to address this. Sections 13 and 14 of the Climate
Change Act are, in hindsight, a little opaque. In a way, this has
helped us clarify this and we will work to give all the
information needed to show that we will hit our carbon
budgets.
(CB)
My Lords, can the Minister unpack the pride that he has in the
Government's achievements so far in reducing our greenhouse gas
emissions? If we look at the last six years, what proportion of
those reductions have resulted from external factors, such as
Covid and the war in Ukraine and the consequent slowing growth in
our economy, and what proportion have resulted from
implementation of policies in relation to transport and
agriculture?
(Con)
The noble Lord asks a very detailed question. The third carbon
budget ended in 2022, so I do not think that issues such as Covid
will have been particularly relevant to that. We exceeded that by
15%. The noble Lord outlined some of the most difficult areas
that we have to tackle: transport, housing, and agriculture.
Agriculture is currently responsible for about 12% to 15% of our
emissions, and that will grow as a percentage of our emissions as
other sectors decarbonise, which they can do more easily. It is
incredibly difficult. Defra, working with the Climate Change
Committee and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, is
seeking ways in which we can absolutely make agriculture play its
part in reducing our emissions.
(Con)
My Lords, is there not something a bit strange about this whole
debate? I am sure that the High Court ruling was made correctly
on the basis of all the evidence before it, but achieving net
zero on all electric delivery plans has, in fact, hardly started.
About nine-tenths of our total energy use is yet to decarbonise.
How can anyone possibly know at this stage whether these plans
are sufficient? It cannot be done.
(Con)
We have to work with the Climate Change Committee to show that
they can be. Interestingly, the judge said in his judgment that
the assessment involved
“an evaluative, predictive judgment as to what may transpire up
to 14 years into the future, based on a range of complex social,
economic, environmental and technological assessments, themselves
involving judgments … operating in a polycentric context”.
I had to look that one up: it means “many centres” but I am not
quite sure how it applies here.
My noble friend is absolutely right that we have go across a
range of different sectors to deliver on our carbon reductions,
so it makes good economic sense to do so, as well as complying
with the law.
(LD)
My Lords, this is the second time in less than two years that the
Government's plans have been found wanting. The court found that
government policies were simply not justified in evidence and
insufficient to deliver the required cuts on time. One of the
most pressing gaps in net-zero policy exists in heating and
building insulation. What measures are the Government taking to
increase the uptake of the Great British Insulation Scheme, which
has the dual benefits of lowering bills and helping us to meet
our net-zero targets?
(Con)
That is precisely an example of what the Government can do by
putting their money where their mouth is. Some £6 billion has
been put into that scheme up until 2025, and that will go a long
way to tackling the greenhouse gas emissions from housing, which
is one of the most difficult areas to tackle. Alongside that, the
Government are working on building regulations and other measures
to ensure that new and existing housing is compliant.
(CB)
My Lords, the Government, and many Governments around the world,
are pinning an enormous amount of their strategies on carbon
capture and storage. There are currently just 41 CCS plants
operating globally and they account for 0.1% of annual global
emissions. When Exxon tried to use that as an argument last week
in the United States, the technology was described as going “at a
snail's pace”. We have none in this country. We have four
clusters that have been identified, but as yet no plans have been
made; yet if you look at the net-zero strategy, carbon capture
and storage is playing a really large part. Can the Minister
update the House on where we are with this and whether he is
actually confident?
(Con)
This is a matter on which my colleague, my noble friend , will have the facts at his
fingertips. I will make sure that he or I contact the noble
Baroness for the details of how carbon capture and storage will
deliver and can be a major source of decarbonising our energy
system.
(Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the amount of carbon
we are emitting is less than 1% of the world's emissions? Can he
confirm that, when we come down to zero, there is a serious risk
that the Chinese will still be burning vast quantities of coal
and fossil fuels, and that world carbon levels will be
rising?
(Con)
My noble friend may be right—but why would we not want to do
this? The net-zero economy grew by 9% last year, and there is £74
billion of gross value added to British businesses in the
net-zero work being done right across the industrial sectors. So
it makes sense to do this from an economic and a business point
of view. Why would you not want to decarbonise your business or
your home? That is why we have to work to hit these carbon budget
targets, and there is an economic reason for doing so as
well.
of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I am glad to hear the Minister applauding the net-zero
green industries, but how does he square that with the decision
by the North Sea Transition Authority—possibly misnamed—to grant
30 companies the right to look for hydrocarbons on sites that had
been earmarked for offshore wind?
(Con)
I am not aware of those sites, but it is predicted that, even if
all those licences are taken up, there will be a continuing
reduction of 7% a year in oil and gas requirements for this
country. That is one of the fastest reductions in fossil fuel
requirements of any industrialised country.
(LD)
My Lords, how will the High Court's ruling that the carbon budget
delivery plan is fatally flawed impact the UK's next nationally
determined contributions, due early next year?
(Con)
The judgment did not actually criticise the measures. The plan
has more than 300 measures and proposals for the Government to
deliver. It was a process failure, if you like, to make sure that
the Secretary of State had all the information at his fingertips
in order to make that plan compliant. We will make sure that it
is compliant. But the noble Baroness should have confidence that
this Government are absolutely determined to deliver on this. The
Liberal Democrats were part of a Government who saw some
reductions that have halved the carbon emissions in this country.
Are they losing their touch? They usually take credit for
everything, but all they do at the moment is criticise.
