Climate

Oil and gas producers including ExxonMobil, BP and Shell lobbied a government minister to keep burning natural gas for years – even though the UK is committed to reaching net zero damaging greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.The companies described continued use of the fossil fuel as “a necessary compromise”.Representatives from the three gas giants, plus Chevron and Equinor, used a dinner with then-trade minister Conor Burns in February last year to argue the fossil fuel industry should be seen as a “vital” part of the solution to climate change.They also encouraged a “greater recognition for the role of gas in transition” to a lower carbon future, because it was “cleaner than coal and is fundamental to the Texas economy”.The International Energy Agency has warned there can be no new gas development if the world is to reach net zero by 2050 and stay within safe limits of global heating.The methane emitted by gas is 84-86 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.And a UN report earlier this year said that slashing methane emissions would be the strongest action possible in the world to slow global warming.In the memo, Mr Hyde says the firms argued that “moving the US and the developing world from coal to gas is a necessary compromise, while they make inroads in affordability of genuinely clean energy”.The government has banned the installation of oil and gas boilers in new homes from 2025 to try to meet the 2050 target.BP, Equinor and Chevron all defended their lobbying, telling Channel 4 News they were committed to a cleaner energy future and reducing carbon emissions.Shell, Chevron, Equinor and ExxonMobil all said they support the Paris Agreement, which aims to limit global temperature rises to 1.5C.Shell said: “We make no apology for talking to policymakers and regulators around the world about climate change and how to tackle it – business must be part of the solution.”BP said gas was “an important part of our business and has a critical role to play in the transition to net zero” – but that its strategy includes a fall in global oil and gas production and a tenfold rise in renewables by 2030.Equinor too said it was “accelerating our own transition away from fossil energy sources to renewable ones”.ExxonMobil said oil and gas would “continue to play a critical role in meeting the world’s demand for energy”, noting that “many national and state governments have included a shift to natural gas in their carbon-reduction programmes, recognising the contribution that natural gas can make”.The Foreign Office told Channel 4 News the meeting was “a routine engagement with the energy industry”.“We discussed their investments in renewable energies and their decarbonisation plans, and we were not lobbied.”Last week, Channel 4 News aired covert recordings of a senior ExxonMobil lobbyist claiming that the company had secretly fought against climate change legislation.Further footage appeared to show the firm also lobbied against action on plastic waste.Speaking to undercover Greenpeace reporters, he also appeared to admit that Exxon produced products containing highly toxic fluorinated chemicals known as “for ever” chemicals, which remain in the environment.The Chairman of the Congressional Oversight Subcommittee on the Environment, Rep Ro Khanna, told Channel 4 News he was prepared to take steps to ensure ExxonMobil executives appeared before his committee to discuss the issues raised. More

Hundreds of groups have urged the UK to leave a treaty that allows energy companies to sue states for taking action against the climate crisis.Environmental organisations, charities and campaigners have called on the British government and other European countries to “prioritise climate policies” and to “stick to their climate commitments”. More than 400 groups said political leaders should “therefore initiate withdrawal from the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT)” by the UN climate change conference Cop26 at the latest. “European countries aim to be at the forefront of the climate fight, with strong climate commitments from the EU and the UK hosting Cop26,” a joint statement said. “Yet, they are part of a treaty that protects investments in fossil fuels and allows energy companies to sue states before corporate courts for taking necessary climate action.”It adds: “Strong scientific consensus tells us that continuing with fossil fuel exploitation is incompatible with good conditions of life on earth in only a few decades.”The statement – signed by charities including WWF, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth – say countries “cannot have their hands tied” as they go into this year’s Cop26 conference, due to be held in Glasgow this autumn.“Affording protection to energy sources that need to be phased out is simply incompatible with the ambitions set in the European Green Deal and the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to 1.5C,” it says.Jean Blaylock from Global Justice Now said the Energy Charter Treaty was “designed by and for big polluters to protect their dirty investments”. “It makes a mockery of international climate commitments in a year when the UK hosts a crucial climate summit,” she said.“Boris Johnson and Alok Sharma need to break free of the shackles of this treaty before November if they want to make any serious progress in Glasgow towards tackling the climate crisis.”Cornelia Maarfield from Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe said: “The power and influence of fossil fuel firms must drastically reduce to make the energy transition a success, and quitting the Energy Charter Treaty is a vital step.”A UK government spokesperson said: “The Energy Charter Treaty promotes investment in the energy sector and fosters international cooperation on energy, including in the development of renewable energy worldwide.”They added: “We support the Treaty, and the current work to modernise it, and we will seek to ensure it helps deliver key climate change goals. These include our target to eliminate our contribution to climate change by 2050, and a global transition to clean energy.” More

Rishi Sunak has been urged to “stop dragging his heels”, as Labour accused the government of again delaying a long-awaited review into plans for net-zero emissions by 2050.The review is expected to inform the next steps in the UK’s transition to the legally binding target of reaching net zero by the middle of the century — a goal legislated for by former PM Theresa May.It comes after the government’s own climate advisers said the country had made “woeful” progress on tackling the climate change and ignore repeated warnings to prepare for its “inevitable impact”.In response to a Common written question — asking when the final report of the net zero review will be published — minister Kemi Badenoch declined to give a specific date, saying it would be published “in due course” and “later this year”.The chief secretary to the Treasury added the review will also be released “in advance” of the critical climate summit Cop26, which is not until the autumn between 31 October and 12 November.Ministers had previously suggested a roadmap to net zero would be published “during” 2020 and in May, Ms Badenoch told MPs the final report would be released “this spring”, but so far it has failed to materialise.As the chancellor prepared to release plans for a green bond to raise funds to invest in projects such as renewable energy, Labour’s shadow chief secretary to the Treasury Bridget Phillipson said: “There’s a real danger this green bonds announcement is all talk and no action — just like the chancellor’s long delayed net zero review — and a distraction from the critical job of halting climate change.“The chancellor must stop dragging his heels, and publish his final report into the net zero review which has now been delayed since autumn 2020.“And he should hardwire his net zero targets into his upcoming spending review, as Labour would do.”Ms Badenoch added in her response to the written question that the final review will “explore key issues and trade-offs as the UK decarbonises”.She added: “Against a backdrop of significant uncertain on technology and costs, as well as changes to the economy over the next 30 years, it focuses on the potential exposure of households and sectors to the transition, and highlights factors to be taken into account in designing policy that will allocate costs over this time horizon.“In line with the review’s terms of reference the report will allocate costs over this time horizon. In line with the review’s term of reference, the report will not include policy recommendations”. More

A new watchdog to enforce environmental laws after Brexit must be “totally independent” from government in order to hold ministers and public bodies to account, parliament has heard.The creation of the new Office for Environmental Protection (OEP), which will replace the European Commission’s oversight, has been mired by controversy after the government said it will be part of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).The organisation is being set up as part of the delayed Environment Bill, which will introduce wide-ranging environmental reforms in the UK and replace many EU laws and structures.The government has insisted the OEP will be independent, but experts have said it will have its board decided by Defra ministers, its budget set by the government, and the extent of its oversight also set by government.As the Environment Bill is scrutinised at its committee stage in the House of Lords, peers have subjected the OEP’s placement in Defra to a barrage of criticism.Speaking in parliament, independent crossbencher Lord Cameron of Dillington said: “The OEP will be at the centre of our country’s new environmental future post-Brexit.“We all have great hopes and expectations for it – some, I suspect, possibly too high. But within all our ambitions to secure a cleaner, more sustainable and more biodiverse future, I cannot stress how important it is that we get the OEP right – and at the moment it looks as though it will be a mere tool of the very body it should be overseeing.”He added: “My main point is that the OEP must not only always be independent of Defra, but it must be seen to be independent of Defra, and at the moment it is neither. I find that very worrying.”Leading Oxford University scientist and former chairman of the Food Standards Agency, Lord Krebs, shared these concerns.He said: “The government promised us a strong and independent OEP and… many of us feel that we have been short-changed.”Independent crossbencher Lord Hope of Craighead, a former deputy president of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, stressed the need for the new body to be fully independent of the government, just as the European Commission has been.He said: “The independence of the Office for Environmental Protection is crucial if it is to have public confidence.”Tory former Commons deputy speaker Lord Framlingham said: “I speak to support the view that the Office of Environmental Protection must not only have teeth but must be totally independent from all strands of government.“Independence is, in a way, self-explanatory and a good thing in itself, but it is even more important to spell out that it must be independent of government when the judgments it will have to make may well be on cases in which a government department is involved.”Labour former environment minister Lord Whitty said: “We want a truly independent body on the environment to face up to the immense challenge of climate change and biodiversity diminution. This is not it.”Sharing his concerns about the OEP, Liberal Democrat peer Lord Oates said: “It has no strong enforcement powers, its members will be appointed, and its budget set, by the government.“It will be subject to the guidance from the Secretary of State on enforcement – the Secretary of State who should be subject to that enforcement – and its effectiveness will be undermined by the constraints placed on judicial enforcement.”Labour frontbencher Lady Jones of Whitchurch said: “Without guaranteed independence, the threat of political interference will always hang over the OEP and the organisation.”Responding, environment minister Lord Goldsmith of Richmond defended the arrangements as set out in the bill.He said: “I reiterate our commitment to delivering an independent body to hold government and other bodies to account.“The OEP will be established as a non-departmental public body, and we believe that this is the best model to achieve a balance of independence, value for money and accountability.”He added: “The bill grants the Secretary of State no power to interfere in the OEP’s decision-making on specific or individual cases. The Secretary of State cannot tell the OEP what to do in a way that undermines its discretion and obligation to reach its own decisions.”The Lords’ warnings come after expert lawyers said the structure of the OEP could fundamentally undermine the rule of law and lead to worse protections for the environment than previously.Additional reporting by PA. More

The UK and Australia have announced the broad outlines of a free trade deal which would eliminate tariffs on a wide range of goods.British-made cars, Scotch whisky, biscuits and ceramics will be cheaper to sell under the pact, while Australian producers are set to benefit from boosted exports of lamb and wine, the government said.The agreement is the first negotiated from scratch since Brexit, as earlier deals with countries including Japan and Canada were built on existing agreements struck by the EU. However the deal has sparked controversy, both among British farmers who fear they could be undercut by cheap imports, and by environmental campaigners who warn that it opens the door to “destructive mega farms” and “biodiversity chaos”.Why are activists so concerned? Climate campaigners have warned that the deal would not only give tacit approval to controversial farming practices in Australia, but would also “lower the bar” for future trade deals the UK is seeking to strike. Among their list of concerns is that Australian farmers are permitted to use pesticides, which are banned in the UK, including neonicotinoids, which harm pollinators including bees.They also point to the use of antibiotics to treat infections, particularly for animals which are intensively farmed, and the approved practice of “mulesing” – a painful procedure that involves cutting flaps of skin from around a lamb’s tail to produce stretched scar tissue which holds less moisture and faeces and attracts fewer flies. Australian farmers may also use growth hormones in cattle.In addition, activists are worried about the impact on deforestation and animal loss in Australia. A report from the Wilderness Society – a US-based conservation group – warned in 2019 that beef production was the leading cause of deforestation and land clearing in Australia, with analysis suggesting that 73 per cent of all deforestation and land clearing in the state Queensland was linked to the practice.“Due to high land clearing rates in the state of Queensland, Australia is now a designated global deforestation hotspot. This is driving significant biodiversity loss, greenhouse gas emissions and contributing to poor water quality running into the Great Barrier Reef,” the research said.The Wilderness Society also stated that in the last five years more than 1 million hectares of forest clearance has been attributed to cattle farming, and Australia now has the unenviable title as world leader for mammal extinctions.Greenpeace said most of the deforestation was due to weak legislation and rollback of protection in Australia making the practice technically ‘legal’. The organisation claimed this also meant the UK’s current proposed new due diligence law that only tackles ‘illegal’ deforestation would not stop beef from these farms entering the UK.Commenting on the announcement, Doug Parr, Greenpeace UK’s chief scientist, said: “Despite green rhetoric at the G7 Boris Johnson has just given a massive vote of confidence to exactly the kind of intensive, destructive mega farms that the UK should be trying to move away from.“He is aligning Britain with a country that’s way behind on climate action, and one that completely ignores its beef industry driving further climate and biodiversity chaos through the mass clearance of forests ,and its routine use of hormones and pesticides.“It has lowered the bar significantly for other countries looking for trade deals – Brazil being of most concern with its similarly destructive farming methods driving mass deforestation at the expense of people, wildlife and the climate. Britain will be expected to accept the same laissez-faire approach to food and environment standards that this deal allows.”Tanya Steele, CEO of WWF UK, said the agreement would “drive a coach and horses through efforts to put UK farming on a sustainable footing”.“If the UK government is serious about global environmental leadership, then it must get serious about sustainable farming – not just here in the UK, but across every country we import food from,” she wrote in a comment piece for The Independent. “Unfettered access to UK markets should reward those who meet our standards on climate, nature and animal welfare – and should not prioritise outdated farming systems, like Australia’s, which are fuelling the climate and nature crisis.”She said the trade deal with Australia “sets a dangerous precedent” which could mean “opening the UK market to agricultural imports that have contributed to widespread deforestation in the Amazon”, adding: “There is no economic benefit to be gained from trading our planet away.”What has the UK government said?Boris Johnson has called the proposed trade deal an example of “global Britain at its best” and said the agreement “opens fantastic opportunities for British businesses and consumers”.The details are yet to be unveiled however there was no mention of environmental or animal rights safeguards and only a single reference to climate change in the government announcement. “The leaders reaffirmed the enduring partnership between the UK and Australia during their discussion and agreed to work closely together on defence, technology collaboration and tackling climate change – including through a future Clean Tech Partnership,” the statement said. Michael Gove, the Cabinet Office minister, claimed that how Australian farmers operated had been “mischaracterised” during the discussion around the trade deal.“Australia is a friend and ally,” he told Sky News on Tuesday. “I think that there have been one or two points that have been made about Australia during the course of this debate that mischaracterise how Australian farmers operate and the opportunities also for UK farmers.”Trade secretary Liz Truss said previously that no new trade deal would permit the import of hormone-treated beef.A spokesperson at the Department for International Trade told The Independent the government was “not compromising our high animal welfare and food safety standards”.The spokesperson added: “It is a fundamentally liberalising agreement that removes tariffs on all British goods, opens new opportunities for our services providers and tech firms, and makes it easier for our people to travel and work together.“A final agreement in principle will be published in the coming days with the full detail.” More

A coalition of MPs, including Labour’s John McDonnell, unions, and environmental campaigners are demanding the government ensure a shorter working week is discussed at the UN climate summit hosted by the UK.In a letter to Alok Sharma, who was appointed earlier this year by Boris Johnson as Cop 26 president, the signatories urge consideration of the “benefits that a shorter working week could offer in the race to limit the worst effects of climate change”.It comes as the government prepares to host the crucial climate conference in November, with world leaders being asked to come forward with “ambitious 2030 emissions reductions targets” that align with UK’s legally binding target of net zero by the middle of the century.The letter highlights a recent report by Platform London – commissioned by the 4 Day Week campaign – which suggested last month the introduction of a four-day working week with no loss of pay would aid efforts in reducing Britain’s carbon footprint, with a possible reduction of 127 million tonnes per year by 2025.“This would represent a reduction of 21.3 per cent, more than the entire carbon footprint of Switzerland, and is also equivalent to taking 27 million cars off the road – effectively the entire UK private car fleet,” the coalition of campaigners wrote.Alongside Mr McDonnell – Labour’s former shadow chancellor – the letter has also been signed by the SNP’s deputy Westminster leader Kirsten Oswald, the Green MP Caroline Lucas, left-wing Labour MPs Clive Lewis and Zarah Sultana, and Plaid MP Ben Lake.Other names include Len McCluskey, the general secretary of one of the country’s biggest unions, Unite, Dave Ward, the general secretary of the Communication Workers Union (CWU), and the general secretary the Public and Commercial Services (PCS) union Mark Serwotka.“The evidence consistently shows that a reduction in working hours correlates with decreased energy and household consumption, reductions in carbon-intensive commuting, and enables people to engage in more environmentally sustainable behaviours,” they argued.“We noted and agree with your recent comments that Cop26 marks ‘our last hope’ of preventing climate breakdown and ‘our best chance of building a brighter future’. With such huge consequences at stake, it is crucial that all possible options for bringing emissions down to safe levels are considered.“As the Platform London report concludes, there is significant potential for reduced working time to help combat the climate crisis, and so we ask you to confirm that you will include a discussion at Cop26 about the potential benefits of a shorter working week and the impact this could have on reducing the UK’s carbon footprint.”The concept of a shorter working week has gained momentum in recent years, with Labour pledging at the last election to reduce average full-time weekly working hours to 32 across across the economy. A poll for The Independent found last year that nearly two-thirds of the public and more than half of Conservative voters believed the government should explore the introduction of such a policy in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic.And earlier in 2021 it also emerged that Spain’s left-wing government was setting up a limited pilot of a four-day working week, with €50m (£43.1m) financial aid to be provided to companies that cut the working week to 32 hours with no loss of pay.Joe Ryle, a campaigner with the 4 Day Week Campaign group, said: “If the government is serious about tackling climate change, then a shorter working week has got to be on the table at Cop26. The evidence increasingly shows that a shorter working week would be beneficial for workers and employers and for the environment.”“To save the climate, the time has come for a four-day working week with no loss of pay,” he added.Mr Sharma’s office has been contacted for comment by The Independent. More

Businesses will have to commit to the UK’s 2050 net-zero target before they can bid for major government contracts, under new rules announced on World Environment Day.Firms will also have to publish “credible” carbon reduction plans setting out their existing greenhouse gas emissions such as fuel usage, power consumption and staff travel.The Cabinet Office said the measures would be put in place by September for contracts worth more than £5m, making the UK government the first in the world to require such commitments.It comes as the UK prepares to host the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference, also known as Cop26, in Glasgow in November.“The government spends more than £290bn on procurement every year, so it’s important we use this purchasing power to help transform our economy to net-zero,” said the minister for efficiency and transformation, Lord Agnew of Oulton, in a statement.“Requiring companies to report and commit to reducing their carbon emissions before bidding for public work is a key part of our world leading approach. These measures will help green our economy, while not overly burdening businesses.”Carbon emissions will be reported using an internationally-recognised standard which categorises them under three groups or “scopes”.Scope 1 includes direct emissions from activities controlled by the business, such as fuel combustion in furnaces and vehicles or chemical production.Scope 2 relates to indirect emissions from consumption of purchased electricity, heat, steam or cooling, while scope 3 includes other indirect emissions from business travel, employee commuting, transportation, distribution and waste disposal.While some large companies already report scope 1 and 2 emissions, the new rules will also require some scope 3 emissions to be included as well.Firms failing to meet the requirements will be excluded from bidding for contracts worth more than £5m per year.The government said that the £5m cut-off was designed to “not overly burden and potentially exclude small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) from bidding for government work”.The measures were welcomed by the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), which represents 190,000 firms employing nearly 7 million people.Tom Thackray, director of infrastructure and energy at the CBI said: “As the world looks towards the UK and Cop26 for leadership on decarbonisation, business is already playing a vital role in driving progress towards a greener future.”The CBI has long supported using procurement policy to ensure government spending supports the UK’s environmental objectives and these changes will encourage more firms across the country to demonstrate their own commitment to net zero when bidding for government contracts.”Partnership between the public and private sectors can make the UK a global role-model, not only in delivering vital public services but working together to tackle climate change.”The Business Services Association, which contributed to drawing up the new rules, said it was “another important step on the road to net zero”. More