News

Taking action on the climate emergency is the bottom priority for Conservative members in the party’s leadership contest, a poll has found.Just 4 per cent of those surveyed by pollster YouGov said hitting the UK’s net zero emissions target by 2050 was one of their top three priorities for the next prime minister.The survey, commissioned by the Times found that winning a general election, cutting taxes, increasing defend spending and strengthening the UK’s global standing were all more important to members.Out of the 10 policy areas listed, reaching net zero was placed bottom.The news comes as an “unprecedented” heatwave triggers red warnings and advance to remain inside across southern Britain, with temperatures expected to reach 40 degrees celsius.RecommendedWhile the YouGov survey suggests apathy to the climate emergency among the governing party faithful, previous research has suggested that this does not necessarily translate into antipathy. The Independent last week reported a poll of members conducted by Opinium that only a small minority, 37 per cent, of Tory members think the UK government is “overreacting” with its climate policies.22 per cent of Tory members believed the government had been underreacting while 30 per cent say it is getting the balance of action about right – an apparently endorsement of net zero.That finding came despite a push from figures on the British right like ex Brexit party leader Nigel Farage and Tory backbencher Steve Baker to campaign against the policy. Out of all the Tory leadership candidates only Rishi Sunak has been vocal in his support of the net zero target without reservation, and right-winger Kemi Badenoch has described it as “unilateral economic disarmament”.She and other conservatives argue that the UK can gain an advantage by not pulling its weight on climate targets. Under net zero, the UK would have to produce no more carbon than it absorbs by 2050. There is a scientific consensus that this approach is required to avert catastrophic climate disaster, though some significant effects will still be felt.RecommendedPolling by Ipsos MORI conducted in October found widespread public support for both net zero in principle and for policies such as frequent flier levies and phasing out gas boilers. Half (54 per cent) of UK voters think that the country should be reducing its carbon emissions to net zero sooner than 2050, with 83 per cent extremely, very or fairly worried about climate change. More

Conservative leadership hopeful Tom Tugendhat has backtracked on remarks which appeared to cast doubt on his commitment to the party’s net zero target.The row comes as fears grow that Boris Johnson’s successor as prime minister will ditch the pledge to reach net zero emissions by 2050.Chris Skidmore – the former energy minister who leads the Net Zero Support Group of environmentalist backbenchers – tweeted that Mr Tugendhat had told a hustings event the target should be moved back.But Mr Tugendhat, the perceived moderate left in the race, claimed he was merely questioning how best to achieve the 2050 net zero emissions.Asked about his views by reporters on Thursday, he said: “Of course I agree with the target, but nobody yet has set out a path to achieving it.”RecommendedRishi Sunak, Penny Mordaunt and Liz Truss all offered clear backing for the 2050 net zero target at Wednesday night’s hustings, according to Mr Skidmore.But Kemi Badenoch said she wanted to change the “concept” of the target, while Suella Braverman said the 2050 date should be moved back.A Tory source told The Independent that Mr Tugendhat told MPs that the landmark date should be looked at again.But the moderate appeared to offer his support for the push to cleaner energy supply when speaking to reporters on Thursday, saying it was vital to invest in new technologies.“We keep talking about net zero as a cost – it is also a benefit,” he told reporters. “We could be imitating the Norwegians and actually making money from carbon capture.”Senior Tory MP Steve Baker – founder of the Net Zero Scrutiny Group – has suggested that he would push for the next PM to dismantle the government’s climate agenda.Ms Braverman, Mr Baker’s favoured candidate, has said the party should “suspend the all-consuming desire to achieve net zero by 2050”.Ms Badenoch has also publicly branded the net zero target “unilateral economic disarmament” and has vowed to ditch policies which “consume taxpayers hard-earned money”.Ms Truss, Ms Badenoch and Ms Mordaunt all said they would suspend green taxes on energy bills. The levies help pay for investment in renewable energy needed to move Britain away from fossil fuel dependence.“I’d have a temporary moratorium on the green energy levy … while looking at the best way of delivering net zero,” Ms Truss told The Spectator.Conservative peer Zac Goldsmith told The Independent earlier this week that it would be better to have a Labour government than a Tory leader who “deprioritises” action on net zero.And Alok Sharma, the former business minister and president of the Cop26 climate conference, has also warned Tory leadership that backtracking on net zero is “a road to nowhere”.RecommendedMeanwhile, Mr Tugendhat – who won 37 votes in the first round – has denied he would be dropping out of the Tory race. “I’m still in this fight,” he said.Telling reporters that he had been wooed by other candidates to back them, he said: “I feel like a prom queen”. More

Britain’s top business leaders have urged the Conservative leadership candidates hoping to succeed Boris Johnson not to ditch or backslide on the government’s net zero climate commitments.Groups representing thousands of UK businesses – including Unilever, Coca-Cola, Scottish Power, Thames Water and Lloyds Banking Group – have called on contenders to uphold policies aimed at achieving net zero by 2050.It comes as MPs and peers warn that “siren voices” from net zero sceptics on the Tory backbenches are hoping to move leadership hopefuls away from policies aimed at tackling climate change.Right-wing contender Kemi Badenoch has branded the net zero target “unilateral economic disarmament” and vowed to axe it, while Suella Braverman said the party should “suspend the all-consuming desire to achieve net zero by 2050”.A coalition of leading corporate bodies – including the Food and Drink Federation, the International Chamber of Commerce and UK Corporate Leaders Group (CLG) – have shared an open letter warning not to abandon the party’s manifesto commitment.Eliot Whittington, director of CLG, warned that a retreat on net zero policies would “condemn the country to fall behind on the energy transition and face unnecessary costs and risks”.RecommendedHe added: “Forward-looking businesses want more, not less, ambition on climate action – especially as we see the ramifications of volatile fossil fuel supply chains ramping up the cost-of-living crisis and reducing regional energy security.”The coalition of business chiefs said investment in green infrastructure and technology would help driving jobs and growth, in a letter coordinated by the UK Business Group Alliance for Net Zero, led by Cambridge University’s pro-climate business group CLG.Amanda Mackenzie, chief executive of Business in the Community, called on all those hoping to enter No 10 in September to “deliver” on a clear transition to a net zero. “Turning away now is the wrong solution,” she said.Julie Hirigoyen, chief executive of UK Green Building Council, added: “As prices soar businesses are looking for the next prime minister to deliver on the UK’s legal climate commitments, not ditch them.”Senior MP Steve Baker – founder of the Net Zero Scrutiny Group (NZSG) of Tory backbenchers – has suggested that he would push for the next PM to dismantle the government’s climate agenda.Ms Badenoch, appealing to the sceptics, told her campaign launch on Tuesday: “Too many policies, like net zero targets, [were] set up with no thought to the effects on industries in the poorer parts of this country.”Conservative peer Zac Goldsmith previously told The Independent it would be better to have a Labour government than a Tory leader who “deprioritises” action on net zero.The ally of Mr Johnson added: “It would be a catastrophic error for Conservatives to select a candidate who deprioritises these issues, but if they do, then we can only hope voters replace the party at the [next] available election.”Chris Skidmore, a senior backbencher who chairs the Net Zero Support Group set up to rival Mr Baker’s band of sceptics, has vowed to push candidates to uphold Britain’s climate commitments.“We can’t put net zero at risk,” Mr Skidmore, the former energy minister who signed the 2050 target into law, told The Independent. “I devoutly believe net zero is a vote winner.”RecommendedAlok Sharma, the former business minister who acted as president of the Cop26 climate conference, has warned Tory leadership hopefuls not to backslide on the net zero pledge.“Economically, environmentally and electorally it would be a retrograde step for us to resile from this policy. It’s a road to nowhere,” he told the i newspaper.Asked if frontrunner Rishi Sunak is fully behind policies aimed at achieving net zero emissions by 2050, he said: “I will wait to see what all the candidates say on this particular issue, which is very important for me.” More

Boris Johnson sent for his ministerial jet to fly back from Cornwall to London after a family trip to the beach.The prime minister and wife Carrie took their children Wilf and Romy to the seaside in Porthminster, St Ives, during the weekend visit to the Southwest.Downing Street insisted the “sole reason” for the flight was to transport Mr Johnson and staff back from government business. The government plane was sent from London to Royal Naval Air Station Culdrose, near Helston, on the morning of Monday 13 June, the Sunday Mirror first reported.On the Friday before, Mr Johnson went to the Royal Cornwall Show, where he visited cattle and sheep tents and spoke to local traders. He also met farmers with Conservative candidate Helen Hurford ahead of the 23 June Tiverton and Honiton by-election, which the Lib Dems won in a major blow to the PM.Over the weekend, Mr Johnson was seen enjoying the sunshine on at beach at St Ives. On Monday of the flight, he went to Southern England Farms in Hayle, where he was photographed driving a tractor, trimming a courgette and weighing broccoli, before flying back to London.Emily Thornberry, Labour’s shadow Attorney General, accused of the PM of “treating the government’s official plane as his personal taxi service, regardless of what it costs the environment or the taxpayer”.“It’s the act of a man drunk on power, who needs to be told he’s had enough,” she added.A No 10 spokesperson said: “All travel decisions are made with consideration for security and time restraints.”The PM is accompanied on government business by a delegation of staff, which is taken into consideration as part of ensuring taxpayer value for money.”This was the sole reason for the plane being used to transport the PM and his staff back from this particular visit.”Boris Johnson was last year accused of “staggering hypocrisy” after he took a private jet back from the Cop26 climate summit to attend a private members’ club dinner in London.His Cornwall trip also raises questions about whether the flight was justified under the ministerial code.”Ministers must ensure that they always make efficient and cost-effective travel arrangements,” the rulebook states.”Official transport should not normally be used for travel arrangements arising from party or private business, except where this is justified on security grounds.”Family members are permitted to join ministers on the trips “provided that it is clearly in the public interest”.The same plane was used for Mr Johnson’s diplomatic visit to Rwanda, Germany and Spain.During the G7 summit in Schloss Elmau, the Prime Minister and Canada’s Justin Trudeau compared the relative sizes of their jets.Mr Johnson said he had seen “Canada Force One” on the tarmac and Mr Trudeau joked that the Prime Minister’s plane was bigger.”Very modest” was how Mr Johnson described his own jet. More

Environmental campaigners have cautiously welcomed a move by the UK’s export finance agency to stop making new investments in fossil fuels overseas.UK Export Finance has in the past been criticised for providing funds for British businesses exploiting oil and gas abroad – effectively subsidising fossil fuels and driving climate change.But the government agency says from this year it is not providing any new support to new fossil fuel projects for the first time.The organisation extends loans to British businesses wanting to work abroad to give them a competitive advantage and help them export.UKEF has provided £7.4 billion of government support for UK exports in the last year, supporting 72,000 UK jobs and adding a gross value of £4.3 billion to the economy.The investments cost the taxpayer nothing overall as they produce a net profit for the Treasury, in 2021-22 of £324 million.The agency has also unveiled new carbon reduction targets for its other investments so that it it takes the carbon produced by them into account, and has confirmed it was not planning to make fossil fuel investments going forward. Environmentalists said the change was positive but that there was more to do.Friends of the Earth’s International climate campaigner, Rachel Kennerley, said: “While it’s good news that UKEF hasn’t invested in fossil fuel developments overseas this year, they are still financing a huge gas development in Mozambique that’s fuelling violence and climate breakdown.“Friends of the Earth is currently challenging this ill-conceived investment in the UK courts.“Instead, UK taxpayers’ money should be investing in Africa’s huge renewable energy potential so people without electricity have access to clean, safe energy.”UKEF has set new targets to reduce absolute emissions (tCO2e) of its existing oil and gas sector investments by 75 per cent by 2030.It also plans to reduce so-called “economic emissions intensity” of investments in the power sector by 58 per cent by 2030 work to net-zero basis by 2050.On the domestic front the government has been criticised for effectively subsidising oil and gas production at home with new tax reliefs unveiled in Rishi Sunak’s budget.Anne-Marie Trevelyan, Secretary of State for International Trade, commented: “The UK is awash with untapped export potential. “We have opened the door to the world with historic trade deals and now we are helping businesses walk through it. That’s why our national export credit agency, UK Export Finance, is boosting firms’ ability to export to the world with record-breaking support year after year.” More

The UK’s expanded £1bn commitment to military aid for Ukraine will be partly funded through underspending on climate finance, the business minister Kwasi Kwarteng has said. Following the British government’s announcement it would nearly double support to Ukraine to help stave off the Russian invasion, Mr Kwarteng tweeted: “My department has contributed to the effort by surrendering climate finance and foreign aid underspends.”The admission comes a month after The Independent revealed the UK government failed to deliver almost a quarter of a billion pounds in green projects aimed at hitting net zero emissions even as Boris Johnson urged governments around the world to drastically raise their investment in tackling the climate crisis.Some £241m earmarked for cancelling out UK carbon emissions by 2050 was handed back to the Treasury in the last financial year by the business department. But it appears the underspent money now going to Ukraine may have originally been earmarked for international climate projects and could represent further underspending by the department.An official at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) told The Independent they could not provide figures for how much of the underspend would now be used by the Treasury for military assistance in Ukraine. However they did identify the underspend as being in the International Climate Finance (ICF) programme, and money from Official Development Assistance (ODA), which is government aid money that promotes and targets the economic development and welfare of developing countries.The admission of the underspend by BEIS comes months before the Cop27 climate conference in Egypt, where climate finance is set to be on the top of the agenda, and also just hours after the climate change committee said there were “major failures” in government plans to reach net zero emissions.Ami McCarthy, a political campaigner for Greenpeace, told The Independent: “It’s incredibly jarring that one day after government climate advisers called out the UK’s lack of climate action, our business secretary is boasting about having climate money left over.“The government now finds itself in the astonishing position of still paying fossil fuel money to [Vladimir] Putin, while sending its climate underspend to [Volodymyr] Zelensky – it’s gross.”She added: “At a time of a fossil fuel-funded war, an energy crisis, a cost of living crisis and a climate crisis, the government should be throwing the kitchen sink at climate solutions – not ending up with leftover cash that’s unspent.“The business secretary needs to get on with his job, and take action now to roll out heat pumps, home insulation, and onshore wind; cutting our own energy usage and reducing our reliance on Russian gas and oil. This would stop us funding Putin’s war, it would tackle the climate crisis and bring bills down too. For all these crises the solutions are the same.”Carla Denyer, co-leader of the Green Party, told The Independent: “We have to question how on earth a government that claims to be a leader in tackling climate change could have an underspend on tackling this global threat. It is understandable that the government wants to spend more helping Ukraine, but this money should come out of budgets that will further damage our climate: pots such as the £28bn earmarked for road building, and ending tax breaks for fossil fuel projects.” The announcement of new funding for military aid to support Ukraine brings the UK’s support to Kyiv to a total of £2.3bn.The UK has also spent £1.5bn on humanitarian and economic support for Ukraine since the invasion in February.On Thursday, Mr Johnson also committed to raising UK defence spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP.But Tobias Ellwood, the Tory chairman of the Commons defence committee, said it is “too little, too late”.Mr Ellwood, who has called for per cent of GDP to be spent on defence, also condemned Mr Johnson for going ahead with planned cuts to the size of the Army.“This is NOT the time to cut the Army by 10,000,” he said on Twitter.“And moving to 2.5 per cent defence spend by 2030 is too little too late.”Conservative MP Julian Lewis, the chair of parliament’s intelligence and security committee, described the spending increase as “feeble”, accusing the prime minister of “an inability or unwillingness to face up to the gravity of the current crisis”.It is understood the pledge could amount to an extra £55.1bn cumulatively over the rest of the decade, based on Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) forecasts of the size of the economy.Speaking at the end of a Nato conference in Spain, Mr Johnson urged struggling Britons to accept that the “cost of freedom is always worth paying”, amid fears of Ukraine war “fatigue” as living standards fall at home.The prime minister sought to bolster faith that funding Ukraine would be worth it, arguing a Russian victory would worsen the economic situation. “Unless we get the right result in Ukraine, Putin will be in a position to commit further acts of aggression against other parts of the former Soviet Union more or less with impunity,” he said.“That will drive further global uncertainty, further oil shocks, further panics and more economic distress for the whole world.” More

A Tory donor who helped fund a lobby group campaigning against net-zero climate action will be made a member of the House of Lords, it has been reported.Australian billionaire Michael Hintze, who funds the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), will receive a peerage, according to the Sunday Times.Greenpeace UK accuses the organisation of “spending the last 20 years campaigning to preserve our addiction to fossil fuels”.Green MP Caroline Lucas blasted the appointment as “utter hypocrisy” considering the prime minister’s net-zero climate pledges and called for an investigation.She told DeSmog: “It’s already an insult to democracy that the prime minister is stuffing the House of Lords with his billionaire Tory donors.“But the fact that those billionaires are funding climate denial and delay – barely six months after he claimed we were at ‘one minute to midnight’ in a race to avert the impending climate crisis – exposes the utter hypocrisy of any climate pledge that comes out of his mouth.”Mr Hintze, founder and co-chief executive of the global asset management fund CQS, is a major Tory donor.The GWPF campaigns against the UK’s 2050 net-zero target and recently published a paper claiming that there is “no evidence of a climate crisis” – a claim at odds with the vast majority of climate scientists.The GWPF and the Conservative Party have been contacted for comment.Last month the Independent reported how the GWPF – which has close links to Tory MP Steve Baker – has received hundreds of thousands of pounds from an oil-rich foundation with large investments in energy firms.The GWPF refuses to disclose its donors in the UK and says it does not take money from fossil fuel interests.But US tax documents identified by investigative journalists at the OpenDemocracy website show the lobbyists, who also use the brand “Net Zero Watch”, have a donor with $30 million (£24.2 million) shares in 22 companies working across coal, oil and gas. More

The environment and the climate crisis were sacrificed in the government’s rush to strike a post-Brexit trade deal with Australia, a Lords committee is warning. Ministers are criticised for failing to fight for “ambitious” commitments to cut carbon emissions – even as Canberra was handed “generous” access to sell agricultural goods in the UK.The report raises fears that “deforested land” in Australia will be used to produce the beef and cereal that will be sent to the UK “in greater quantities”.Goods produced “using pesticides banned in the UK” will be imported under the deal – the first with a new partner since the UK left the EU – the Lords international agreements Committee finds.It also fails to include any references to “reducing or reviewing Australia’s reliance on coal”, despite a later agreement with New Zealand doing exactly that.The committee also questions a government claim of no “significant” increase in the UK’s CO2 emissions – arguing that excludes the transport of goods and the lower Australian production standards.The report comes after the Commons environment committee raised the alarm over farmers and food producers being set to lose almost £300m from scrapping tariffs.The Lords committee suggests “the speed of the negotiations” was given priority over “using the UK’s leverage to negotiate better outcomes” on the environment.And it states: “Considering that the UK granted Australia generous agricultural market access, it is regrettable that the government did not press Australia for more ambitious commitments on climate change.” Baroness Hayter, the committee’s chair, said: “There is a risk that this agreement could set a precedent for the negotiations with countries, particularly with other large agricultural producers, such as the US, Canada, Mexico, Argentina and Brazil.“We are urging the government to set out a clear policy against which future negotiations can be measured.”It was revealed last year that the government secretly dropped a number of climate pledges under pressure from Australia – causing embarrassment in the run-up to the Cop26 summit. A binding section referencing the “Paris Agreement temperature goals” was scrubbed in order to get the agreement “over the line”, a leaked email revealed.Today’s report notes that the government anticipates a 0.08 per cent boost to GDP by 2035, from the Australia deal.It describes this as “a fairly limited – though welcome – impact” and calls claims of wider benefits for small businesses and professionals “speculative”, saying they “should not be overstated”.Concern is also raised over a failure to share information with the devolved governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.Consultation should be “comprehensive and timely”, the committee says, calling for the other UK nations to be “involved throughout the negotiations” in future.But the Department for International Trade (DIT) argued the agreement “includes an environment chapter which goes beyond all other” Australian trade deals. “We were clear throughout negotiations that we would not sacrifice quality for speed, which was why there was no deadline to conclude the free trade agreement,” a spokesperson said. More