News

The government has claimed Rishi Sunak’s new £1.9 billion tax break for fossil fuel companies is not technically a subsidy and so compatible with its climate plan.Green groups lambasted ministers for playing “semantics” with the planet over the new incentives to invest and oil and gas production – announced just months after the UK’s own climate summit promised to put an end to them.The chancellor’s doubled the rate of tax relief for oil and gas projects in his Budget, a measure that is expected to cost taxpayers nearly £2 billion and produce 899 million tons of extra CO2.But responding to criticism of the measure from green groups, Treasury minister Helen Whately claimed that the policy was compatible with the UK’s international commitment, because of a technicality.”The UK does not give fossil fuel subsidies, and follows the approach of the International Energy Agency, which defines fossil fuel subsidies as measures that reduce the effective price of fossil fuels below world market prices,” she said.The minister argued that the measure did not meet the IEA definition “using a commonly applied methodology” which was developed by the G20 developed countries.However this definition is at odds with the standard economic definition of a subsidy, which is a direct or indirect payment, in the form of a cash payment from the government or a targeted tax cut, to increase supply of a product. The sleight-of-hand comes just months after the UK hosted the Glasgow Climate Summit COP26, where nearly 200 countries agreed to phase out fossil fuel subsidies.Greenpeace UK’s political campaigner, Ami McCarthy, told the Independent: “A hand-out, free ride, reward, tax break, subsidy – don’t be distracted by semantics. “Whatever you want to call it the Chancellor is playing a dangerous game by incentivising new oil and gas extraction as a way to allow fossil fuel giants to dodge paying tax on their hugely bloated profits.“More domestic fossil fuel production will not bring energy security or reduce bills, since they take decades to extract and will be sold on the international market at international prices. As for how these plans square with the government’s climate commitments – they don’t.“Sunak should ditch the tax breaks and bring in a permanent tax on oil and gas company profits of at least 70% – the global average. This cash should be used to transform cold, damp, energy-wasting homes into warm, efficient ones. Green homes now mean lower bills forever.”Jamie Peters, campaigner at Friends of the Earth, added: “Whichever way you look at it, the UK is still propping up the fossil fuel industry through massive tax breaks at the expense of the planet. “Getting off oil and gas isn’t just needed to guarantee a safer future, it’s vital to protect people now from energy price hikes. Yet the government is allowing firms to pay 91p less tax for every £1 spent on new oil and gas infrastructure. This means there will be less money overall to help those struggling most, and to insulate the UK’s inefficient homes. “The logical solution would be to increase investment in clean energy. Not only is it quicker and cheaper to develop, but it will help to bring down soaring bills, unlike expensive fossil fuels.”The minister Ms Whately made the argument in response to a written question by Liberal Democrat MP Munira Wilson, who had asked whether the “Government’s decision to double tax relief for oil and gas companies investing in domestic fossil fuel extraction projects until the end of 2025 with its COP26 commitment to phase out fossil fuel subsidies”.Responding to the comments, the Lib Dem MP told the Independent: “It’s complete hypocrisy that the Conservatives are giving tax breaks for fossil fuels just months after hosting the COP climate summit.”Giving the go ahead to gas drilling in places like Surrey flies in the face of the concerns of local communities and our green commitments.Liberal Democrats would cancel this decision and work to expand our renewable energy to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.”Treasury minister Helen Whateley said: “The UK does not give fossil fuel subsidies, and follows the approach of the International Energy Agency, which defines fossil fuel subsidies as measures that reduce the effective price of fossil fuels below world market prices.”The International Energy Agency has a long-standing track record in systematically measuring fossil-fuel subsidies using a commonly applied methodology. This definition was originally developed with the European Commission and G20 EU Member States to respond to the G20 commitment to phase out such subsidies.”The UK has been a longstanding supporter of multilateral efforts to promote fossil fuel subsidy reform since these were first proposed in 2009, including through the G20, and the G7. The UK is a signatory of the Glasgow Climate Pact and is committed to the agreed phase-out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies across the globe that encourage wasteful consumption, and sees clear benefits in doing so.” More

The government has approved plans to drill for gas near an area of outstanding natural beauty in the Surrey countryside, provoking “fury and despair” from environmentalists, residents and the local MP Jeremy Hunt.Campaigners said the decision “makes a mockery” of the ministers’ claims to be taking the climate crisis seriously and warned it would irreversibly damage the area.Mr Hunt, backed by some as a potential future Tory leader, blasted the decision that he said would cause “enormous disruption and environmental damage for little if any economic benefit”.Housing minister Stuart Andrew overruled local councils to give the go-ahead to drilling at Loxley well near Dunsfold, a village in the Weald which dates back to the 13th century and has historic buildings.The site is in the South West Surrey constituency of former health secretary Jeremy Hunt, who slated the decision as “bitterly disappointing and wrong both economically and environmentally”.The energy firm UK Oil and Gas (UKOG) had appealed against the refusal of its plans by Surrey County Council, but a planning inquiry last year led to an inspector concluding the drilling should be allowed.Mr Andrew agreed with the inspector there was “no evidence that there would be harmful emissions from the well either before or during operations”, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities said.He also said government policy supported using mineral resources within acceptable environmental constraints, according to a statement from the department outlining the decision.Mr Hunt wrote to levelling-up secretary Michael Gove, accusing the department of “ignoring the strength of local opinion” which went against government commitments to devolving powers.And he said the decision caused “enormous anger and disappointment across all political parties” while also damaging the government’s own commitment to reach net-zero carbon emissions.By the time anything could be extracted, the UK would be well on its way to reducing fossil-fuel use, he said.Appealing for a rethink, he wrote: “In short, it will create enormous disruption and environmental damage for little if any economic benefit.”Mr Andrew said he made the decision on behalf of the secretary of state because of the proximity of Mr Gove’s Surrey Heath constituency to the area.Tom Fyans, head of campaigns and policy at CPRE, the countryside charity, said: “Approving the drilling of a gas well in the Surrey countryside is an absurd decision that’s guaranteed to provoke fury and despair.“It’s extraordinary, given the urgent need to wean ourselves off fossil fuels, that the government sees fit to greenlight a gas field and damage the setting of an area of outstanding natural beauty.“Given the scale of opposition to this plan – with the local council, local MP and local people all united in their anger – it is hard to see how the project can go ahead without mass protests.”Mr Fyans said it was “utterly bizarre” the government had approved the drilling on the same day it rejected permission for work at two fracking sites on the grounds that shale gas drilling was incompatible with net zero goals and public health concerns.Such a contradictory approach to the climate crisis suggested the government was not serious, he added.Councillor Steve Williams, of Waverley Borough Council, said the decision was the “worst possible outcome” and “will lead to irreversible harm to our environment and to local people”.James Knapp, from the Weald Action Group, which had protested against the drilling, said its members were deeply disappointed over the “unbelievable” decision.“Even if the site is proven commercially viable, it will take years for new gas production to come on stream so will do nothing to alleviate the current energy price crisis,” he said. “With the commitments made to tackle climate change at Cop26 still ringing in their ears it is unbelievable that the government has allowed this appeal.”UKOG chief executive Steve Sanderson said: “We welcome this decision and its backing for Loxley’s gas as a secure, sustainable energy source with a far lower pre-combustion carbon footprint than imports.”Although the go-ahead is for exploratory work, permission to extract gas, known as fracking, has not yet been granted, the government says. A ban on fracking is still in place. More

Rishi Sunak has been accused of risking Britain’s reputation as a climate leader by announcing tax relief measures that will encourage energy firms to invest in fossil fuel extraction during a climate emergency.Climate groups and opposition politicians rebuked the chancellor for incentivising oil and gas extraction when climate scientists, the United Nations and the International Energy Agency have made it clear that the world needs to stop new investment in fossil fuels.“It’s bone-headedly stupid, even by this government’s low standards, not only to allow but in fact to incentivise the production of new climate-wrecking fossil fuels, rather than keeping them firmly in the ground where they belong,” Green MP Caroline Lucas told The Independent.“This measure will not only make absolutely no difference to families’ soaring energy bills, [but] any new fossil fuel production acts as a wrecking ball to our net zero climate targets, and makes us an embarrassment on the world stage, particularly while we still [retain] the Cop26 presidency.”Rishi Sunak announces £15bn package for cost of living crisisThe incentive came as part of a package of announcements to tackle the cost of living crisis in Britain, which included a temporary 25 per cent windfall tax on the profits of oil and gas companies to help support struggling households.In order to ensure that companies are not deterred from investment by the new levy, Mr Sunak announced that those that invest in oil and gas extraction will be entitled to hefty tax relief on that spending.“The UK government’s position breaks the pledge it made at the climate talks last year to phase out subsidies for oil and gas projects,” Tessa Khan, director of Uplift, a group that campaigns for a just and fossil-fuel-free UK, told The Independent.“It is also completely contradictory when it comes to both heading off the climate crisis and tackling the cost of living crisis,” she said. “Fossil fuels are at the heart of both, and yet the chancellor is doubling down and encouraging companies to extract more.”Analysts and oil executives suggested the measure wouldn’t fundamentally change energy companies’ investment strategies, as the investment tax break, along with the tax on their profits, is due to expire in 2025.“That’s quite a short time for companies looking at investment in the North Sea,” said Sam Alvis, head of economy at Green Alliance.An energy company executive who spoke to The Independent on the condition of anonymity said the announcement wouldn’t change the course on net zero in a big way because the firm’s investment horizons are mostly five or 10 years.Nevertheless, the executive described the move by the government as “messy” and “confusing”.“We are trying to sell a message to our shareholders – that investment and dividends will have to be shaped by, focused on, ensuring a net-zero-compatible future,” the executive said.“This muddies the waters, with a mixed message on where investment should be focused from the government.”Companies can get tax relief for investment in renewables through the super-deduction mechanism. This gives businesses tax breaks on investment in physical capital.However, the mechanism can also be used to invest in fossil fuel infrastructure, according to Mr Alvis.Ami McCarthy, political campaigner for Greenpeace UK, described the tax break announced on Thursday as “utter stupidity”. “The Chancellor is either in the pocket of the oil and gas industry or is simply happy to see the world burn,” she said.Ed Davey, leader of the Liberal Democrats, said that in order to reach net zero, the country needs to go “hell for leather for renewable power”.“We should be cracking down on new exploration because it’s not needed,” he said. “If you were serious about getting to net zero, if you were serious about protecting us from climate change, if you were serious about making sure our country was independent of Russia and other people, you would go far more into renewables. So why aren’t they doing that?”A Shell spokesperson said that the company had “consistently emphasised” the importance of a stable environment for long-term investment. “The chancellor’s proposed tax relief on investments in Britain’s energy future is a critical principle in the new levy,” they said.The spokesperson confirmed that Shell still intends 75 per cent of its planned £20-25bn investment in the UK energy system to be in low- and zero-carbon products and services, including offshore wind, hydrogen, carbon capture utilisation and storage, and electric mobility.A spokesperson for BP said: “As we have said before, we see many opportunities to invest in the UK, into energy security for today, and into energy transition for tomorrow.“Naturally we will now need to look at the impact of both the new levy and the tax relief on our North Sea investment plans.”The Treasury declined to comment. More

Households could have saved more than £500 a year on energy bills during the cost-of-living crisis if the government had not scrapped a green policy for homes, according to new analysis.UK parliamentary research – seen by The Independent – increased previous estimates to reflect soaring household bills, which are expected to rise even further later this year. It estimated the missed potential for savings will rise to as high as £525 a year by autumn – up from around £370 a year currently. The Liberal Democrats – who commissioned the research – said shelving tough environmental rules for new homes was “short-sighted” and ended up “slapping hundreds of pounds” onto bills. The Zero Carbon Homes policy would have prevented new houses from releasing a net amount of carbon into the atmosphere during day-to-day running. Among other factors, this would have been achieved through good energy efficiency – considered key to keeping bills, as well as emissions, down.It was scrapped in 2015 – the year before it was due to kick in.A subsequent report estimated the zero-carbon homes policy would have saved recently-built houses up to £200 a year on energy bills.The House of Commons library has been revising these estimates in line with the changing cost of energy bills. It previously found large family homes built within the last six years would be saving up to £370 a year on bills under the current energy price cap, had they been covered by the scrapped green rules. When the price cap rises by an expected 42 per cent in October, it said the figure would rise to as high as £525 a year. At minimum, the figure would be £376 a year.Meanwhile, the parliamentary researchers said terraced homes would be missing out on between £227 and £312 a year of savings on energy bills. For flats, it would be between £142 and £199 a year.Wera Hobhouse, the Lib Dem climate change spokesperson, accused the Tories of having a “shameful record on energy efficiency”.“Many are having to choose between heating and eating because of the Conservatives cost of living crisis,” she said.“Scrapping zero carbon homes was a shambolic and short-sighted policy that is hitting people hard.”Juliet Phillips from E3G, an environmental think-tank, said it is imperative to invest in “warmer homes” to “permanently cut energy bills”. “As costs of living soar, it’s essential that the government looks to address the nation’s cold and leaky homes, which have left families sharply exposed to volatile fossil gas prices,” she said. On Thursday, Rishi Sunak, the UK chancellor, scrapped a £200 energy bills loan given to all households and replaced it with a £400 grant instead to support them with soaring costs. Insulation has also been championed as a way to keep down energy bills, as well as help tackle the climate crisis.Homes are estimated to account for around a fifth of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions.Earlier this year, the prime minister was told improving insulation on the UK’s least efficient homes could save households on £500 a year on energy bills. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has been approached for comment. More

A row has erupted over the government’s use of real fur for the military, as critics claimed new tests prove that bear skins are outperformed by a fake fabric which ministers have rejected.The Ministry of Defence has long insisted the artificial skin, called Ecopel, is not a suitable alternative to the fur from slaughtered Canadian black bears used to make Queen’s Guards’ caps.But now tests by a fabric technologist have shown that Ecopel not only performed on a par with bear skins but actually gave better results in several areas, according to Peta.The animal-rights organisation has written to Boris Johnson to outline the test results, which used the MoD’s own five criteria.The independent expert’s tests showed the faux fur was more durable, more comfortable and more sustainable and dries more quickly, Peta says.The fabrics expert, Atom Cianfarani, said: “I believe that the combination of Ecopel, along with a waterproof membrane such as Tyvek, will produce a fast-drying, lightweight cap that will be more comfortable and less toxic for the wearer.”Real bear fur must be treated with toxic chemicals such as formaldehyde to stop it from decomposing.Peta said the tests, conducted at an MoD-accredited laboratory, “conclusively show that Ecopel’s faux bear fur performs in a way very similar to – or better than – real bear fur in all five areas”.It said Ecopel’s offer to supply the MoD with unlimited faux bear fur free of charge until 2030 still stood, despite having been rejected previously.But the government disputes the reading of the results, and has again refused to consider switching away from bear skins despite.The MoD has always said it would stop buying real fur as soon as a “suitable and affordable alternative” became available.The government spent more than £1m on bear fur hats between 2014 and 2019.The letter to the prime minister, seen by The Independent, reads: “A petition in support of Peta’s campaign is fast approaching the threshold for triggering a debate in Parliament, and a growing number of MPs are backing our call for humane ceremonial caps.“Please honour the commitment made in the Queen’s speech last year that the government would ‘ensure the UK has, and promotes, the highest standards of animal welfare’ by acting on the wishes of the British public, which overwhelmingly – with a 75 per cent majority, according to a new Populus opinion poll – opposes the use of taxpayers’ money to fund the pursuits of trophy hunters overseas, and bringing the superior faux fur caps into service.”An Army spokesperson said: “Bears are never hunted to order for the MoD. The iconic bearskin cap is made from bear pelts obtained from licensed culls by the Canadian authorities to manage the wild population.“Ensuring the Guards’ caps remain both practical and smart is vital, and currently there are currently no artificial alternatives available that meet the essential requirements for these ceremonial caps.”The Independent understands that the government advisers insist Ecopel did not meet the standard required to replace bear skins and that it met only one of the five requirements – that of water penetration.As a result, the MoD has again refused to replace its use of bear fur. More

A Tory-linked lobby group campaigning against net zero climate action has received hundreds of thousands of pounds from an oil-rich foundation with large investments in energy firms, it has been revealed.The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) – which has close links to Tory MP Steve Baker – 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.It has also received half a million dollars through a fund linked to the controversial oil billionaire Koch brothers.Labour said the revelations showed US right-wing groups with links to big oil were “desperate to stop action against the climate crisis” and influence UK debate.The group’s US arm, the American Friends of the GWPF, received more than $1.3m from US donors, with at least $864,884 (£679,000) forwarded to the British group over the last four years.Of the £1.45m in charitable donations received by the UK-based group since 2017 at least 45 per cent has come from the US – raising questions about the influence of the American right in Westminster.The donations include $620,259 from the Donors Trust, a secretive organisation that has given hundreds of millions of pounds to more than 100 groups working to cast doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change.That group has received millions from the Koch brothers, who inherited their father’s oil empire. The GWPF claims the Donors Trust is “middleman, matching donors to those seeking funding” and that it was “able to vet [donors with which it was matched] in line with our funding policy”.The UK anti-climate action lobby group also received $210,525 in 2018 and 2020 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation – an organisation set up by the billionaire libertarian heir to an oil and banking dynasty. Greenpeace UK characterises the Global Warming Policy Foundation as an organisation which has “spent the last twenty years campaigning to preserve our addiction to fossil fuels”.Conservative MP Steve Baker is a trustee of the foundation, as is Labour MP Graham Stringer also sits on its board and has questioned the scientific consensus on the climate emergency.Through Mr Baker the group has links 20 Tory MPs and peers, who form the backbench Net Zero Scrutiny Group, which campaigns against net zero plans. Mr Baker and another Tory MP Craig Mackinlay are regularly quoted in press releases from Net Zero Watch – often repeating its talking points.Labour’s shadow secretary Ed Miliband said: “US right-wing groups with links to big oil are desperate to stop action against the climate crisis. Now they are trying to extend their reach into UK political debate.”The Global Warming Policy Foundation rejects the claim that the Sarah Scaife Foundation represented oil interests, telling openDemocracy: “The wealth that ultimately created the Scaife Foundation was created at the end of the nineteenth century and the start of the twentieth. It would be ludicrous to suggest that three generations on, it represents an oil company interest.”Tory MP Steve Baker said: “I understand the GWPF has already given a response to these allegations, which appear to be ridiculous.”It is an extraordinary fact that the same newspapers and commentators who would usually be the first to protest any kind of poverty are wasting the public’s time with these attempts to distract from the real issues at hand. “It would be better if the political world focused their attention on how our current energy strategy has driven up energy prices and contributed to the terrible cost-of-living crisis that so many are experiencing.”The Independent has contacted Mr Baker, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, and Net Zero Watch to offer the opportunity for further comment on this story. More

Households living in nearly 1 million homes built since 2015 have been hit by an additional “energy bill bombshell” totalling £1.8bn because of the government’s decision to scrap net-zero targets, Liberal Democrats have said.And the average £200-a-year cost for each household is due to soar higher over the coming year, following the massive hike in the energy price cap in April, which is expected to be repeated in the autumn.Laws passed under the coalition government to require every new-build home to have zero carbon emissions were scrapped by David Cameron’s administration soon after Conservatives took sole control in 2015.Since this time, almost 1m homes which do not meet zero-carbon standards have been built.Lib Dem climate emergency spokesperson Wera Hobhouse said that the “abysmally short-sighted” decision will have pushed many families towards fuel poverty as the price of gas and electricity increased by an average £700 earlier this month.The party is putting cost-of-living concerns at the heart of its campaign for local elections across Britain on 5 May.Figures from the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU) suggest that measures to make homes zero-carbon typically save households around £200 a year on their energy bills, thanks to factors like better insulation.Over the seven years since the policy was scrapped, the total extra cost in bills is estimated to have reached £1.8bn and the figure is climbing ever-faster.“Families up and down the country are being driven into fuel poverty, having to make agonising choices between heating and eating because of the Conservatives’ cost of living crisis,” said Ms Hobhouse. “This pain and misery for millions had been coming down the track for a long time. Scrapping zero carbon homes has proven to be an abysmally short-sighted move from a government that has failed with all hands to protect people from sky-high energy bills.“New homeowners can send the Conservatives a message in May by voting for your local Liberal Democrat champion. They have failed families struggling with their energy bills and it’s time to send them a message.”Ms Hobhouse’s party is calling for a windfall tax on energy firms to pay for measures to reduce energy poverty and insulate homes. More

Boris Johnson has signalled he is ready to fight to defend green levies on energy bills, amid growing pressure for them to be scrapped.The prime minister lashed out at “prejudice” against the levies, which fund renewable energy schemes at an average cost of £153 a year to households.Backbench Tories are pushing for them to be stripped out of domestic gas and electricity bills to help consumers facing soaring costs.Business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng this week faced criticism after failing to deny reports that their removal is being considered as part of the government’s response to the cost of living crisis. More