News

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

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