News

Sir Keir Starmer has committed Labour to the ambitious climate crisis target of achieving the “substantial majority” of greenhouse gas emission cuts by 2030.The Labour leader’s previous reluctance publicly to reaffirm the pledge inherited from Jeremy Corbyn had sparked fears among climate activists that he was backing away from radical action on global warming, with 20 leftist MPs writing last year to urge him to readopt the Green New Deal approved by the party in 2019.But in an exclusive interview with The Independent, Starmer said the party’s commitment to the promise – effectively putting the UK on the path to net zero 20 years ahead of Boris Johnson’s 2050 target – was as strong now as ever.Asked if he stood by the pledge to complete the substantial majority of carbon reductions by 2030, he replied firmly: “Absolutely. Exactly the same as was in our 2019 manifesto.“So the ambition – and not just the ambition, the determination and the commitment – of the Labour Party on the Green New Deal is just as strong now.”Starmer’s announcement, which came on the eve of a two-day visit to Glasgow to highlight Labour’s climate plans ahead of November’s crucial COP26 global warming summit in the city, was welcomed by Green New Deal campaigners within the party.But they cautioned that the promise must be backed by commitments to concrete action of the kind detailed in Corbyn’s manifesto, which pledged to ensure that the cost of transition to a green economy was born mostly by polluters and the wealthy, including by a windfall tax on oil companies, energy renationalisation, a ban on fracking and stock exchange delisting for climate-unfriendly businesses. Sir Keir made clear that the detailed policy backing up the pledge was subject to Labour’s ongoing review, which will not report until nearer the next election.His comments came as Labour warned that the government’s decision to scrap the Green Homes Grant has cost 90,000 jobs.The grant was a central plank of chancellor Rishi Sunak’s 2020 plan for jobs, which promised a green recovery to improve 600,000 homes and support 100,000 green jobs. But by the time it was closed in March 2021, just 63,000 households had benefited and new Labour analysis has found that only 10,000 jobs were delivered.Shadow housing secretary Lucy Powell described the scheme as “a shambles from the start”.“Once again the government are over-promising and under-delivering, with their failures damaging our Covid recovery and costing vital jobs,” she said.“We urgently need to de-carbonise our homes, to create green jobs, reduce emissions and save people money on their bills and heating. Rather than scrapping the scheme and clawing back this vital funding, the government should invest in making homes warm, dry, cheaper to run and fit for the future.”Labour’s 2030 emissions target was the subject of bitter wrangling after the 2019 party conference backed a motion to “work towards a path to net zero carbon emissions by 2030” in the face of resistance from unions who warned that an inflexible target of zero could lead to mass job losses.No precise figure has been put on what a “substantial majority” of cuts would mean, though it is generally accepted it would be considerably more than the 68 per cent reductions on 1990 levels promised by Mr Johnson. Shadow business secretary Ed Miliband said in December that the 68 per cent figure was the “minimum we should aim for”.A spokesperson for the Labour for a Green New Deal (LGND) campaign told The Independent it should mean “as close to net zero as possible”.“A motion backing net zero by 2030 was passed at Labour Party conference, giving the leadership a clear mandate to achieve this,” said the spokesperson. “The party should respect the spirit of this commitment, and work to deliver it as closely as possible.” The LGND spokesperson said: “We welcome Keir Starmer recommitting to cut carbon emissions by 2030, but it’s urgent that he shows how he will achieve this. Meeting this goal will require bold, decisive action, and Labour’s 2019 manifesto offered a clear plan for how to do this.“Only a Labour government can tackle the climate crisis while building a fairer, more equal society. But this will only be possible if the leadership commits to a transformative Green New Deal, built around public ownership and state investment on a huge scale.“If the public are to have faith that Keir Starmer’s Labour Party can deliver decisive and drastic change for the sake of our climate, he must demonstrate this by committing to these policies now, not in 2024.”One of the signatories to last year’s letter, Corbyn-era shadow cabinet member Clive Lewis, told The Independent: “Keir’s comment is welcome, but he needs to be going further and faster. The 2019 commitments are two years out of date now. Times have moved on and we can see for ourselves what is happening, with the wildfires and floods.“Committing to the ‘substantial majority’ of emissions cuts by 2030 is the least we can expect. Joe Biden has been talking about making the corporations pay, and we really need to be out ahead of the Democrats on that sort of issue if Keir wants to have something to say at COP26 that will really show Boris Johnson up for the tin-pot climate leader he is.” More

The government’s Australia deal could lead to a similar trade pact with South America, where tropical forests are increasingly being razed for intensive farming, driving the climate crisis, environmentalists fear.And concerns have been raised that UK schoolchildren, hospital patients and restaurant and canteen customers could eat products from animals that have been treated in ways that would be illegal in the UK.The EU reached a deal in principle two years ago with the so-called Mercosur bloc of Latin American countries, covering tariffs and trade barriers.And ministers say the government’s trade deal with Australia will boost UK attempts to join the CPTPP trade alliance, which covers Pacific nations from Japan to Mexico.The UK Eurogroup taskforce – a coalition of animal-protection representatives – has warned the UK will follow the EU and end up funding ecologically damaging and cruel practices.The RSPCA sounded the alarm over the UK supporting lower standards when the Australia deal was imminent earlier this year.The Animal Equality organisation said a South America deal would “trigger further deforestation, put greater pressure on Brazilian biodiversity, and create an increased likelihood of zoonotic diseases arising and a significant reduction in the standards of imported products into Europe”.In the Amazon, swathes of land are routinely cleared to rear cattle for beef exports and to plant soya to feed them. The deforestation, biodiversity loss and human-rights violations in Brazil have prompted the UK, the EU and the US all to consider legal action.The forest loss creates even more of the emissions driving the climate crisis, because trees and vegetation soak up carbon.Last year figures showed a football pitch-size area of forest was lost every six seconds. Cornelia Maarfield, trade and climate project manager at the global Climate Action Network coalition, said the current trade pattern, even before any agreement, was already driving deforestation, and that future deals could make the problem even worse.She pointed to a report commissioned by the French government on the EU-Mercosur trade agreement showing that the growth of beef production in South America due to the EU-Mercosur deal would accelerate tree loss by at least 25 per cent a year and destroy 36,000 sq km of forest a year. “The report concludes that taking deforestation into account, the climate costs would outweigh the economic benefits,” she said.Intensive animal agriculture has repeatedly been linked to the risk of pandemics, with the world’s leading scientists calling for a worldwide cut in meat consumption.Claire Bass, executive director of Humane Society International/UK, said intensive farming practices in south and central America risked creating new diseases, and warned that any UK deal would go against the standards the public wanted.“The EU and UK have made significant progress in reversing some of the most egregious production practices in intensive animal agriculture such as confining hens in battery cages so small they are unable to even stretch their wings,” she said.“However, hundreds of millions of hens, pigs and other animals endure miserable lives of perpetual confinement in countries like Mexico and Brazil, including battery cages and sow stalls which have been banned in the UK for many years.”As well as being cruel, intensive confinement of farm animals was also linked to the generation of more virulent diseases because of the sheer number of animals crowded together in insanitary environments, she said.“Any trade policy that allows the import of animal products that do not comport to the animal welfare policies of the UK and EU simply prop up an industry that the public has already firmly rejected, and further undermine the science behind those decisions.”In Mexico sow stalls – banned in the UK since 1999 – are still legal, and most hens both there and in Brazil are kept in battery cages, banned in the UK since 2012 on welfare grounds, she said.EU experts last year in a report described Brazil’s regulations on slaughter and transport as “insufficient”. The World Animal Protection charity grades the country only as D – on a scale where A is the best and G the worst.It noted that the EU’s Food and Veterinary Organisation found Brazilian authorities “cannot guarantee that meat products exported to the EU have been produced in accordance with EU requirements”.Some substances are authorised in cattle that cannot be used in the EU, it reported.As far back as last year, a Compassion in World Farming briefing warned that Brazil was increasingly moving towards the use of feedlots, which “would completely undermine our farmers if these products were imported into the UK”.A spokesperson for the Trade and Animal Welfare Coalition, part of the Eurogroup for Animals, said: “The UK should be using its trade policy to promote better welfare internationally, not to further incentivise or outsource lower welfare and unsustainable production systems in other parts of the world, impacting wild animals as well.”A government spokesperson said: “In all of our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards,” the wording contained in the Conservatives’ manifesto. More

Boris Johnson has been urged to step up efforts to secure agreement on stemming global warming, amid concern in some corners of Whitehall over a lack of urgency ahead of a crucial international summit he will chair in November.With less than 100 days to go to the Glasgow conference, there were warnings that hopes of a landmark deal may be unravelling.And Mr Johnson’s independent climate change adviser warned it was time for him to use “every diplomatic lever” to secure pledges from fellow leaders on cutting emissions of greenhouse gases and financial support to help developing countries adapt.One Whitehall insider said the government’s response to the climate crisis would have been deadly if it had been applied to the pandemic, warning: “If we had the same approach on Covid, we would still be debating which groups would get the first vaccine trials. We are out of time.”A spokesperson for Alok Sharma, the minister Mr Johnson has appointed president of the Cop26 summit, insisted that progress was being made – with countries accounting for 70 per cent of world GDP now committed to net zero emissions or carbon neutrality. But the spokesperson acknowledged: “There is more to do.”A poll for The Independent found that a majority of UK voters do not trust Mr Johnson to reach a deal. And despite the prime minister’s claims to have put Cop26 at the heart of his agenda for 2021, some 50 per cent of those surveyed by Savanta ComRes said they knew little or nothing about the summit or its goals.The United Nations summit, co-hosted with Italy, will – Covid restrictions permitting – bring up to 30,000 people from 200 countries to Glasgow with the aim of improving on the breakthrough Paris Accord of 2015, which committed the world to keeping warming below 2C.Nations that are party to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change have been urged to come armed with ambitious 2030 emission reductions targets that align with reaching net zero carbon by the middle of the century and keeping a maximum 1.5C increase in temperatures within reach.And richer countries are under pressure to finally make good on an unmet promise to mobilise at least $100bn in climate finance per year by 2020 to help the developing world adapt and prepare.But lack of progress at last month’s Johnson-hosted G7 summit in Cornwall has already sparked alarm, with UN climate chief Patricia Espinosa declaring in its wake that the world was still “very far away from being fully confident of having a full success at Cop26” with no clear sign on when the financing pledge will be fulfilled.While the UK, EU, US and China have announced new and ambitious emission reduction goals, more than 90 countries are yet to set out new targets and others – like Brazil, Russia and Australia – have offered only minor adjustments their Paris promises.Today’s poll confirms strong public support for action on climate change, with almost three-quarters (73 per cent) rating the aims of net zero emissions by 2050 and a 1.5C limit to warming as very important. Some 60 per cent voiced confidence that action now could rein in heating, compared to just 10 per cent who thought mankind could do little or nothing to halt rising temperatures.And majorities said they were ready to make – or have already made – climate-friendly changes to their lifestyles, such as limiting themselves to one return flight a year (62 per cent), halving their clothing purchases (73 per cent) and cutting use of electronic devices (61 per cent).But just 42 per cent said they trusted Mr Johnson to get a deal on global warming, against 51 per cent who said he would not. Mr Sharma was trusted to get a deal by only 21 per cent, with 27 per cent saying they did not expect him to succeed and 51 per cent saying they had never heard of him. Only US president Joe Biden was trusted by more than half (53 per cent) to deliver.The chair of the government’s independent advisory Climate Change Committee, Lord Deben, told The Independent the UK must apply “the strongest possible leadership” to push for a positive result at Glasgow.“It is encouraging to see the British public recognise the urgency and show willingness to take actions to reduce emissions and adapt to climate change impacts,” said the Conservative peer, who served as John Gummer in the Thatcher and Major governments“The Glasgow Cop26 summit is absolutely critical to delivering on global climate action.“It is essential that the UK applies the strongest possible leadership from the very highest level of government and continues to set an example to other countries. We need to bring forward clear policies across all sectors to deliver our world leading targets, and use every diplomatic lever available to secure firm and ambitious commitments on emissions reductions and climate change finance.”Ed Miliband, who leads on Cop26 for Labour, said the lack of faith shown by voters in Mr Johnson’s ability to get a deal was “entirely justified”.He told The Independent: “Our credibility on the world stage rests on the example we set at home. And the example Boris Johnson is setting is being off track on our climate targets, failing to deliver a green recovery, and cutting the Green Homes Grant and vital overseas aid spending.“Cop26 is not the international photo opportunity the prime minister seems to think it is. It is a complex negotiation to achieve meaningful global action to prevent climate disaster, which requires commitment at home and hard diplomacy. In the less than 100 days left to Cop26, he must step up.”But a spokesperson for the UK’s Cop26 presidency insisted that Mr Sharma was putting in the diplomatic work to get results.“The Cop president-designate is working to ensure the summit is a success and all countries come to Glasgow prepared to commit to action which will limit global temperature  rise to 1.5C, enable communities and natural habitats to adapt to the impacts of climate change, and work together to deliver action,” said the spokesperson.“We are seeing progress. Countries representing around 70 per cent of the world’s economy have now committed to reaching net zero emissions or carbon neutrality. When the UK took the role of incoming Cop presidency in December 2019, coverage was just 26 per cent of world GDP.“There is more to do. We will continue to work tirelessly to raise climate ambition around the world and ensure Cop26 is successful, inclusive and protects our planet for future generations.”Greenpeace UK senior climate campaigner Ariana Densham said today’s poll showed that “the public aren’t being fooled, and neither will other world leaders”. “Unless a barrage of plans, policies and cash for meeting our climate commitments is provided over the next three months, there’s a risk that the government’s lack of credibility as chair of the talks means it’ll all unravel in Glasgow,” she said.“People are overwhelmingly concerned about climate change and there’s a clear public mandate for bold action to slash emissions, so what’s the government waiting for?”Connor Schwartz, climate lead at Friends of the Earth, said: “It’s no wonder people are confused about what this government wants from the climate summit. The government tells other countries to reduce emissions, while investing $1bn in a gas mega-project in Mozambique. It says the rest of the world should ditch coal power, yet hasn’t pulled the plug on a new deep coal mine in Cumbria.“This polling shows that people know we are facing a climate crisis. They understand what’s at stake, and they want the most powerful person in the country to act, not just talk.” More

A Tory MP has labelled a £550,900 bonus for the chief executive of Southern Water “ridiculous” after the company was recently fined £90 million for dumping sewage illegally.Ian McAuley’s total renumeration, including salary and other benefits, is closer to £1 million and was revealed in the company’s Annual Report.Ashford MP Damian Green told the BBC he was “very angry” about the sum of money. He added: “Getting a bonus when your company is being fined £90m is ridiculous.”Earlier this month Southern Water pleaded guilty to 6,971 unpermitted sewage discharges – the equivalent to one pipe leaking continuously for seven years.Tonnes of sewage polluted rivers and coastal waters in Kent, Hampshire and Sussex between 2010 and 2015, a court heard.Passing sentence, the Honourable Mr Justice Johnson said, of the formal 51 guilty pleas, that the company’s behaviour had been “shocking”.Bosses deliberately painted a misleading picture of compliance to the Environment Agency, which brought the criminal prosecution, Canterbury Crown Court heard.And some of the dumping hit conservation sites, causing major environmental harm to shellfish waters.The criminal prosecution follows a £126 million penalty on SouthernWater in 2019 as a result of the company’s regulatory failings over the same period.At the time Mr McAulay said the company was “deeply sorry” for the “historical incidents” that led to the sentencing and fine.The company was also ranked as one of the worst water companies for environmental performance in an annual report from the Environmental Agency.The missive from the government agency has found that none of the nine English water and sewerage companies had achieved all the environmental expectations set out for them for 2015 to 2020.But Southern Water and South West Water were the worst for environmental performance, with the Environment Agency warning their performance in looking after the environment has been “unacceptable”.A spokesperson for Southern Water said: “The fine covers 2010 -2015 while Ian McAulay joined in 2017 with a mandate to transform the company. “As the transformation continues and at his own request Ian’s base salary has remained unchanged at £435,000 for the last three years. “He also requested a reduction in bonus range two years ago and this was implemented. “His bonus reflects the progress made in the business as well as reflecting the challenges the business faces and areas where targets were not achieved. “Additional reporting by PA More

Boris Johnson’s promise of more than £11bn to help poorer countries adapt to the climate emergency will be paid for by even deeper cuts to the UK’s other overseas aid projects, The Independent has learned.Failure to provide fresh funding leaves the prime minister’s claim to be leading the world on the environment in tatters ahead of hosting the Cop26 summit in the autumn, campaigners say.It also breaks a United Nations-brokered agreement that the cash must be “new and additional”, they claim, with one likening it to “a bailiff leaving a bunch of flowers”.The government has been criticised on all sides for its existing £4bn-a-year aid cuts, with a project in Malawi to help farmers adapt to climate change among the latest to have fallen victim. At least three similar schemes are expected to follow.The World Health Organisation has already warned that “hundreds of thousands of people” will die from the cuts, amid fury that MPs have been denied the vote on the move they were promised.In Cornwall last month, the prime minister hailed his £11.6bn climate commitment to the developing world – spread over 5 years – and vowed to pester other countries to stump up cash before Cop26 in Glasgow.“We, as the rich nations of the Earth, we need to build our credibility with those countries in asking them to make cuts in CO2,” he said- in relation to contributions to a hoped-for $100bn UN annual fund.“Because this country, which started the Industrial Revolution, is responsible for a huge budget of carbon that’s already in the atmosphere.”But the government has now quietly conceded that the entire £11.6bn – worth around £2.3bn each year, between 2021 and 2026 – will come from official development assistance (ODA), the aid budget.Mr Johnson is already under fire for breaking a promise to give MPs a vote on the decision to slash aid spending from 0.7 to 0.5 per cent of national output, swiping £4bn a year from the pot.Catherine Pettengell, UK director of the Climate Action Network, said the promise of “new and additional” resources for the flagship UN Climate Adaptation Fund was being broken.“Reducing the aid budget, while at the same time drawing on it as the only source of climate finance, will inevitably harm the most vulnerable in society,” she said.Tracy Carty, Oxfam’s senior climate adviser, said: “We welcome the UK’s commitment to climate finance, but when it’s coming from a declining aid budget it’s a bit like your bailiff leaving a bunch of flowers.”And Preet Gill, the shadow international development secretary, condemned “empty greenwashing” that would hit “the world’s most vulnerable people and weaken their ability to take action on the climate crisis”.The revelation that no new money will be made available comes after the government’s independent climate advisers warned the aid cuts are already “undermining” the climate finance pledge.The Prosper (Promoting Sustainable Partnerships for Empowered Resilience) project in Malawi is working with farmers to “reduce the impact of climate shocks” through new agricultural practices, better irrigation and early warning systems.But the £25m scheme, funded from the government’s Building Resilience and Adapting to Climate Change (BRACC) programme, has now been axed, despite being given an A** rating – forcing staff redundancies and the closure of four district offices.“The cut has dealt a severe blow to our efforts to build the resilience of extremely poor communities in Malawi to adapt and cope with climate shocks such as droughts,” said Danny Harvey, executive director of the aid agency Concern Worldwide.The world’s richest countries first committed to spending $100bn a year on a Climate Adaptation Fund to help poor nations adapt to global heating way back in 2009 – but only $79bn has been raised.The UK is seen as being “somewhere in the middle” of the G7, behind France, Germany, Japan and Canada, but ahead of the US and Italy.The fund recognises the “guilt” of industrialised nations – for centuries of carbon emissions – and is meant to help developing countries protect themselves against the devastating effects of global heating, while cutting their own emissions.At Cancun in 2010, the Cop16 summit, rich countries promised funding would be “new and additional”, noting the “urgent and immediate needs of developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change”.But the government has now revealed that the entire £11.6bn counts as ODA – meaning no extra funding will be brought forward.Furthermore, only £1.4bn will be allocated to climate finance in 2021-22, raising fears that most of the spending will be left to the end of the five-year period.But, in Cornwall, Mr Johnson suggested the UK had gone as far as it intends to, saying: “We are now asking other countries to make a change.“We are going to be on everybody’s case between now and the summer, and on into the autumn, to get those commitments and to make sure that we get the world into the right place for Cop.”The Foreign Office defended the arrangement on the grounds that the “international climate finance commitments are new and additional to any previous commitments” to the UN fund.“While the seismic impact of the pandemic on the UK economy has forced us to take tough but necessary decisions, the UK aid budget this year will still be more than £10bn, making us one of the biggest donors in the G7,” a spokesperson said. More

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