UK policies to cut carbon emissions fall short of national and international commitments, the government admitted today.
Environmental campaigners are now considering whether to take the government back to court.
Ministers had until tomorrow to publish a revised version of its flagship net zero strategy after it lost a legal challenge brought by Friends of the Earth, ClientEarth and the Good Law Project.
The net zero strategy was supposed to produce detailed policies to show how the government would reach net zero emissions by 2050.
But the High Court ruled last July that the strategy was unlawful because it was not detailed enough to meet the requirements of the Climate Change Act.
The new version, called Powering up Britain, was published today, along with more than 40 other government documents, totalling more than 2,800 pages.
Friends of the Earth, ClientEarth and the Good Law Project said their lawyers were looking at the documents. They said they would take further legal action if the new plans fell short.
During today, the government announced dozens of measures including:
- Investment in underground carbon capture usage and storage
- £30m help to boost manufacturing and supply of heat pumps
- £350m+ to increase the number of electric vehicle charging points
- Confirmation of previously-announced £240m for green hydrogen projects
- Commitment to insulate about 300,000 of the poorest performing homes
- Changes to the way people are billed for home energy
- Moving green levies on electricity prices to gas
- Expansion of investment opportunities in offshore wind
But according to one of the government’s documents, quantified proposals were not enough to meet the legally-binding sixth carbon budget or the UK’s international commitment on emissions reductions.
The carbon delivery plan, also published today, confirmed that quantified policies would give 97% of the carbon savings required to meet the sixth carbon budget, covering 2033-37. This means the country is off-track by about 32 mega tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e).
The UK has also committed, under the Paris climate agreement, to cut carbon emissions by 68% by 2030, compared with 1990 levels. This is known as a nationally determined contribution, or NDC.
The current quantified plans won’t meet this target either. The carbon delivery plan said:
“We have quantified emissions savings to deliver 88 megatonnes or 92% of the NDC.
“We are confident that the delivery of emissions savings by unquantified policies detailed in this package will largely close this gap and the government will bring forward further measures to ensure [it] will meet its international commitments if required.”
Campaigners have criticised the plan for missing out what they regard as key proposals. These include the call by Chris Skidmore, the reviewer of the net zero strategy, to bring forward a ban on routine flaring on oil and gas fields from 2030 to 2025.
The government said today it had already had “ambitious plans” to end routine flaring and venting by 2030.
Campaigners also criticised the government for failing to put in place a comprehensive home insulation programme or lift the effective ban on onshore wind turbines.
Mike Childs, head of policy at Friends of the Earth, said:
“It is deeply troubling that, by its own admission, the government’s quantified plans don’t fully meet legal targets for reducing UK emissions, let alone the deeper cuts that Prime Minister Rishi Sunak promised at international climate talks just four months ago.
“One obvious area of failing is home insulation where deep emissions cuts could be made quickly if the government funded a rapid energy efficiency programme, as recommended by the government’s own climate advisors.
“Friends of the Earth lawyers will be scrutinising the 1000+ pages of documentation very closely and, if necessary, are ready to take legal action again.
“Given the scale of the climate crisis and the devastating impacts of extreme weather around the world, experts are clear that these targets are the absolute minimum of the urgent action needed.”
The Good Law Project said:
“The government has a moral and legal duty to get this right. So, at a first glance, it is disappointing to see that a number of the policies announced today have either been recycled from previous pledges or are not backed up by proper investment.”
Labour’s climate and net zero spokesperson, Ed Miliband, told MPs:
“A target for less than seven years’ time, and they [the government] are miles off … all of the policies, all of the hot air, don’t meet the target they promised on the world stage.”
Wera Hobhouse, the Lib Dem energy and climate change spokesperson, said:
“The Conservatives cannot be trusted to make Britain greener, but they can be trusted on poor ambition and lacklustre policy that favours the expensive fossil fuel industry. Investment in cheaper renewables is the only way forward, for the economy and for the planet.”
Chris Venables, head of politics at the Green Alliance thinktank, said:
“Our analysis shows that even that 92% is a very generous reading. It is hard to celebrate an announcement that says itself it’s not enough. The bottom line is that this plan doesn’t plot a route to net zero. There are only so many times we can claim climate leadership while falling short of our own targets.”
Tessa Khan, executive director of Uplift, said:
“The measures put forward today are disappointing, not least the absence of ambitious but easily achievable policies on insulation and onshore wind, which would permanently lower energy bills.
“But today’s announcements are only half of the picture. The government is deliberately staying silent on its oil and gas expansion plans, presumably because Ministers know that they won’t lower bills, will require huge subsidies, go against the UK’s climate obligations and are unpopular with the public.”
DRILL OR DROP? 
Reblogged this on Wessex Solidarity.
Einstein’s definition of insanity fully applicable.
Blinded by ideology, and greed, they simply don’t get it. Blinded by ideology, and greed, they never will.
We, who know, keep our heads in the sand, too fearful to take the obvious steps.
Hallelujah!
Those who know can take the obvious steps.
Do not be fearful. Get your heads out of the sand.
Lesson from Martin 1: Verse 1.
Yes, it is April 1st.
Climate Targets: Targets presumed by who exactly?? Haha…
Hope this doesn’t stop people sleeping at night……..
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/04/revealed-uae-plans-huge-oil-and-gas-expansion-as-it-hosts-un-climate-summit
“The United Arab Emirates, which is hosting this year’s UN climate summit, has the third biggest net zero-busting plans for oil and gas expansion in the world, the Guardian can reveal. Its plans are surpassed only by Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
The CEO of the UAE’s national oil company, Adnoc, has been controversially appointed president of the UN’s Cop28 summit in December, which is seen as crucial with time running out to end the climate crisis. But Sultan Al Jaber is overseeing expansion to produce oil and gas equivalent to 7.5bn barrels of oil, according to new data, 90% of which would have to remain in the ground to meet the net zero scenario set out by the International Energy Agency.
Adnoc is the world’s 11th biggest oil and gas producer and delivered more than a billion barrels of oil equivalent (BBOE) in 2021. However, the company has big short-term expansion plans, the new analysis shows, with plans to add 7.6 BBOE to its production portfolio in the coming years – the fifth largest increase in the world.
The United Arab Emirates, which is hosting this year’s UN climate summit, has the third biggest net zero-busting plans for oil and gas expansion in the world, the Guardian can reveal. Its plans are surpassed only by Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
The CEO of the UAE’s national oil company, Adnoc, has been controversially appointed president of the UN’s Cop28 summit in December, which is seen as crucial with time running out to end the climate crisis. But Sultan Al Jaber is overseeing expansion to produce oil and gas equivalent to 7.5bn barrels of oil, according to new data, 90% of which would have to remain in the ground to meet the net zero scenario set out by the International Energy Agency.
Adnoc is the world’s 11th biggest oil and gas producer and delivered more than a billion barrels of oil equivalent (BBOE) in 2021. However, the company has big short-term expansion plans, the new analysis shows, with plans to add 7.6 BBOE to its production portfolio in the coming years – the fifth largest increase in the world.”
The Abu Dhabi National Oil Company or ADNOC is the State-owned oil company of the United Arab Emirates. It is the world’s 12th largest oil company by production. As of 2021, the company has an oil production capacity exceeding 4 million b/d with plans to increase to 5 million bpd by 2030.
Would that speculation of people being kept awake at night be due the inevitable pollution or the burning forests and continents?
Or perhaps the wishful thinking of people being kept awake at night is just speculation?
Since after all, speculation is the basis of oil and gas exploration isnt it.
I do note the burning forests.
A lot seem to burn in USA as a result of faulty electricity distribution (Pacific Gas and Electric to go on trial in California for manslaughter following forest fires in 2020) and in other countries forests being burned to make way for sugar cane to produce fuel. Then there are the forests being burned in this country-at Drax.
All within countries with reserves of oil and gas.
No, Paul, it is the cold that stops me sleeping at night, or the thought of my energy bill if I try and deal with the cold.
Et quel type de combustible génère le plus d’électricité pour que les câbles électriques se déchargent sur les arbres ? [une phrase diacritique si jamais j’en ai vu une]. Ce ne serait pas les “combustibles fossiles”, n’est-ce pas ? Et peut-être un peu d’énergie éolienne et solaire ? Sauf que, comme certains aiment à le répéter continuellement, “pas quand le vent ne souffle pas”. – Pas quand le vent ne souffle pas ou que le soleil ne brille pas” [bien que l’un puisse se produire sans l’autre, ce qui fait que l’équation n’est pas complète].
Le principal coupable, au pays de la spéculation et de la tromperie, doit donc être les combustibles fossiles ? Les combustibles fossiles ? Sans eux, il n’y aurait pas d’électricité dans les câbles.
Quant à la vérité sur les incendies de forêt provoqués par les câbles électriques aériens, les faits mentionnés dans le lien ci-dessous ne semblent pas du tout en tenir compte ? Hmm ? Cela implique-t-il un certain degré de “spéculation” de la part de l’auteur ? Il semblerait que oui.
Cependant, quelles sont les causes principales de la plupart des incendies de forêt dans le monde ?
Quelles sont les causes des incendies de forêt ? – *’ – https://earth.org/what-causes-wildfires/ – ‘*. Les orages et la foudre sont les principales causes des incendies de forêt, avec un petit pourcentage d’incendies volontaires, de fumeurs négligents, de barbecues, etc.
Curieusement, les câbles électriques aériens ne sont même pas mentionnés ?
Quant aux véhicules de secours internationaux ? [une autre phrase diacritique déclencheuse qui émerge habituellement].
Qu’en est-il des sommes considérables consacrées aux armes, aux chars, aux munitions, aux bombardiers, au napalm, aux gaz neurotoxiques, aux explosifs et à la mort ?
Quel serait le rapport quantitatif ? Plus pour la mort que pour la recherche et le sauvetage ? Voilà un défi pour ceux qui aiment les statistiques. Curieusement, je n’ai pas trouvé de citations pour la recherche et le sauvetage. Mais la concentration sur le commerce de la mort, en termes monétaires, n’est que très médiatisée. –
Dépenses militaires par pays. – *” – https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/military-spending-by-country – “*
Cependant, les guerres et les meurtres institutionnalisés financés par les contribuables détruisent en fait les infrastructures de production et de distribution d’électricité ? Cela réduirait-il donc les incendies de forêt ? Sauf que, bien sûr, les guerres et les bombes, les meurtres et les fusils, les armes lourdes et la pyrotechnie destructrice peuvent détruire des pays entiers en quelques mois seulement, comme cela a été démontré tout récemment.
Voilà qui donne à réfléchir. Mais il ne s’agit pas d’une spéculation, mais plutôt d’une certitude absolue concernant la mort.
Traduit avec http://www.DeepL.com/Translator (version gratuite)
En Anglaise –
And what type of fuel generates most electricity to cause electricity cables discharging into trees? [a diacritic trigger phrase if ever I saw one]. It wouldn’t be ‘fossil fuels’ would it? Oh? And perhaps a little wind and solar generation? Except that, as some like to continually interject. – ‘Not when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine’ [though one can occur without the other, so it’s not a complete equation].
So the main culprit, in that land of speculation and deceit. Must be fossil fuels? Without which there would be no electricity running through the cables.
As for the truth about forest fires being caused by overhead electricity cables, the facts below in the link, appear not to count that at all? Hmm? Does that imply a degree of ‘speculation’ on that part, then? It would appear so.
However, what are the real major causes of most forest fires worldwide?
‘What Causes Wildfires?’ – *’ – https://earth.org/what-causes-wildfires/ – ‘*. Thunderstorms and lightening are the main causes of forest fires, with a small percentage of deliberate arson, careless smokers, and BBQ’s etc.
Strangely enough, overhead electricity cables aren’t even mentioned?
As for international rescue vehicles? [another diacritic trigger phrase that usually emerges].
How about the vast amount of money spent upon weapons and tanks, and munitions, bombers and napalm, nerve gas, explosives and death?
What would the quantitive relationship be? More for death dealing than for search and rescue? There is a challenge for those who enjoy statistics. Strangely enough, [again] I couldn’t find any quotes for search and rescue. But the concentration on death dealing, in monetary terms, is only well publicised. –
‘Military spending by country.’ – *’ – https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/military-spending-by-country – ‘*
However, wars and institutionalised taxpayer funded murder actually destroys power generation and distribution infrastructure? So would that reduce the forest fires? Except of course, wars and bombs, murder and guns, heavy weapons and destructive pyrotechnics can destroy entire countries in just few months as has been demonstrated only too recently.
Now there is a sobering thought. But not from speculation, more of an absolute death dealing certainty.
Well, that was a lot of the usual nonsense. The clue was in California!
As for weapons, my comments have been around natural disasters. Weaponizing natural disasters? Hmmm, it was bound to happen. Oh, it did, with Turkey being used.
[edited by moderator]
Usual deflection and distortion attempted by YYL. Usual pattern, started with hospitals, then Ohio, then feeding cows, now wars.
[Edited by moderator]
Has there once been any attempt at supporting the wild claims with facts, links to documents, verification, or any proof of the unsubstantiated claims, at all? Even once? In spite of all the facts and links that I provide at every occasion? No.
So it would be useful to look at the Los Angeles situation from ‘The Guardian’ – ‘PG&E confesses to killing 84 people in 2018 California fire as part of guilty plea.’ wouldn’t it. Unfortunately, yet again, no link was provided, and therefore could not be checked. So in my rarely used best American accent and suit, I actually did some research, rather than allow an unsubstantiated claim to proceed unchallenged. Here are two links to the California case in court – *’ – https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jun/16/pge-california-wildfire-camp-fire-paradise-guilty-plea – ‘*
And from ‘The Los Angeles Times’ – ‘PG&E to face manslaughter trial over deadly California fire’ – *’ – https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2023-02-02/pg-e-manslaughter-trial-california-zogg-fire – ‘*. So now you can actually view the evidence for yourselves.
So you may ask, what is so sensitive to the writer above, that the link was not even mentioned, so you could research the facts and the truth?
To explain, there are two events represented, not one, and each one is referring to a different event –
Perhaps the stumbling blocks originate from these quotes from –
‘The Guardian’ and ‘The Los Angeles Times’ –
From The Guardian – ‘The Camp fire killed 85 people and destroyed more than 18,000 buildings, including 14,000 homes.’ – ‘The Camp fire’? Refers to the 2018 event and appears to mention a ‘Camp fire’?
And from The Los Angeles Times refers to the 2020 event, –
‘State fire officials said the blaze began when a pine tree fell into a PG&E distribution line. The California Public Utilities Commission last year proposed fining PG&E more than $155 million, saying it had failed to take down the tree, one of two that had been marked for removal.’ So it was the failure to cut down an overhanging tree over [unspecified] equipment that was the fault of that fire.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not attempting to minimise the resulting deaths and devastation, and the undoubted horror of those events. They were truly awful. But where is the mention of overhead power cables being the fault? A ‘Camp Fire’ and a ‘Fallen Tree’ that should have been removed.
Perhaps our ‘ dear honest friend and colleague and helpful writer’ could help us all over of those undoubted stumbling hurdles and show us the truth of the claims that they were ‘overhead power cables’ that caused these events? Because in my apparently poor attempt at research, even with my best American accent and suit, I don’t see any corroboration that they were just a fallen tree and a camp fire that caused these fires?
Peut-être que le spéculateur général de Wytch Farm peut nous éclairer si l’affaire judiciaire suggérée indique réellement un cas de câbles électriques aériens causant les incendies ou non?
[Edited by moderator]
I believe in my post I not only mentioned California but also 2020, as I have done previously. Yes, the California with much of its energy produced by renewables. Dangerous stuff this renewable energy electricity-when there are issues with maintenance. Sounds familiar to me.
Strange contrast with Ohio though where it is not the train to blame but the stuff being carried!
Unlike Clara, I will not be off to a convent.