Category: Environment

  • Michael Heseltine – 1991 Statement on Energy Efficiency at the Department for the Environment

    Michael Heseltine – 1991 Statement on Energy Efficiency at the Department for the Environment

    The statement made by Michael Heseltine, the then Secretary of State for the Environment, in the House of Commons on 30 January 1991.

    Since 1985, energy efficiency in my Department has been promoted by monitoring its fuel and utilities consumption, the establishment of energy conservation targets, the implementation of energy saving schemes, including the installation of more energy efficient lighting and improved computerised building management control systems, and the promotion of staff awareness relating to their energy usage and role in its conservation.

    Further measures include the proposed replacement of the building research establishment heating system and the installation of lighting controls and low-energy-consuming luminaries in headquarters buildings in London and Bristol.

    Over the four-year period ending March 1990, the energy bill for my Department’s office estate (excluding the Property Services Agency and Property Holdings) was reduced by approximately 30 per cent. Whilst figures for the current financial year will not be available until May 1991, my Department expects to achieve further savings of 3 per cent. over 1989–90.

  • Michael Heseltine – 1991 Speech on Oil Pollution in the Gulf

    Michael Heseltine – 1991 Speech on Oil Pollution in the Gulf

    The statement made by Michael Heseltine, the then Secretary of State for the Environment, in the House of Commons on 28 January 1991.

    Mr. Speaker, with permission I will make a statement about the United Kingdom response to the environmental damage taking place in the Gulf.

    The oil spill in the Gulf appears to be the largest ever. It is 35 miles long by 10 miles wide. It appears to contain some 8 million barrels of oil and it is moving down the Gulf at 15 to 20 miles per day. Words are inadequate to condemn the callousness and irresponsibility of the action of Saddam Hussein in deliberately unleashing this environmental catastrophe.

    There is a threat to desalination plants and fresh water supplies, to birds and other wildlife, to fish, sea mammals and shellfish, and to local communities dependent for their livelihoods on the sea.

    With our allies, the United Kingdom is playing a full part in the world’s response to this abomination.

    First, we must stem the flow of oil. The United States has already acted on this decisively and, we believe and hope, effectively.

    Secondly, we must assess the way in which the oil may flow so that we can assess likely consequences. Action is in hand in the Gulf itself to do that. To supplement it, United Kingdom scientific resources are already being mobilised. Existing computer models at the Meteorological Office and Proudman oceanographic laboratory are being urgently adapted to help give the best possible predictions of the likely behaviour of the slick in the Gulf.

    Thirdly, we need to assess possible effects on marine life. The United States is already sending experts. The Natural Environment Research Council is co-ordinating urgent work to bring together here in the United Kingdom information that we have on marine life and effects that could be useful in the Gulf.

    Fourthly, in common with other countries, the United Kingdom is taking practical steps to help to protect desalination plants and sensitive coastal areas and inlets. The airlift of an initial 70 tonnes of equipment from the stores maintained by the oil industry will go ahead today, with a further flight tomorrow. Further material will be available if needed. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is looking sympathetically at requests that we have received from the Saudi Government for the loan of small numbers of skilled pollution control experts and advisers. We anticipate being able to respond later today. The Department of Transport will meet European Community colleagues tomorrow to consider whether the Community should send in its standing task force of national experts on oil pollution response. We shall be urging strongly that it should do so.

    For the longer term, the United Kingdom is considering now how it will be able to help with the clean-up and restoration of the habitats and human settlements affected once it is safe to do so. We are making arrangements to assess and bring together the contribution that United Kingdom bodies outside Government, whether public, private or voluntary, can make.

    The first responsibility for dealing with the environmental problems facing the Gulf lies with the Gulf states themselves. We do not yet know what final form the arrangements for co-ordinating their efforts will take: matters are still developing fast. But, whatever they may be, the United Kingdom stands ready to play its full and immediate part. We shall be in touch later today with Saudi Arabia and the other states most closely involved with a first indication of the help that we can offer.

    Meanwhile, the United Nations Environment Programme is today announcing its intention to take a lead on improving environmental communications and co-ordinating technical expertise. I have been in touch with UNEP to establish what we can offer by way of expert staff or other help.

    On Wednesday, the Environment Ministers of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development meet in Paris. I shall be calling then for all OECD members to respond to this disaster and to take action according to their experience, equipment and skills to offer help to the Gulf states likely to be affected. But there is a wider issue. It is not only war that creates risks. It seems important to recognise the ongoing dangers of environmental calamity which arise from time to time which go way beyond national frontiers.

    I mean to raise with OECD colleagues the proposal that we should set up a working party to recommend what more effective preparations we could undertake to cope with these disasters. I have in mind that there should be a register setting out available expertise and available facilities on which affected nations could draw in times of crisis. In this context, we shall be pressing for an early conclusion to the work already in hand in the International Maritime Organisation to put into effect a full-scale international convention on preparedness and response in relation to oil pollution and to set up regional centres to pool resources.

    The whole House will be appalled at the environmental damage threatening the Gulf. The Government are determined to do all they reasonably can to assist those faced with the consequences of this outrage. We also intend to inject a new urgency into consideration of the wider issues raised by environmental threats that require co-ordination above the national level.

  • Michael Heseltine – 1990 Statement on the Number of Prosecutions Undertaken by the National Rivers Authority

    Michael Heseltine – 1990 Statement on the Number of Prosecutions Undertaken by the National Rivers Authority

    The statement made by Michael Heseltine, the then Secretary of State for the Environment, in the House of Commons on 12 December 1990.

    I understand that the National Rivers Authority brought 3,997 successful prosecutions for all types of offences during its first year of operation. Of these, 3,549 were for fisheries offences, 370 for water pollution offences, 59 for navigational offences and 19 for water resources offences. I shall be reviewing progress with Lord Crickhowell in the near future.

    I attach great importance to securing improvements in environmental standards wherever they are needed. We have established an environmental and economic framework within which decisions will be taken.

  • Jo Churchill – 2022 Speech on the Deposit Return Scheme

    Jo Churchill – 2022 Speech on the Deposit Return Scheme

    The speech made by Jo Churchill, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, in the House of Commons on 26 May 2022.

    If you will indulge me, Mr Deputy Speaker, on the day of the Humble Address to Her Majesty, I wish to add my voice and those of the constituents of Bury St Edmunds to the voices of others in this place who have expressed their deep appreciation of and thanks for Her Majesty’s dedication, kindness, good humour and service to our nation. She has visited our great county on many occasions and I know that we will celebrate, as the rest of the country will, with bunting and fanfare over the coming week. I am looking forward to judging a fancy dress competition in one of my lovely villages.

    As a long-term advocate for our natural environment, Her Majesty, I am sure, would be extremely interested in the important subject that we are discussing today. On that note, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) for securing this debate and for the opportunity to discuss the Government’s plans for introducing a deposit return scheme for drinks containers.

    As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, there is an awful lot going on in this space, driven by our resources and waste strategy and the powers that we took in the Environment Act 2021, which was passed last November. With that in mind, we are proud to be driving forward work across the collection and packaging reforms, which is made up of the deposit return scheme, the extended producer responsibility for packaging and the increased consistency in recycling collections in England to which he referred.

    The DRS is pivotal to this Government’s commitment to increasing recycling rates. However, we should not overlook that it will provide other benefits. In particular, it will deliver high-quality recyclate for recycling; enable the drinks industry to close the loop on its packaging; help move the UK towards the circular economy, where resources are kept in use longer and waste is minimised, taking us away from that linear throwaway society; deter the littering of in-scope containers; reduce the associated damage to wildlife and habitats; and therefore promote pro-environmental consumer behaviours, with potential knock-on effects on other positive environmental activities.

    My hon. Friend has raised some important concerns on behalf of the industry. I want to be clear that our ambition is to introduce a deposit return scheme that works for everyone—for the consumer and across the industries. I know that, in many of our households, across the UK, drinks packaged in metal cans are drunk regularly. For that reason, we all recognise that those cans—light, sturdy, and convenient for storage and transport—have intrinsic qualities that will always make them desirable to consumers and the product of choice. We are of course mindful that any cost to people’s purses, or businesses is particularly tough in the current environment, but we do want to introduce policies that encourage recycling and reduce the amount of litter that blights our environment.

    Although DRS is a complex policy to introduce, requiring the efforts of multiple industries, in one way, we are lucky. As my hon. Friend said, there are 40 other deposit return schemes out there, in other nations, from which we can learn. Not only are we drawing on the experiences of the roll-out of DRS in Scotland to inform implementation and planning, but I had the pleasure of meeting the Environment Minister from Lithuania, where a scheme was also recently introduced. I have plans to visit Norway shortly to find out more about its deposit return scheme. Norway has not included glass in its scheme, and nor have the Netherlands or Sweden. I note that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is no longer in his place, but I understand that southern Ireland, in its plans for a scheme, is contemplating excluding glass. There is, therefore, a mixture of schemes out there.

    I recognise that there are deposit return schemes with different scope across the United Kingdom, given that glass is excluded in England and Northern Ireland, but we remain totally committed to working with the devolved Administrations to ensure that there is a completely coherent, interoperable system across the UK.

    Excluding glass offers us an opportunity to look at how we incentivise reusable schemes for glass. Those containers that are not within the deposit return scheme are within the extended producer responsibility scheme, so exclusion does not in any way mean that we are not making policy to improve the reuse, recycling and resource efficiency of those things. On the question of VAT, as my hon. Friend would expect, we are in discussion with Her Majesty’s Treasury. I have met the Financial Secretary on this matter in the recent past, as has the Secretary of State.

    Ultimately, DEFRA’s ambitious collections and packaging reform agenda cannot be delivered by Government alone. The deposit return scheme will be an industry-led scheme. For that reason we, alongside colleagues in the devolved Administrations, continue to work closely with all relevant sectors to implement a scheme that is as coherent and aligned as we can make it.

    I take this opportunity to thank all those who have fed into the consultations, and those who continue to be generous with their insights and expertise into what is positive about schemes they run and where they think we can improve. That will ensure that we deliver a successful deposit return scheme in England.

  • Philip Hollobone – 2022 Speech on the Deposit Return Scheme

    Philip Hollobone – 2022 Speech on the Deposit Return Scheme

    The speech made by Philip Hollobone, the Conservative MP for Kettering, in the House of Commons on 26 May 2022.

    Thank you very much indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker. What a pleasure it is to see you in the Chair. I should also like to thank Mr Speaker for granting me permission for this debate, and to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), to her place on the Front Bench.

    The issue before us today is Her Majesty’s Government’s proposed deposit return scheme for drinks containers, whereby consumers will pay a small levy upon purchasing a drink, which is then refunded once the container is returned to a collection point. Specifically, I wish to raise my serious concern that glass bottles are to be excluded from the scheme. The omission of glass represents a real and serious threat to the effectiveness with which a deposit return scheme in England and Northern Ireland can realistically be delivered. Quite simply, its exclusion would be a catastrophe for our natural spaces as we all look to stem the tide of drink container pollution. It also represents the direct betrayal of a promise made by the Conservative party to voters at the last general election, when we said in the manifesto that we would introduce a deposit return scheme for both plastic and glass drinks containers. I wish to use this debate today to urge Her Majesty’s Government to rectify this as a matter of urgency and to immediately revisit the scheme’s design so as to include drinks containers made from glass.

    In 2019, the Conservative party laid out its ambitions for the future of our country in its election-winning manifesto, which attracted 60% support in the Kettering constituency. Central to our aspirations was positioning Britain as a world leader in rising to the environmental challenges that are facing our planet today. One of the challenges identified was how we manage and process waste, and in particular, combating the growing problem of discarded waste, of which drinks containers are a large part. In that manifesto, the Conservative party outlined plans for a world-class deposit return scheme for drinks containers in a bid to minimise their impact on the environment. The manifesto said:

    “We will crack down on the waste and carelessness that destroys our natural environment and kills marine life. We will introduce a deposit return scheme to incentivise people to recycle plastic and glass.”

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

    Mr Hollobone

    I would be honoured and delighted.

    Jim Shannon

    I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward this debate. In my council area of Ards and North Down, the council has a strategy and a plan of action for recycling. It includes many kinds of recycling and it tries not to leave anyone out of any part of it. The hon. Gentleman is saying that glass needs to be part of that programme, and that that needs to be a commitment. In my council area, each household has a glass return system and a plastic basin to put the glass into. They can also go to recycling centres, which are probably no further than three miles from any person. Those are examples of what we are doing in Northern Ireland, where there is a clear commitment, a strategy and a plan through the council, and across the Northern Ireland Assembly as well. Would he like to see more of those kinds of strategies?

    Mr Hollobone

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful and interesting intervention, and I commend his local council for its recycling efforts. There are similar schemes across the four nations, but as I will come on to later in my remarks, the problem with leaving glass out of the deposit return scheme is that it will be a missed opportunity to increase overall glass recycling rates to the best international standards. At the moment, my understanding is that the Government’s proposal for the deposit return scheme in England and Northern Ireland will be different from the deposit return schemes in Scotland and Wales, which will include glass. One of the difficulties is that there will be different deposit return schemes in different parts of the United Kingdom.

    Jim Shannon

    Again, to illustrate the point and support what the hon. Gentleman is saying, the recycling schemes in our council area have, in a way, reached their peak. That is a problem. I think he is referring to something that I would fully support—I know the Minister will give her comments on the matter later—which is some way of raising awareness of the fact that there would be a reimbursement advantage for people who are prepared to recycle their glass. In anticipation of what the Minister will say, I will take a copy of the Hansard report of this debate and make sure that I show it to the relevant Minister at the Northern Ireland Assembly so that they can do the very same.

    Mr Hollobone

    As usual across so many issues, the hon. Gentleman and I are on the same page. My contention is that the United Kingdom will not be able to achieve the best international glass recycling levels unless glass is included in the deposit return scheme.

    As Conservatives, we made a vow to voters to introduce a scheme that serves the public and Britain’s precious natural habitats. However, Her Majesty’s Government have so far committed to introducing, by 2024, a deposit return scheme across England and Northern Ireland inclusive of only plastic bottles and aluminium cans. Glass is a glaring omission.

    A huge 86% of respondents to the Government’s first consultation on the deposit return scheme said they want glass to be included but, despite this overwhelming majority support from technical experts, charities, scientists and the great British public, calls for glass to be included have been ignored.

    The scheme’s current design falls well short of what was promised and will see it fail to achieve what is required. A deposit return scheme that excludes glass runs the risk of being a global embarrassment for a country that seeks to position itself as leading from the front on environmental issues. In its current form, the scheme’s design will fail to crack down on glass waste and will miss a wonderful opportunity to protect our natural environments from glass pollution.

    The case has been made that including glass is problematic. However, this case has been made by glass industry lobbyists who have a vested interest in ensuring glass containers are not included in such a scheme. One such argument is that glass, once collected, can be hazardous and dangerous for those charged with sorting it for recycling when it becomes broken. This works both ways, as it can also be argued that glass poses a greater risk to the public and pet owners when it breaks down in nature rather than in the controlled environment of recycling plants.

    The lack of a deposit return scheme for glass containers poses a very real risk that such containers will continue to end up on our pavements and in our parks and outdoor spaces, where they will be a health and safety risk to UK residents. This public safety danger is unmatched by other containers. In that regard, the scheme’s current proposal fails to protect both the environment and the British public.

    Additionally, glass industry lobbyists have suggested that the inclusion of glass will drive consumers towards purchasing highly polluting plastic bottles. However, with the public already widely aware of the prevalence and environmental impact of plastic pollution, I contend that these claims are speculative at best. If we are to tackle the waste crisis, we must trust consumers to do the right thing, but it is vital that we arm them with the tools to do so.

    British Glass responded to the Government’s consultation, which closed on 4 June 2021, citing various concerns that have little foundation, one of which is that the inclusion of glass would have a detrimental impact on closed-loop glass recycling, despite the industry’s present inability to increase glass recycling rates. Indeed, British Glass explained in its response how the industry is committed to a 90% collected for recycling rate, and to an 80% remelt target by 2030 that would see 80% of all glass recycled back into new bottles and jars, but the stark reality is that this goal will almost certainly never be realised.

    By global standards, the UK lags well behind its international counterparts in the collection and recycling of glass bottles, sitting behind countries such as Ireland, France, Spain, Italy, Belgium and Bulgaria. In 2020, the UK’s glass collection rate for recycling stood at just 76%, well below Italy, which boasts a recycling rate for glass bottles of 87%. Meanwhile, across the UK, it is estimated that 5 billion glass bottles are used each year. Under current recycling rates, this means some 1.2 billion glass bottles each and every year are destined to litter our environment or to languish in landfill.

    Current systems to raise our collection and recycling rates are lacking. Much of the glass collected across the UK is not suitable for closed-loop recycling, where discarded bottles are turned back into new ones. That is due to the current collection process, which often sees the mixing of different colours and crushing during transportation. However, a well-thought-out, properly prepared deposit return scheme can address these issues with separated collection methods, which will make closed-loop recycling far more viable. That should be considered as a point of urgency, as it is estimated that a well-designed scheme for the UK could improve recycling rates for bottles and cans to more than 90%. At the same time as the Government are also presently consulting on the consistency of kerbside collections in England, with the laudable aim of reducing confusion, through their DRS plans they are paving the way for potentially four different deposit systems to be in place in the UK. Potential confusion among consumers caused by the current design is likely to undermine the effectiveness of England and Northern Ireland’s scheme. Both Scotland and Wales are set to see glass included in their schemes, but a lack of consistency across the UK as a whole, where consumers cross borders routinely, could see us fail to raise glass recycling rates to the levels they need to be, because consumers will not know when and where glass containers can be disposed of. The DRS for drinks containers should be designed with a view to avoiding this confusion and instead empowering the public to do the right thing.

    British consumers are overwhelmingly in favour of a scheme that includes all beverage materials and are opposed to the exclusion of glass bottles. A Populus poll commissioned in 2020 by environmental organisation Nature 2030 found some 84% of Britons want all beverage containers to be included in the Government’s proposed scheme. That polling was welcomed by campaigners and academics, who outlined how a comprehensive deposit return scheme will give us the best chance to combat litter. What is vital, and something the Government must not ignore, is that the UK is not walking into unproven territory as it looks to deliver its own scheme; a host of countries have already implemented successful and highly efficient deposit return schemes inclusive of all materials. Those have been proven to dramatically increase collection and recycling rates, and can be used as a powerful template for Britain to follow in implementing its own scheme. Crucially, due to their success, those other international schemes prove that the issues raised by the glass industry lobbyists here are unfounded. Indeed, all-inclusive schemes are common across the world. From more than 40 such schemes globally, only three do not include glass bottles and they exclude glass because they already have in place a returnable system specifically for glass bottles, something that the UK currently lacks. Australia implements a deposit return scheme that also covers beverage cartons, while Canada’s scheme includes cartons, bags in boxes, and plastic pouches. Finland and Denmark, which are considered to implement world-class return schemes, enjoy incredibly high return rates of 94% and 92% respectively. These successes are widely regarded as being due to their systems being inclusive of all materials, with the simplicity of the system being crucial to achieving the public support needed for these schemes to be a success.

    In my view, it makes little sense to deviate from such successful schemes, and even less sense when Scotland and Wales are looking to mirror the international successes. For example, Scotland is set to introduce a scheme that includes glass bottles by August 2023, while Wales is set to introduce a scheme that includes glass by 2024. It is vital to ensure interoperability among the schemes and to help consumers to adopt consistent and responsible behaviour across the four nations of the UK. Not only is the Government’s derisory decision to omit glass seeing us fail to be a world leader on the waste crisis on a global scale, but we are falling well behind Scotland and Wales.

    In an open letter, some 25 experts in the field recently urged the Government to introduce a deposit return scheme for drinks containers that mirrors Denmark’s system. Cross-party politicians, non-governmental organisations and academics are calling for the Government’s scheme to include all materials, including glass, plastic and aluminium. Denmark has a track record of fine-tuning its own scheme to be as effective as possible. It is a ready-made road map that the UK could follow and would help us to avoid the potential pitfalls that we may encounter along the way if we follow our own bespoke path.

    I also wish to raise the issue of VAT. The Government currently plan to apply VAT to deposit return scheme deposits on top of the VAT already charged on the drink. The current expectation is that, if there were a 20p charge, it will be gross of VAT—that is, 17p plus 3p—which means that, if the customer does not return the drinks container that they buy, the producer will receive only 17p back instead of the full 20p. The Government will take the remaining 3p in VAT. If we factor in the estimated 28 billion containers on the UK market, that could mean as much as £185 million lost from the scheme through unredeemed deposits—assuming an 80% return rate—in the first year alone. That would create a situation in which the Government in effect end up profiting from the failure of their own deposit return scheme. What is more, adding VAT to the deposit fee effectively imposes a stealth tax on drinks producers, backing the industry into a corner and creating the real scenario of price rises for the products in question.

    If the Government are serious about introducing a scheme, they need to avoid the noise from glass-industry lobbyists and deliver a scheme that works for the environment. Pandering to industry calls makes little sense in the face of overwhelming public support for glass to be included. Furthermore, there is a health and safety risk. Glass is a high-carbon, highly polluting material that presents a real hazard to the public once it is discarded in public places. We should look to create a scheme that drives up the collection and processing of such material, rather than one that makes closed-loop glass recycling more unattainable.

    In conclusion, the omission of glass from the Government’s deposit return scheme represents a real and serious threat to the effectiveness with which a deposit return scheme in England and Northern Ireland can realistically be delivered. Quite simply, its exclusion would be a potential catastrophe for our natural spaces as we all look to stem the tide of drink-container pollution. It also represents a direct betrayal of a promise made by the Conservative party to voters at the most recent general election, when we said in our manifesto that we would introduce a deposit return scheme for both plastic and glass drink containers. I urge Her Majesty’s Government to rectify the situation as a matter of urgency and immediately revisit the design of their scheme so as to include drinks containers made from glass.

  • Alok Sharma – 2022 Speech in Advance of COP27

    Alok Sharma – 2022 Speech in Advance of COP27

    The speech made by Alok Sharma at the G7 Climate, Energy and Environment Ministerial press conference in Berlin on 27 May 2022.

    In recent months, the clouds have darkened over the international landscape.

    With Putin’s illegal and brutal invasion of Ukraine, war has unfortunately returned to Europe.

    The tectonic plates within our geopolitics have shifted.

    We are seeing inflation spiking around the world.

    We are seeing debt mounting and energy prices rising.

    And globally, people are struggling to feed their families, all as we continue to deal with the effects of the pandemic.

    Yet the current crises should increase, not diminish, our determination to deliver on the challenges we face on climate, on energy, and on the environment.

    The G7 represents some of the most advanced economies in the world.

    So, the message we send as the G7 absolutely matters to the global community.

    Therefore, I am pleased that we have shown leadership today.

    As we sit here, in the shadow of a former coal store, which was then a gas storage tower, now is being converted into offices for clean energy startups, there could be no clearer sign.

    Our shared, long-term energy futures do not lie in fossil fuels.

    This time last year, the G7 showed that it was prepared to act and now we have gone further still.

    I am pleased to say that in this communique we have reaffirmed our unwavering commitment to the Paris Agreement, as well as the commitments made in the Glasgow Climate Pact just six months ago.

    I am encouraged that this communique responds to the Glasgow Climate Pact’s ask of nations to revisit and strengthen the ambition of our individual 2030 emission reduction targets.

    And in line with this, we call on all countries, but especially major emitters, to increase their ambition, if their 2030 NDCs are not aligned with a 1.5 degree pathway.

    On finance, we have reaffirmed our goal to mobilise $100 billion a year to support developing nations, and our confidence that this will be met in 2023.

    Following the Just Energy Transition Partnership for South Africa, which we announced at COP26, we have agreed to work on other such ambitious partnerships and I very much hope we will be able to announce some of these by the time we get to Sharm el-Sheikh.

    Adaptation and loss and damage were also key pillars of the Glasgow Climate Pact.

    In this communique we have underlined their centrality, including our commitment to double adaptation finance by 2025, on 2019 levels, to support those countries most vulnerable to climate change.

    But we must show action and deliver on that pledge.

    So I am pleased that the communique commits the G7 to do just that.

    I welcome the G7’s clear affirmation of commitments on loss and damage, and our support for the operationalisation of the Santiago Network, work on the Global Risk Shield, as well as engagement in the Glasgow Dialogue.

    I am encouraged to see G7 support for an inclusive global Climate Club, to coordinate ambitious climate action, including with the G20 and developing countries.

    We are equally united in the view that climate and environment security are absolutely synonymous with energy and national security and I cannot overstate that.

    Solving the global energy crisis and the chronic climate crisis requires the same solution, it’s about reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, as part of a managed transition.

    So I welcome the significant leadership and unity the G7 has shown, to go further than last year on fossil fuel finance, by committing to cease G7 international fossil fuel finance by the end of the year.

    We also have the G7’s first coal phase-out goal and endorsement of the Glasgow Breakthroughs.

    While governments need to deal with their immediate and acute energy needs, we can, and we must, do this without locking in medium and long-term emissions.

    Looking ahead, we must aim to arrive in Egypt having gone further.

    In the coming months, this group must continue to discuss the targets for 100% net zero power by 2035, 100% of new car sales being zero emission by early next decade, and clear targets in industrial sectors.

    These are tough challenges, and while progress is being made, we must all aim to go further if we are to meet them.

    We have no other choice if we really aim to keep 1.5 within reach.

    We heard yesterday from the Marshall Islands envoy Tina Stege who told us that the window of time to act is in danger of “slamming shut”. It really is as acute as that for many people around the world.

    Additionally, we are all focused on the need to respond to environmental degradation and biodiversity loss.

    I am pleased that we are building on the historic G7 2030 Nature Compact, agreed in Carbis Bay last year.

    In this communique and the Ocean Deal, we have made a series of essential and ambitious commitments.

    And critically, we have joined our foreign and development colleagues in highlighting the need to make the global biodiversity conference, CBD COP15, the equivalent of a Paris moment for nature.

    Rapidly scaling up finance for nature is going to be critical to an ambitious biodiversity agreement, so I am pleased we have committed to mobilise resources from all sources, including public finance, while ensuring our economic and financial decision-making aligns with the recovery of nature.

    I am pleased in particular that G7 members have committed to ensuring their aid portfolios as a whole become nature-positive.

    Despite this progress, across the energy, environment, and climate tracks we have discussed here, our aim to keep 1.5 degrees alive remains fragile.

    We must accelerate delivery, turning targets and commitments into action.

    And we must show the world that leaders recognise the scale of the challenges we face, that we will make good on the promises that we have made, and that we will continue to build on those commitments.

    I want to end by thanking our German hosts for their excellent G7 leadership, and indeed all ministerial colleagues here for continuing to raise the bar, and showing that the G7 remains able and willing to lead from the front, and do so in a united manner.

    But it is now vital that this work continues, through the Germany G7 presidency, the Indonesian G20 presidency, at the CBD COP15, and other international fora as we travel on the road to COP27 in Egypt this November.

  • Victoria Prentis – 2022 Statement on Food Security Following Russian Invasion of Ukraine

    Victoria Prentis – 2022 Statement on Food Security Following Russian Invasion of Ukraine

    The statement made by Victoria Prentis, the Minister of State at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, at the UN Ministerial Meeting on Global Food Security on 18 May 2022.

    We are so grateful to the US for leading this week of action.

    Food security is now at the top of all of our agendas, since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

    The effects of the war are brought home to me daily by the 25 year old Ukrainian woman who has come to live in our home. When we can find some phone signal, we talk to her grandparents, who are in occupied Kherson, about their daily struggles to find something to eat.

    Famine is once again being used as a weapon of war.

    This doesn’t just affect the brave people of Ukraine.

    Ukraine’s food and fertiliser exports were feeding up to 400 million people worldwide.

    The simplest solution is, of course, for Russia to end the conflict and allow Ukrainian farmers to care for their crops this year.

    We must urgently make multiple plans to export last years’ grain by both rail and sea. And I know that my friend, Minister Solsky, is full of solutions in this regard.

    We must collectively ensure that trade keeps flowing.

    I am pleased that over 50 WTO members have committed to keeping food markets open, predictable and transparent. We should agree to prohibit export restrictions on food bought for the World Food Programme.

    The G7 has a key role to play. Under our Presidency we secured the first ever famine prevention compact. I am delighted that Germany is now picking up the baton and taking this further with the Global Alliance on food security.

    We must all, including multilateral institutions, scale up our support.

    Over the next 3 years, the UK will send £3 billion worth of humanitarian aid to the most vulnerable countries, including in the Horn of Africa, Yemen and Afghanistan.

    And the World Bank must deliver the promised $170 billion over the next 15 months.

    We particularly think of small island developing states, who are so reliant on imports.

    We will continue to use British Investment Partnerships around the world to encourage the universal resilience of global food production.

    The need is urgent. We must act coherently and together, and, as they sing in the Ukrainian national anthem, ‘before the dew dies in the sunshine’. And, we need to ensure that the way we produce food remains sustainable in every sense.

  • Lucy Frazer – 2022 Statement on Carbon Leakage Mitigations

    Lucy Frazer – 2022 Statement on Carbon Leakage Mitigations

    The statement made by Luzy Frazer, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in the House of Commons on 16 May 2022.

    The Government are taking ambitious domestic action to tackle climate change and recently opened a consultation on developing the UK emissions trading scheme (ETS), so the UK can become the world’s first net zero carbon cap and trade market[1] . While domestic action is critical, climate change is a global issue. When the UK took on the COP26 presidency, only 30% of the world was covered by net zero targets—now over 90% of the global economy is committed to net zero. In 2021, the UK placed climate change and nature at the top of the international agenda during its G7 and COP26 presidencies, presiding over the agreement of the Glasgow climate pact, to speed up the pace of climate action.

    The Government also want to see other countries do more to drive down their own emissions and we continue to work on the global stage to support more ambitious international action. Recent global events and the resulting increase in energy prices reinforce the importance of transitioning to clean energy to ensure energy security and reduce our dependency on imported fossil fuels.

    In parallel, Government are considering domestic action to continue to ensure the integrity of UK action to reduce its carbon emissions against carbon leakage, as our existing carbon leakage protection measures, including free allowances under the UK ETS, evolve to achieve our net zero objectives. This will also ensure that UK businesses are not disadvantaged. Carbon leakage is the displacement of production, and associated emissions, from one jurisdiction to another, due to different levels of carbon pricing and climate regulation across those jurisdictions.

    The best way to prevent carbon leakage would be for all countries to move together in pricing, regulating, and therefore reducing carbon emissions. We are strongly committed to working with our international partners to develop a common global approach to carbon leakage. Multilateral solutions can take time to develop, however, and while we will continue to work on international solutions with partners, options for domestic action must be considered in parallel.

    The Government are therefore exploring a range of policies that could mitigate future carbon leakage risk. These include policies to grow the market for low emissions industrial products, on which the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy recently undertook a call for evidence. Today, we are announcing that it is our intention to consult later in the year on a range of carbon leakage mitigation options, including on whether measures such as product standards and a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) could be appropriate tools in the UK’s policy mix. A CBAM applies a carbon price to specified imports, in order to mitigate differences in carbon pricing between jurisdictions, and therefore reduce the risk of carbon leakage.

    The Government are clear that any policy or policies would need to carefully balance a range of priorities for the UK, both domestically and internationally, including compliance with WTO rules and our staunch commitment to free and open trade, alongside taking into account the needs of developing countries. As we determine our approach to carbon leakage, we will continue our ongoing engagement with our domestic and international partners.

    [1]: Developing the UK Emissions Trading Scheme (UK ETS) — GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

  • Grant Shapps – 2022 Comments on the First Net Zero Transatlantic Flight

    Grant Shapps – 2022 Comments on the First Net Zero Transatlantic Flight

    The comments made by Grant Shapps, the Secretary of State for Transport, on 14 May 2022.

    This trailblazing net zero emissions flight, a world first, will demonstrate the vital role that sustainable aviation fuel can play in decarbonising aviation in line with our ambitious net zero targets.

    That’s not just great news for the environment, it’s great news for passengers who will be able to visit the Big Apple without increasing damaging greenhouse gas emissions.

    It’s crucial that we place sustainability at the heart of the aviation industry’s recovery from COVID-19 and I look forward to working with them on this challenge, which will lower the impact flying across the Atlantic has on the planet.

  • Alok Sharma – 2022 Speech at the Future of News Conference

    Alok Sharma – 2022 Speech at the Future of News Conference

    The speech made by Alok Sharma, the COP26 President, at the Future of News Conference in London on 11 May 2022.

    Ladies and gentlemen, thank you so much for having me here today.

    They say that only two things in life are certain, death and taxes.

    But to that list, I would add the tenacity and the rigour of the British press.

    Whether it is war, or corruption, or injustice, or hypocrisy, or indeed a desire for greater transparency, you are unrelenting, uncompromising, and fearless in your pursuit of the truth, and in your determination to hold those in power to account.

    I can tell you, from personal experience, being under the magnifying glass of the British press can be mildly uncomfortable.

    Anyone remember “Air Miles Alok”?

    Anyone from the Daily Mail here? Ok let’s move on.

    But however much it makes those under scrutiny squirm, I hope that you will never change.

    Over the past year, I have been in 35 countries to persuade governments to up their climate commitments.

    Because as you all know, better I think than anyone, you rarely land a story, or in my case a commitment, on the phone.

    It needs to be face-to-face.

    And on those visits I have been in very many newsrooms, I have been interviewed by your peers from Berlin to Brasilia, from Nairobi to New Delhi.

    But rarely does anything evoke greater trepidation in politicians than walking into Milbank or indeed taking a call from a Fleet Street journalist.

    And I have to say I think that is a credit to your industry, and the press freedom this country holds so dearly.

    The question I really want to address today is what a future shaped by a changing climate means for reporting, and holding to account, by the British press.

    Because that unfortunately is the future that we face.

    Now you will be aware of this, but I think it’s worth saying that scientific report after scientific report demonstrates that unless we get to grips with climate change, the effects will be catastrophic for people and nature.

    Last year, we had a seminal report by the UN climate science body, the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, noted that average global temperatures have risen by 1.1 degrees above preindustrial levels.

    The report also concluded that human activity is unequivocally responsible for global warming.

    This report was agreed by 195 countries, and its findings were based on the distillation of 14,000 scientific papers.

    I can tell you from my own personal experience, getting almost 200 countries to agree on something this substantive is far from easy.

    Now, there will be those who will say that 1.1 degrees does not sound like very much, but we see the impacts around the world.

    Last year saw devastating floods across Europe and Asia.

    Wildfires raged in North America and Australia.

    And already this year India and Pakistan have been experiencing extreme heat waves, with some of the hottest months since records began.

    Floods have killed hundreds in South Africa.

    And the IPCC’s latest reports published this year, tell us that due to climate change, ecosystems are being irreversibly destroyed, people are being forced from their homes, human health is being damaged, and water and food insecurity have increased.

    I have seen this first hand.

    I’ve met mountain communities in Nepal that have been forced to flee from their homes because of a combination of floods and droughts caused by the changing climate.

    I’ve witnessed the effects of Hurricane Irma four years on in Barbuda.

    Buildings lying derelict, roofs still blown off, walls crumbling, and people forced from their island homes due to climate change.

    And talking to those affected is heartbreaking.

    Because you get to not just see but you get to hear the human cost of a changing climate.

    The reality is that climate change does not respect borders.

    It impacts us all.

    Here in the UK each of our top ten warmest years since 1884, have occurred since 2002.

    Climate change is not a stand alone issue to be mitigated.

    Unfortunately it exacerbates other existing risks.

    These are what respected think tanks, like Chatham House, call the “systemic cascading risks” of global warming; the knock-on-effects resulting from climate change, such as food and water insecurity, pests, diseases, the loss of lives, livelihoods and infrastructure.

    Indeed in one of its recent reports, Chatham House makes the case that such factors could, ultimately, displace people, disrupt markets, undermine political stability, and exacerbate conflict.

    And, frankly, where people’s ability to feed their families becomes precarious and extreme weather and disease wipe out livelihoods, people may be forced from their homes, and civil unrest may foment,

    events that can undermine fragile governments, and then ultimately reverberate around the globe.

    It is because climate is central to geopolitics, that the UK’s Integrated Review established tackling climate change and biodiversity loss as the UK’s top international priority.

    These impacts are happening today, and we know that in the future, they will become more severe.

    Because unfortunately further temperature rises are now inevitable.

    Even if we limit the rise in global temperature to 1.5 degrees celsius, the effects will be significant.

    Yet there is still everything to play for, because the higher temperatures rise, the more extreme the effects become.

    And every fraction of a degree makes a difference.

    At 1.5 degrees warming, 700million people will be exposed to extreme heat around the world.

    At 2 degrees it’s 2 billion people.

    At 1.5 degrees, 70 percent of all coral reefs around the world would be destroyed.

    At 2 degrees they are just about all gone.

    But to keep that 1.5 degree limit alive we are going to have to halve global emissions by 2030.

    And I think it’s worth saying that the cost of inaction is far, far greater than the cost of taking action now.

    The Office for Budget Responsibility projects that unchecked climate change could lead to UK public debt reaching a staggering 289 percent of GDP by the end of the century.

    But just as the science has become starker, the environmental and economic opportunities presented by tackling climate change have become clearer.

    When the UK took on the role of hosting COP26, less than 30 percent of the global economy was covered by a net zero target.

    By the time we got to COP26, with like minded partners around the world, we had persuaded 90 percent of the global economy to sign up to net zero.

    So I would say that where the UK has led, others have followed.

    Net zero is one of the clearest economic trends.

    It encompasses just about every country and every sector.

    As journalists, you are used to following the money.

    So there is a reason why more than 7000 international companies have signed up to rigorous net zero targets.

    There is a reason why, at COP26, financial institutions with over $130 trillion dollars of assets on their balance sheets were signed up to net zero.

    There is a reason why earlier this year Larry Fink, who as you know runs Black Rock, one of the biggest fund managers in the world, wrote to the CEOs of Black Rock’s investee companies, and he noted:

    that climate risk is investment risk, that there is a tectonic shift of capital underway, that sustainable investments have now reached $4trillion, and that every company and every industry will be transformed by the transition to a net zero world.

    Mr Fink went on to ask these investee companies whether they would lead this transition or whether they would be led.

    And the reason for all of this is because businesses around the world can see the economic dividend from the pursuit of net zero.

    It is clear to governments and businesses that the future of the global economy is clean.

    And we must embrace the opportunities that presents.

    But whether we do so fast enough or not, one thing is clear.

    Climate change will define the future.

    So it is rightly commanding increasing media attention.

    Years ago, climate was a side issue for journalists specialising in international development or the environment.

    Now it runs through many areas, from business, to culture, to sport, to economics, to fashion, and of course politics.

    Analysis by Carbon Brief, which focuses on climate, shows that the number of editorials in UK newspapers calling for more action to tackle climate change has quadrupled in three years.

    And yes, scepticism has diminished.

    That same analysis found that in 2011, right-leaning newspapers ran one editorial in favour of climate action for every five against.

    By 2021, those same newspapers were publishing nine positive editorials for every one against.

    Now, from my perspective, this focus is extremely welcome, but of course this year, climate is no longer in the spotlight.

    COP26 is over, although of course our presidency year continues until November.

    The headlines are understandably dominated by the other immense and immediate challenges facing the world.

    Vladimir Putin’s illegal and brutal invasion of Ukraine will define 2022.

    And that is rightly the focus of the media and the international community.

    And I understand that you’ve just had a discussion panel on Ukraine and reflected on the journalists who have very sadly lost their lives, and of course I pay tribute to all of them.

    And of course, governments must also address the global crisis in energy markets and increasing inflation and its attendant impacts.

    And again, the media is naturally focusing on this.

    And actually it is quite interesting that, the current crisis has also made clear to governments that homegrown renewables and clean energy,

    the price of which cannot be manipulated from afar, are the best option for domestic energy security.

    Climate security has become synonymous with energy security.

    And the chronic threat of climate change is unfortunately not going away.

    And so journalists are vital to ensure it continues to receive the column inches and the air time that it deserves, and that leaders are held to account.

    Because world leaders have committed to tackle climate change.

    Almost seven years ago, countries forged the Paris Agreement.

    And in this they committed to limit the average rise in global temperature to well below two degrees, pursuing efforts towards 1.5.

    Last year at COP26, nations agreed the historic Glasgow Climate Pact that showed how we will deliver this.

    And countries agreed to revisit and strengthen their 2030 emissions reduction targets this year, to align them with the Paris temperature goals.

    They agreed to phasedown coal power and phase out fossil fuel subsidies.

    And they agreed that the developed countries would provide more finance to support developing nations to deal with climate change.

    Alongside the Glasgow Climate Pact, companies and countries made commitments at COP26 to clean up critical sectors, to halt deforestation, and to work together to accelerate green technologies.

    In short, the world has agreed what it needs to do. Our task now is to deliver.

    And to achieve that, we need you to do what you do best, and hold governments and businesses to account.

    The British media has significant international clout.

    Editorials written here are read with keen interest in capitals around the globe.

    You help focus the eyes of the world on those in positions of responsibility,

    to scrutinise whether or not they deliver on their commitments.

    And if they do not, you have the tools to hold them to account.

    We also need you to help people understand the reality of climate impacts.

    And help them make informed choices.

    And of course, we need you to interrogate objectively the benefits of the move to clean economies.

    Ladies and gentleman, I believe that the chronic threat of climate change, and its expansive impact, will increasingly be the biggest story of the twenty-first century.

    I will go further.

    I would argue it will ultimately be the biggest story in many of our lifetimes.

    And we need you to tell it.

    And we need you to shape it.

    By continuing to do what you do best.

    Speak truth to power.

    Report on the reality of the world around us.

    These are the finest qualities of the British press.

    So whatever the future of news, they must endure.

    Thank you.