Bambos Charalambous MP: Climate-Related Speeches In Parliament

• Timeline
• Votes
• Speeches
• Tweets
• Contact

Bambos Charalambous's Speeches In Parliament Related to Climate

We've found 6 Parliamentary debates in which Bambos Charalambous has spoken about climate-related matters.

Here are the relevant sections of their speeches.

• 13 Nov 2024: Debt Relief (Developing Countries)

  14:19

  Countries seeking debt relief are also experiencing extreme weather events due to climate change. Last year, Zambia had its most severe flooding for more than 50 years, with over 25,000 households affected. Right now, it is experiencing its worst drought in 40 years, with 50% of this year’s crops lost and with 2024 on track to be the hottest year on record. Zambia is suffering despite only contributing 0.01% of global greenhouse emissions since the industrial revolution. Although Zambia has sought debt relief from its largest private creditor, that creditor has refused to cancel the amount the International Monetary Fund has said is necessary to make the debt sustainable. That is typical of the behaviour of private creditors towards low-income countries. It is everyone’s responsibility to ensure that countries such as Zambia get the debt justice they deserve, and it is imperative that we take action now.

  Before I conclude, I want to thank the organisations that have provided me with invaluable advice and support in preparing this Bill, which have been championing the cause of debt relief for many years. Those organisations are Christian Aid, the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development, and Debt Justice. I also wish to thank the Send My Friend To School coalition and the House of Commons Library for some of the statistics used in my speech. I hope that this Bill will go some way to securing debt relief for low-income countries, allowing the money saved to be reinvested in health and education systems for those who need that investment most and helping to tackle the effects of climate change, such as in the case of Zambia. Morally, it is the right thing to do; it is the just thing to do; and it is the compassionate thing to do. I hope this Bill will receive the support it deserves and needs.

  [Source]

• 19 Jan 2022: Oral Answers to Questions

  T5. With millions of species at risk of extinction and deforestation accelerating across the globe, it is imperative that we limit global warming to 1.5 degrees to halt this catastrophic decline, so will the Minister now accept Labour’s call for a net zero and nature test to align public spending and infrastructure decisions with our climate and nature commitments? ( 905154 )

  [Source]

• 7 Sep 2021: Net Zero Emissions and Green Investment

  3. What fiscal steps he is taking to help achieve the Government’s net zero emissions target. ( 903237 )

  [Source]

  The recent Climate Change Committee progress report showed that the Treasury had not fully met a single one of its recommendations in the past year. Does the Minister think this is good enough, and what steps should be taken to rectify that?

  [Source]

• 8 Jun 2021: Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Ninth sitting)

  09:45

  If the public order provisions in the Bill had been in place when the suffragettes marched for the right to vote, would the women who shouted and screamed noisily for their future have been arrested? Does the Minister think that the marchers for the right to work or those on the anti-apartheid protests should have been stopped for causing annoyance or being too noisy? Do the Government want to stop the children who are shouting loudly for action on climate change or to prevent people across the country from marching to remind people in the establishment that black lives matter?

  [Source]

• 19 Mar 2019: Oral Answers to Questions

  The UN says that we have less than 12 years to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, and on Friday thousands of schoolchildren marched for their futures. Given that emissions fell last year by only 1.5%—less than half the 3.2% fall recorded the year before—does the Minister agree with the Environmental Audit Committee that the Government are “coasting” on climate change?

  [Source]

• 13 Mar 2018: Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill (Second sitting)

  15:30

  When I asked Octopus and Bulb this morning whether there was a need to tighten the definition of renewable energy, they both agreed that there was. They saw it as a way of the big six getting round the cap. So does my hon. Friend agree that there needs to be a tightening of the definition?

  That concern was absolutely right. Regrettably, it is the case that throughout the present tariff offer a number of tariffs are in place that purport to be green tariffs, but when we drill down to what they consist of, they are pretty much not green tariffs. They may have a part of renewable energy in their make-up. It may be claimed that the company is advantageously purchasing renewable energy as part of its overall purchase arrangements, but of course we know in terms of today’s energy mix that it is fairly difficult to rigidly remove oneself from purchasing any renewable energy in the portfolio of purchases for tariff purposes.

  This is an important area of the Bill. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a requirement on energy companies to source renewable energy—quite rightly—and those costs are already spread across all bill payers? Why should there be a premium on top?

  The point that my right hon. Friend makes is, I think, taken into account by the circumstances that now apply across the board for energy sourcing. As she and I know, having talked about this for years, the process of the renewables obligation did impose a particular obligation for a proportion of energy purchased to be green. Then there was a system of trading those obligation certificates. Those people not directly purchasing green energy would have to purchase certificates, which could be traded from those who had actually traded in green energy in the first place, so that those involved had, in one way or another, carried out their obligation. The overall design of the renewables obligation system was to encourage the production of green energy, because the beneficiaries of the certificates when they were traded in cash would be the producers. That was a system that very much incorporated in it an incentive to trade in green energy in the first place.

  Now, of course, the renewables obligation is no more. It continues as a ghost trade system and will continue on a declining basis, I think, until 2027, but as of March 2017 no more renewables obligation certificates are being issued. They are being replaced by the contracts for difference system, which does not impose an obligation to purchase green energy in the same way as the renewables obligation system did. The prospective system does not, as my right hon. Friend suggested, provide a universal underwriting of green energy production. She is right, of course, that the system overall encourages renewable energy production, but not in the same way as the renewables obligation.

  I do not think that that particularly detracts from my right hon. Friend’s fundamental point, but it puts us in a position where we can properly consider the idea that a number of energy companies might accidentally, as it were, purchase green energy that does not, otherwise, have an obligation attached to it, and introduce it as part of a green tariff that is not really a green tariff. I suggest that companies wholly in the business of producing renewable energy, or those that produce it from their own sources or sources guaranteed through a power purchase agreement, or something similar, with the operator, are in a different category. I want to emphasise that difference with respect to the purpose of the amendment.

  That is a reasonable and honestly held opinion about the extent to which it is possible easily to distinguish when greenwash is not greenwash and the point at which an energy company, even with a partially green tariff, puts in something that is honestly green and not something that they have just cooked up because they happen to have purchased something that has an element of traceable green energy in it.

  I have tried to think this through and consider how we might be able to make honest citizens of those companies under such circumstances. It is possible to argue that even if a company accidentally buys green energy, if it is genuine green energy, then yes, it has sourced green energy. However, the bar needs to be set rather higher.

  The hon. Gentleman’s amendment uses the word “wholly”. In my view, “wholly” means that 100% of the energy would be renewable. To me, that is wholly unworkable. I want more consumers to get more choice. If they really wish to buy more renewable energy packages, they can do that. I would also like to see green tariffs that encourage smart consumption—smart appliances that switch on and off at peak times, for example. Those could also be bundled into a green tariff.

  [Source]

See all Parliamentary Speeches Mentioning Climate