Claire Coutinho MP: Climate Timeline

• Timeline
• Votes
• Speeches
• Tweets
• Contact

Claire Coutinho's Climate-related Tweets, Speeches & Votes

We've found the following climate-related tweets, speeches & votes by Claire Coutinho in the last 90 days

See Full History

• 18 Dec 2024: Tweet

  Here's my letter with further questions. The hundreds of workers in our refineries, chemicals and manufacturing industries deserve answers. Either they lose their jobs because of the carbon tax or because of higher energy prices. Labour’s plans are LOSE LOSE for industry. https://twitter.com/clairecoutinho/status/1859991420293227003 [Source]

• 18 Dec 2024: Tweet

  The only way their system costs roughly the same in 2030 is if they assume a carbon tax of £147 - double her own Department’s forecasts! Otherwise it’s much more expensive. https://x.com/ClaireCoutinho/status/1869302780420313346/photo/1 [Source]

• 18 Dec 2024: Tweet

  Oh dear. Either Labour is pursuing the highest carbon tax in the world which would kill British industry. Or they're lying about the costs of their energy plans. Which is it? https://x.com/ClaireCoutinho/status/1869302767954927899/video/1 [Source]

• 18 Dec 2024: Tweet

  This is an important read.???????? The Govt plans will mean importing more steel, batteries, wind turbines, solar panels from coal-powered China. Their Clean Power Plans assume they impose the highest carbon tax *in the world* on our industry, which again will just move production… https://x.com/i/web/status/1869297582184259614 https://twitter.com/javierblas/status/1869289894310514824 [Source]

• 17 Dec 2024: Parliamentary Speech

  The Labour party promised 650,000 jobs through Great British Energy, but the Secretary of State has endorsed a carbon tax of £147 in 2030—double the Department’s current forecast. It would be the highest carbon tax in the world, and devastating for British industry. Can the hon. Lady confirm how many British jobs would be lost as a result?

  Full debate: Great British Energy: Job Creation

• 05 Dec 2024: Tweet

  RT @NJ_Timothy: ????Climbdown alert!???? Starmer has gone from promising to decarbonise the grid 100% by 2030 to a new 95% target. Maybe he’s… [Source]

• 03 Dec 2024: Tweet

  More and more people are sounding the alarm that the NESO report shows Ed Miliband’s rush to decarbonise the grid by 2030 will increase bills. The question is, why are so many of the ‘independent’ energy ecosystem so quiet? Why did Ember not come out during the election and say… https://x.com/i/web/status/1863859510340641027 https://x.com/ClaireCoutinho/status/1863859510340641027/photo/1 [Source]

• 30 Nov 2024: Tweet

  As a reminder, here’s how much their 2030 target (which will lead to much higher bills) will get you off gas pricing. From roughly 60% of the time to 50% of the time. And that blue block is gas + CCUS, i.e. much more expensive. https://x.com/ClaireCoutinho/status/1862787376373793108/photo/1 [Source]

• 26 Nov 2024: Parliamentary Speech

  Let us start with what the Secretary of State announced at the conference of the parties. He has set out a new target of cutting our greenhouse gas emissions by 81% by 2035. However, what we did not hear in his statement is how much this will cost the British people. The independent Climate Change Committee says that that target will require people to eat less meat and dairy, take fewer flights, and swap their boilers for heat pumps and their petrol cars for electric vehicles at a pace that will require taxes and mandation. Even the Chair of the Select Committee has acknowledged that people will be forced to change their lives. But the Secretary of State says not to worry, as he will deliver all the savings through energy policy, and those plans will lead to higher growth, a cut in bills, job creation and stronger national security, but when it comes to his plans, none of those things is true. The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies has already said that his climate plans will not lead to growth. The National Energy System Operator’s report shows that his rush for clean power in 2030 will add eye-watering costs to our energy system, and that despite those very expensive costs, it would still leave gas pricing the system around 50% of the time—or it would leave the equivalent of millions of homes in the dark waiting for the wind to blow. I do not think that that is anybody’s idea of energy or national security.

  In Baku, while the Secretary of State was signing us up to these targets without talking about what they will do to the lives of British people, he was also signing away billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money. He signed us up to a $300 billion annual climate finance target. I am afraid that it is not credible to say that taxpayers will not have to pay more. They will have to pay more, and they deserve to know how much more. Will he tell us today what that new target will mean for British taxpayers? Considering the increase in the target, the public will rightly question why countries such as Russia and particularly China, now the world’s largest polluter and second largest by historical standards, will not be obliged to pay a penny—I think he tried to insist that they would, but it is very clear that they will not be obliged at all to pay in—while Britain, which has invested billions in cutting its emissions and accounts for only 1% of global emissions, will have to pay more. Will the Secretary of State also set out an assessment of the impact of increased reliance on coal-powered Chinese imports for his 2030 zero carbon plans, and of what that means for global emissions?

  The Secretary of State is not being honest with the British public. He promised them £300 off their energy bills by 2030, but just weeks ago, he whipped his Labour MPs to vote down that pledge. He took away the winter fuel payment, despite promising that the elderly would be looked after under his energy policy, and he now says that he can achieve stronger climate targets in a way that will require zero cost from the public. This is not a recipe for climate leadership, but a recipe for higher bills and lost jobs, and it will be a disaster for the British public.

  Let me give the shadow Secretary of State a little lesson about opposition. The job of the Opposition is to oppose the Government, not to oppose themselves. This is where she has ended up: out the window goes any commitment to climate action. She is ignoring the fact that it is a route to energy security, good jobs and lower bills, ignoring the fact that it is backed by business, and ignoring the fact that this country has an honourable tradition of bipartisan consensus on the issue. I am happy to say that the previous Government proposed some ambitious targets, and that COP26 was an important milestone for the world. This is not just irresponsible, and not just crass opportunism; it has helped take the Conservative party down to its worst election defeat in 200 years, so this approach will not work for her.

  Let me tell the shadow Secretary of State what the clean energy superpower mission means for Britain. It means cleaning up our power system, so that we do not leave the country exposed to fossil fuels, as the previous Government did. It means new jobs in carbon capture and storage as we decarbonise industry and re-industrialise. It means energy efficiency in homes, meaning lower bills, warmer homes and lower emissions. As for the NESO report that she talked about, I know that it is deeply disappointing to her, but we have an independent report that says that 2030 is achievable—she said that it was not. It also says that it will give us energy security—she says that it will not. It also says that it can lead to lower electricity, which she constantly denies.

  I call the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee.

  May I gently say to the shadow Secretary of State that she really should not believe dodgy headlines in The Daily Telegraph ? In fact, I am not sure whether headlines in The Daily Telegraph are ever not dodgy, based on what she was quoting. More importantly, though, let me congratulate the Prime Minister on his leadership at the conference of the parties, and the Secretary of State on leading the negotiations, and not least on delivering the £300 billion of climate finance for developing countries. He set out this country’s achievement since the general election; to what extent will the combination of what this country showed at COP and what we have delivered at home since 4 July encourage countries around the world to play their part in addressing the climate crisis?

  My hon. Friend asks an important question. Two truths came out of COP: first, the transition is unstoppable and, secondly, it is not going fast enough. There is such a difference from a decade ago—my hon. Friend, who was there with me, is nodding in agreement—because every country knows that the climate crisis is happening and is affecting them. The testimony I heard was like the testimony that we could provide about what people are seeing. Every country knows they have to act, and while they all face constraints in acting, they also know—this is the big change from a decade ago—that it is massively in their economic interests. There is a race on for the good jobs of the future, and the clean energy transition can provide them.

  COP29 concluded with a deal that, while welcome, leaves much to be desired. I must stress that we need bolder, more decisive action if we are to face the greatest challenge of our time: the climate crisis. I know that the right hon. Gentleman’s heart is in the right place and has been for many years. We first met in the run-up to COP15 in 2009, and I express my thanks to him for his staunch leadership in the intervening years. I express Lib Dem support for a brave programme of action going forward and our willingness to work with his Department to help the UK step up and seize this opportunity for climate leadership.

  In my South Cotswolds constituency and all across the UK, we have seen at first hand the devastating effects of climate change, and never more so than over the last few days, with floods and storms becoming more frequent and severe. Towns and villages in my constituency, such as Purton, Great Somerford and Cirencester, have been severely affected by flooding, and we need urgent action now to mitigate climate change and help our communities adapt to the likely impacts now and in the future.

  I associate myself with the thanks already expressed to the brave men and women of our emergency services in the aftermath of Storm Bert. Climate leadership must prioritise solutions that protect communities and restore nature. Natural flood defences, such as wetlands—

  May I finish with a question? Will the Secretary of State commit to including natural flood defences as a central part of the £5.2 billion flood defence spending to ensure that communities like those in the South Cotswolds are better protected from the worsening impacts of climate change while addressing biodiversity loss?

  Let me pick out a couple of the points she made. First, the point about the devastating effects of the climate crisis already being apparent is important. Part of the danger is that those effects will end up being the new normal, and we will just think of them as part of life. They are part of life in a sense and, as she said, we need the right flood defences in place and so on, but we also need to realise that those effects will get significantly worse if we do not act. Future generations will, frankly, hold us in infamy, saying, “You knew about the scale of the devastation and had seen a preview of what was to come, and you decided you couldn’t act,” so she is absolutely right.

  I will make one more point, which is part of what the hon. Lady was saying: this is a climate crisis and a nature crisis. It is a climate and biodiversity crisis. It was a bit disappointing that the nature part of the agenda at COP did not get the attention it deserved, and that will be important for COP30 in Brazil.

  I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement today and the agreement reached at COP29 in Baku. He and I go back a long way on COP, so we know what it is like when it goes wrong. I particularly welcome the nationally determined contribution to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 81% by 2035. Does he agree that the fundamental reason we have leadership on the global stage now, as distinct from what we have had for the past 14 years, is not just because of the target, but because we have a plan? This COP was supposed to be about implementation, and where we lead on implementation, others will follow.

  I can only speak for North Norfolk, but a green energy future is exciting for our local economy, especially at Bacton. Just along the coast, villages like Happisburgh are suffering from being part of the fastest eroding coastline in Europe. The Secretary of State touched on coastal erosion in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), but can I push him specifically on how the outcomes of COP will provide reassurance to my residents who are worried about losing their homes to coastal erosion now?

  As far as COP29 is concerned, we are speeding up global action. As I described in my statement, this finance deal could mean a reduction equivalent to 15 times the emissions of Britain. That is hard going, but it is the way to reduce the temperature rises that will take place. The world is in danger of busting through 1.5°C and going beyond that. That is why action is so urgent and why this finance deal really matters.

  COP leaders agreed to triple climate finance to $300 billion a year. The Secretary of State referred to the spending review in his statement, but the Prime Minister signed up to that international commitment. The Secretary of State must know how much the UK will have to pay. Will he tell the House?

  I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. My constituency is at the mercy of climate change, as the floods showed at the weekend. It is deeply frustrating for many of my constituents to hear the Opposition fail to grasp the urgency. We are on the frontline of the impact of climate change, but we also want to be on the frontline of the response, so many of my constituents welcome the warm homes plan. What is he doing to ensure that we have the workforce to deliver that plan, particularly in constituencies such as mine that have houses that are quite hard to retrofit?

  We learned three things from the statement. The first is that the climate finance will come from the existing UK aid budget. Can the Secretary of State reassure the House that the increase in the UK aid budget will be greater than the amount that has gone on climate finance, so that we can be confident that we are not robbing Peter to pay Paul in the developed world? Do the important agreements on deforestation mean that the UK will stop spending almost £11 billion on subsidies to burn trees in England to generate electricity—is that one of the important elements that he talked about on deforestation? He claimed in his statement that GB Energy is set up. Can he tell us where we can go and see it? [ Laughter. ]

  Thanks so much for the support. Let me deal with the hon. Gentleman’s questions in turn. It has always been the case that climate finance is part of the aid budget—that is not some new announcement I have made. Obviously, that is a decision that we make, along with the Foreign Office and other colleagues across Government, about the right balance of resources and where the need is greatest.

  The Secretary of State was absolutely right to say at the close of the climate talks that the only way to keep the British people safe from extreme weather and economic disruption is to ensure that the world acts together. That requires funding, but it is clear that the COP in Azerbaijan did not deliver that at the scale needed. The Make Polluters Pay coalition is calling for the big oil companies worldwide, which have made grotesque profits while driving the climate crisis, to fund the required investment at home and abroad. Is that not the fair way to secure the necessary finance?

  I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and agree that the UK must show global leadership on climate action. Peatlands are the largest natural terrestrial carbon store, yet damaged peatlands are responsible for almost 5% of global anthropogenic CO 2 emissions. The UK imports 60% of peat used in horticulture, offshoring carbon emissions abroad. Does the Secretary of State agree that, beyond COP29, we must continue to show global leadership and protect the environment by committing to a phased ban on peat in horticulture?

  I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I was proud of the constructive role that the UK played in the negotiations, representing our country and also some of the poorest people on the planet, who are at the absolute frontline of climate change, partly due to the emissions from this country. But COP is not without its critics, despite it being the only platform to progress our climate ambitions. How does the Secretary of State think that the process could be improved? In particular, what gentle advice would he give to anyone thinking about taking over the presidency of a major world economy early next year?

  I will resist the second half of my hon. Friend’s question, if you don’t mind, Mr Speaker. On the first part of his question, the COP process does have its critics, so I will say a couple of things. First, 15 years ago, when I last attended the COP as Secretary of State in Copenhagen, no country was signed up to net zero. Now, 90% of the world’s GDP is covered by net zero. That is not only because of the COP, but that process of international engagement is important, and it is a forcing mechanism to put world leaders on the spot. Secondly, the reason why it is hard is largely because we have 198 countries all trying to agree, which is difficult. If people can think of improvements to the system, that is great, but that engagement is really important.

  The right hon. Gentleman and I have been debating these issues for 15 years, and I hazard a guess that we will not end up agreeing. The truth about the climate crisis is that it is the biggest potential cost that future generations can face. There will be trillions of costs across the world and tens and hundreds of billions of costs in the UK if we do not act. All the evidence is that the costs of acting on climate change are much lower than the costs of not acting.

  I was in Paris nine years ago when we started the process of negotiation on article 6 of the Paris agreement, which was concluded only with the gavel going down in Baku. It is an important process, ensuring a carbon market through the United Nations framework convention on climate change. How will the UK implement the new article 6 regulations? How will we support other countries in this important work, as we can utilise it for nature-based solutions such as reforestation and afforestation?

  Where is the leadership, and what example does it set, in flying 470 officials and delegates—more than any other western European country—halfway across the world to a climate change jamboree? Can the Secretary of State say what the cost has been in terms of carbon and cash?

  Both the points that my hon. Friend makes are right. I am happy to acknowledge the role of Theresa May in putting net zero into law, as well as that of Alok Sharma and even Boris Johnson, who fought to champion some of these issues. It is a real shame, and it speaks volumes, that we can say those things and the Conservatives do not.

  I commend the Energy Secretary on his work, both in the UK and his global leadership at COP29. Many developing countries continue to face the intensifying effects of the climate crisis. For their sake and for ours, we cannot afford inaction and delay. Can the Secretary of State clarify what specific work will be undertaken to improve global ambitions so that we can transition away from fossil fuels and keep alive the commitment to keep the world’s temperature rise below 1.5°C?

  I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and the leadership that this Government showed at COP29, recognising that with the global transition under way, the economic benefits will accrue to those who lead and shape it, rather than shy away from it and remain all too passive in the face of the economic forces that it heralds. Can the Secretary of State set out how we will ensure that we capture those benefits domestically and show the necessary leadership to drive investment, growth and opportunity to every part of the UK, so that we have a coherent economic strategy that touches every part of our nation?

  I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for his clear global leadership on this issue over many years. A constituent, Michael Jones—a leader in climate change education—attended Baku as part of the COP delegation with a delegation of students from across the UK as part of the climate change challenge, leading on efforts to educate policymakers on the impacts of climate change on the next generation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the next generation deserve better and a Government who—unlike the Opposition, who flip-flop and show no consistency on the issue—have a firm commitment to deliver a reduction in emissions with the international community?

  Full debate: COP29

• 23 Nov 2024: Tweet

  Labour’s rush to decarbonise will mean a Made in China transition. Billions of pounds of taxpayers money and thousands of British jobs will flow to the world’s largest polluter, all in the name of climate change. Read more ???????? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/23/milibands-promises-of-cheap-and-easy-energy-dont-add-up/ [Source]

• 22 Nov 2024: Tweet

  Ed Miliband has claimed his rush to decarbonise the grid by 2030 will cut bills. Yet the NESO report throws up some alarming questions. He has refused to come to the House to defend the report - but the public deserve answers. My letter to Ed Miliband???????? https://x.com/ClaireCoutinho/status/1859991420293227003/photo/1 [Source]

• 21 Nov 2024: Tweet

  Jesse is right. Ed Miliband should come to the House to debate the NESO report. Ed claims the report proves his plans to decarbonise the grid by 2030 can cut bills - but that’s not what the report says. This is as important as it gets for living standards. https://twitter.com/jesse_norman/status/1859627703810302109 [Source]

• 21 Nov 2024: Tweet

  The climate change lobby have been itching to get this on the statute book for years because it uses higher costs to force people to buy heat pumps. [Source]

• 19 Nov 2024: Tweet

  RT @DrSimEvans: +++NEW ANALYSIS: China’s CO2 emissions have now caused more global warming than EU+++ Our new analysis comes as the "princ… [Source]

• 14 Nov 2024: Tweet

  Starmer is pushing ever higher climate targets for Britain - raising prices and exporting jobs - in return for more imports from coal-powered China, the world’s largest polluter. Labour must publish an assessment of the increased reliance on China and resulting carbon emissions. https://x.com/ClaireCoutinho/status/1857052757816967343/video/1 [Source]

• 13 Nov 2024: Tweet

  Mad. Even the Climate Change Committee says we’ll be using oil and gas in 2050. Why get ‘emotional’? Because 200k British jobs are on the line. £12bn tax revenue which is now being squeezed out of pensioners, farmers and business instead. All for imports with MORE emissions. https://twitter.com/lbc/status/1856449061705937032 [Source]

• 13 Nov 2024: Tweet

  Keir Starmer is signing us up to climate targets that will likely require huge sacrifices from the British people. At the same time, he’s saying he won’t tell people how to live their lives. Those two things cannot be true at the same time. https://x.com/GBNEWS/status/1856615740582805853/video/1 [Source]

• 12 Nov 2024: Parliamentary Speech

  The Prime Minister is set to announce at the conference of the parties that he is making the UK’s already stringent carbon emission targets even higher. That is despite the fact that we contribute only 1% of global emissions, while the leaders of the world’s highest-emitting countries—making up over 60% of emissions—are not attending. The Climate Change Committee has said that this target will require, for example, an accelerated shift away from meat and dairy, less travel and a gas boiler ban for the British people, yet the Government’s approach would see our reliance on imports from China—which is 60% powered by coal—go through the roof. Does the Minister agree that an approach that is asking for more sacrifice and hardship from the British people, in return for more goods from one of the world’s largest carbon emitters, would mean fewer jobs in Britain and more carbon in the atmosphere?

  Full debate: Oral Answers to Questions

• 10 Nov 2024: Tweet

  Interesting, @thetimes asks readers whether they think Ed Miliband’s net zero plans are realistic. Over 90% don’t. The public can see what Labour politicians seemingly cannot. The question is, how much damage will they do before they course correct? https://www.thetimes.com/article/0da9968b-1d18-42fc-8592-1434516cf231?shareToken=bb1dd5507301a6f12ac3de09f77d4770 https://x.com/ClaireCoutinho/status/1855656433351860350/photo/1 [Source]

• 05 Nov 2024: Tweet

  Next, Ed’s entire premise is that by ‘getting off gas’ we will make energy cheaper. But the NESO’s modelling shows in the CCUS pathway, gas will price the system as much as 47% of the time. That’s not ‘getting away from international gas markets’, nor ‘100% clean power’, is… https://x.com/i/web/status/1853788359820202254 https://x.com/ClaireCoutinho/status/1853788359820202254/photo/1 [Source]

• 05 Nov 2024: Tweet

  Today @neso_energy published the advice that @Ed_Miliband commissioned on his target to decarbonise the electricity grid by 2030. I am disappointed but not surprised that he has not come to the House to answer our questions. Because it poses very difficult questions for Labour… https://twitter.com/neso_energy/status/1853693955898057160 [Source]

• 04 Nov 2024: Tweet

  On days like these, if not gas then what? If gas then it should come from Britain. We get c. 50% of our gas supply from the North Sea. Labour will leave us reliant on foreign imports. (If CCUS or hydrogen then the first still needs gas, and both are more expensive). https://twitter.com/kathrynporter26/status/1853224701289443390 [Source]

• 02 Nov 2024: Tweet

  As I said in the House last week, far from bringing bills down, Ed Miliband’s plans to ramp up renewables at breakneck speed are sending bills up. The IFS agrees. Industry will just go abroad (worse for climate change) and households will be poorer. https://www.thetimes.com/article/4f27fdaf-8b7d-4ad9-ab30-164b80a7d545?shareToken=2ef8886656dd35e9d8caa017fab1aea1 https://x.com/ClaireCoutinho/status/1852601383301640455/photo/1 [Source]

• 31 Oct 2024: Tweet

  RT @GaiaFawkes: IFS Chief: Net Zero Splurge Doesn't Help Growth at All http://order-order.com/2024/10/31/ifs-chief-net-zero-splurge-doesnt-help-growth-at-all/ https://x.com/GaiaFawkes/status/1851975609951334872/photo/1 [Source]

• 29 Oct 2024: Parliamentary Speech

  New clause 3— Prohibition of investments which would increase greenhouse gas emissions —

  (a) greenhouse gas emissions and

  (2) Where the assessment carried out under subsection (1) showed that the investment was expected to contribute to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, Great British Energy must not make that investment.”

  This new clause would require Great British Energy to publish an assessment of potential investments on greenhouse gas emissions and the production or combustion of fossil fuels. Any investment which the assessment showed was expected to increase greenhouse gas emissions would be prohibited.

  (f) the expansion and development of renewable energy and technology.”

  This amendment would set objects for Great British Energy of facilitating, encouraging and participating in an emergency home insulation programme with targeted support for people on low incomes, and the expansion and development of renewable energy and technology.

  “(1A) The statement of strategic priorities under subsection (1) must include a priority to require any renewable energy development located in Wales that Great British Energy owns or invests into offer a minimum of 10% community and 10% local ownership for each project.”

  This amendment seeks to ensure that all renewable energy projects in Wales which are owned or invested in by Great British Energy would be required to offer a 10% stake in community ownership i.e. for individuals and households, and a 10% stake of local ownership, i.e. any Wales-based organisation.

  These were not one-off promises; it was the party line, as dictated by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. These promises are still up in writing. In fact, the Labour party website still says that its energy plans will cut bills by £300 on average. Oddly, Ministers now do not seem so keen on that pledge. We have asked them about it in this House, as have the media, but the number seems to have vanished. They have even taken down the Great British Energy website, and the newly appointed chair even said in Committee that cutting bills is

  The Secretary of State can talk about skills passports and Government transition projects all he likes, but the truth is that they do not pay the bills. He likes to say that we need to cut carbon at an extreme pace, faster than any other major economy, in order to show climate leadership and save the planet, but if our gas production, steelmaking or energy-intensive manufacturing moves to Asia, which is still powered by coal, he will be adding to emissions. That would mean more carbon in the atmosphere, and would be devastating for the hundreds of thousands of people who would lose their livelihoods here in Britain. I say that as someone who, before entering Parliament, worked on regenerating some of our most deprived communities once the jobs were gone.

  As I have said previously, Great British Energy is pretty much a carbon copy of the UK Infrastructure Bank, which was set up to provide loans, equity and guarantees for infrastructure to tackle climate change, backed by £22 billion. No Minister has been able to tell us the real difference between Great British Energy and the UK Infrastructure Bank, or why the taxpayer has to pay for two headquarters, two chief executives and so on. The one difference appears to be that Great British Energy will mean additional powers for the Secretary of State.

  Full debate: Great British Energy Bill

• 18 Oct 2024: Tweet

  If the widespread burning of forests is part of the solution to climate change, then we need to ask what problem we are trying to solve. Read my piece on why Ed Miliband needs to think again on Drax's power BECCS plan???????? https://www.thetimes.com/article/01e2bc29-5788-47ce-b9eb-d47d291a8bcf?shareToken=c3e32be0b3b19c61d6b3080a6b237070 [Source]

• 13 Oct 2024: Tweet

  RT @NeilDotObrien: This week I asked Ed Miliband if he would publish a costing of his plans for a net zero grid (a costing was commisioned… [Source]

• 08 Oct 2024: Tweet

  Ed Miliband is out on a limb with his approach to energy and net zero. Whether you’re Blue Labour or Blairite - even his own party is now sounding the alarm. The question is how long will he last and how much damage can he cause in the meantime? https://x.com/ClaireCoutinho/status/1843631634433946062/video/1 [Source]

• 7 Oct 2024: Parliamentary Speech

  In 2022, in the Energy Security Bill, we set out £1 billion of investment and the business models to support the CCUS market. Our aim was to have four industrial clusters by 2030. I must pay tribute to all who have worked together on those plans, including BP, Equinor, Eni, and all those involved with HyNet and the East Coast Cluster.

  The Secretary of State says that CCUS was not funded. Let me remind him of the extent to which he is resting his laurels on a set of draft policy statements for nuclear from back in 2009 that had no Treasury funding attached. I had agreement that at least £20 billion would be spent following the next spending review. The Secretary of State is a former Treasury spad, so he knows what that means. As always, it is the cheap politics that he reaches for. He is, I am afraid, the ultimate career politician. In fact, the funding that we had announced, which would run for 20 years, was about £200 million more per year than what he has set out today. Can he confirm that the projects have not been scaled back, and if they have been, will he tell us where the losses will be?

  We have also had no word on the track 2 clusters, Acorn and Viking, on which we were due to make progress over the summer; they were conspicuously absent from the Secretary of State’s statement. Many people will be deeply concerned, so can he update the House on those two projects? More widely, while his announcement rightly drew attention to the importance of British industry, both the TUC and the GMB have warned repeatedly about his net zero plans and what they will mean for British industry. In the words of Gary Smith, the leader of the GMB, the Secretary of State’s approach has been to export jobs and import virtue.

  The Secretary of State has talked about the importance of UK decarbonisation in tackling climate change, but will he acknowledge that his plans to target UK production will not mean that we use less? They will just leave us importing more from abroad—importing more oil and gas from the United States and the middle east, and importing more steel from China, which is still 60% powered by coal. Will he acknowledge that both those developments will actually increase global emissions? It would be carbon accounting gone mad. It might leave some in the green lobby cheering at our reduced emissions, but overall there would be more carbon in the atmosphere and fewer jobs here in Britain. Is the Labour party seriously going to be responsible for the end of steelmaking in the UK, with the added cost of the loss of more than 10,000 jobs in our most left-behind communities? The Secretary of State must acknowledge that a better balance has to be found.

  That is the reality. As for the other stuff that the right hon. Lady said, I think that she has a decision to make. She began her political career in the Conservative Environment Network, and she has ended up backing a net zero sceptic for the Tory leadership. I think it is a little bit sad. She should take some time to reflect on that, and on the utter contrast between her failure and this Government’s delivery.

  I call the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee.

  The Secretary of State mentioned just how important it is that we have this technology if we are to decarbonise; he quoted James Richardson in making the case. It will be crucial for the abatement of heavy industries such as chemicals, glass—the Secretary of State went to visit a glass factory in the north-west on Friday—and cement, but it will also be crucial for hydrogen production, for the new gas-fired power stations and, indeed, for converting waste into energy. How long does he think we will need this technology for the abatement of heavy industry, and how long does he think we will need it for hydrogen production and production from gas?

  I thank my hon. Friend for his question; he makes a really important point. Some people are sceptical about the use of carbon capture and storage. The truth is that for hard-to-abate industries—cement, for example—unless we have CCS technology, either there will be no future for these industries or they will not be able to decarbonise. Yes, it is an investment, but it is absolutely crucial, and I am struck by what the IEA said. We are talking about probably 20% of industry, and we are doing the right thing for Britain and setting an example to the world.

  I always say on these occasions that, when it comes to blue hydrogen and gas with CCUS, we need all the technologies at our disposal on this decarbonisation journey. It is going to be a primarily renewables-based system, but nuclear has an important role and we need dispatchable decarbonised or low-carbon generation as well. All these things have a role, and the pathway will become clearer over time, but this issue is so urgent that I want to have all the technologies at our disposal.

  I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. The Liberal Democrats are committed to supporting British industries in cutting carbon emissions and getting the country back on track towards meeting our climate targets. It cannot be emphasised enough how significant it is that this announcement comes at the same time as we hear about the UK being the first industrial nation to close its last coal-fired power plant. We had been dependent on coal for 150 years, so that is absolutely key.

  It is clear that the future lies with renewables and clean energy, where we need to bring urgency and the necessary scale of investment. The Conservative Government’s irresponsible roll-back from key climate pledges, and their failure to invest properly in renewable energy and home insulation, has left thousands of households vulnerable to fuel poverty as another winter approaches. The failure to move forward at pace in decarbonising our industries, our transport and our homes has left us needing to take difficult decisions. We support the need, recognised by the Climate Change Committee, for at-scale, long-term investment in CCS, particularly for hard-to-decarbonise industries such as chemicals, cement and steel manufacturing. We would like to see investment in existing industries, and we want it to meet environmental requirements.

  While we are discussing history, I should mention that it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) who launched carbon capture and storage, which was yet again cancelled by the Conservatives. However, although carbon capture and storage is a key tool in reaching net zero, it is also very expensive and complex, and evidence of its efficacy is still scant. Understandably, as the Secretary of State mentioned, there is much concern about the focus on incentivising industries to invest in CCS as an alternative to radically reducing their emissions. Therefore, it is important that the Government set out clearly and transparently the path to delivery for any CCS they invest in and show the milestones for progress. What will the Secretary of State do to increase investment—

  On the hon. Lady’s broad points about CCS, my philosophy is that we want zero-carbon power where possible, but we also need carbon capture, particularly for hard-to-abate sectors and so that we can have not unabated gas, but gas with CCS or hydrogen power. She raises the question of cost. Imagine if we had had this conversation 15 years ago, when I was Secretary of State and much younger—15 years younger, to be precise. [ Interruption. ] Yes, I am good at maths. Some people were saying at the time, “Why are you subsidising offshore wind? It can never be competitive with fossil fuels.” Now, it is among the cheapest technologies to build and operate. That is what deployment does for us, and that is what the combination of public and private sectors working together does for us. Yes, there is an investment here, but a far-sighted, forward-looking Government have to make such investments, and I welcome the hon. Lady’s support.

  I had rather hoped that my right hon. Friend was going to start his statement by saying, “As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted—”. I have waited so long to hear a Secretary of State make such announcements from the Dispatch Box, and I am delighted. However, my right hon. Friend knows that carbon capture technologies reduce the energy intensity of fossil fuels by up to 25%, which makes such electricity much more expensive than that produced from renewables. Can the Secretary of State confirm that CCUS will be used not simply to allow the continued extraction of fossil fuel for our power sector, but only for the hardest-to-abate heavy industries and for the production of green hydrogen, thereby keeping domestic fuel bills low and delivering on this Government’s commitment to decarbonise our power sector by 2030 through much cheaper renewables and nuclear, not more expensive gas with CCUS? Finally, may I caution him against swallowing too much of the hype around blue hydrogen?

  I thank my hon. Friend for his question; he speaks with great knowledge and expertise on these issues. He is absolutely right about the hard-to-abate sectors. I say to him what I said to the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson): there is a role for both blue hydrogen and gas with CCUS, but that is within the context of a primarily renewables-based system that uses nuclear as well. It goes back to the point about needing all the technologies at our disposal if we are to surmount the challenges we face.

  I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I talked to the UK chair of ExxonMobil last week about this issue, and I believe that the Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), is going to meet him later this week. For the benefit of the House, this was not in either track 1 or track 2—it was part of the Solent cluster—but we want all the projects to go ahead and the Solent cluster has real potential and is an important part of this. The UK chair told me that this temporary pause was certainly nothing to do with the actions of this Government, but, frankly, was to do with the time it had taken the previous Government to get going on this. I undertake to the right hon. Gentleman that we will continue our dialogue with the company about these issues, including on the more technical issues that he is talking about.

  My hon. Friend speaks with great knowledge of this subject. She is unusual in this House, in that she is an engineer by background and actually knows about these issues. She is absolutely right about this. Our world-leading scientists and engineers are a crucial part of our playing a world-leading role in this technology. I also say to those who are worried about the risk of this technology that the much, much greater risk is in not acting. The risk before us is the climate crisis that grows every day, and it is the right thing to do to get CCS moving.

  I thank the Secretary of State for his statement today. Could he say a bit more about how this important project will sit alongside other investments in green energy as we move towards the 2030 and 2050 targets? Could he also explain more about the potential for job creation across the country in a wide range of industries and regions?

  On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, that is very much part of our plans for the future. On his second point, we will obviously set out all those details in response to the work of the Climate Change Committee. Frankly, one thing that we are struggling with is the delays under the last Government. I have set out the impact of this project and will be setting out the impact of future projects when they are announced.

  The Secretary of State says he is absolutely committed to the Acorn project. Well, the way to show that would be to fund it, because yet again the UK Government have failed to announce funding for carbon capture utilisation and storage projects in Scotland. This is a disaster economically, industrially and environmentally. I am sure he will agree that without Acorn, the UK cannot meet its net zero targets and will miss them by some margin. The last Tory Government failed to back this project in Scotland for years, and despite offering change, Labour has done exactly the same thing, following the same path with broadly the same budget and prioritising less developed, less substantial and less deliverable projects in England while offering the Scottish cluster no funding at all to date. People in Scotland remember well how eager the Treasury and the Westminster Government were to get their hands on revenues from North sea oil and gas. When will we see that returned with investment from Westminster into the north-east of Scotland to support the Acorn project?

  The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and it is why one of the projects we funded is an energy from waste project. This is exactly the kind of role that CCS can play.

  Given the Chancellor’s rhetoric about black holes, it is perhaps a little surprising that the Government have managed to magic £22 billion for this, but I wish the Secretary of State well. I hope his plan works. Does he share my concern that, in doing this, we will reduce the drive to decarbonise industries, just as the use of waste incinerators has reduced the imperative to reduce, reuse and recycle waste, including in Westbury in my constituency?

  I respect the right hon. Gentleman’s question, although I do not agree. First, this is a long-term investment in the country’s future, and I think the Chancellor is far-sighted in recognising its importance. Secondly, there are hard-to-abate industries that, without carbon capture, will find it very hard to enter a decarbonised world. We have to protect those industries, but I agree that, where industries can decarbonise without CCS, of course we want them to do so.

  I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, and I congratulate the trade unions, communities and campaigners that have campaigned for this for so long. His leadership stands in stark contrast with the asset-stripping of jobs, hopes and investment that we have seen in too many of our industrial heartlands. Does he agree that carbon capture is about not just net zero or boosting cluster areas, but boosting jobs, skills and futures in the supply chain in communities such as mine in Peterborough and across the country?

  It is early, but I worry about the hon. Gentleman’s opposition to new grid infrastructure, so goodness knows what will happen to the renewables. He also opposes carbon capture, so goodness knows what will happen to the hard-to-abate industries. I am all in favour of investing in woodlands, but we need all of these things. I want to be generous to the Green party— [ Interruption. ] I am a generous person, and I am sure the Green party has the best of intentions, but the scale of the transition means this country needs all of these technologies. It is not about choosing to invest in the woodlands and not investing in grid infrastructure or CCS. I urge the hon. Gentleman to think about this, because we need all of these technologies.

  I welcome the Government’s announcement on moving forward with the track 1 projects, which will create thousands of well-paid jobs, attract inward investment and accelerate us towards net zero. With the closure of the blast furnace at Port Talbot, the two largest carbon emitters in Wales are now in my Mid and South Pembrokeshire constituency, but they have no access to pipeline CO 2 transport. What measures is the Secretary of State taking to encourage the decarbonisation of sites such as those in Pembrokeshire, which rely on non-pipeline solutions for CO 2 transport, to achieve a just transition?

  The Secretary of State has boasted about spending £27 billion of public money on carbon capture and storage, and on promoting what he calls renewable energy. Does he feel any sense of irony in taking £27 billion from a financial black hole and putting it into a carbon-absorbing black hole? Does he not recognise that his own green policies are generating the very CO 2 he condemns? The Drax B power station needs American forests to be chopped down and brought halfway around the world to be burned, emitting CO 2 , at a cost of £1 billion a year in subsidy.

  This Government have shown in the last three months what can be achieved by rejecting the climate denialism that the last Government often seemed at risk of sliding into. However, this announcement is important because it underlines the opportunity we have to also reject climate delivery denialism—the idea that we can somehow make the transition to net zero work without making big, bold investments or by focusing only on narrow solutions that align with our ideological priorities. The International Energy Agency and the Climate Change Committee could not be clearer: CCUS is not just an economic opportunity for this country, but a scientific necessity if we are to meet our climate targets. Will the Secretary of State therefore leave no stone unturned and no opportunity off the table, doing everything we can not just to deliver on our targets, but to ensure that we make the most of the opportunity to reindustrialise parts of this country that have been neglected for far too long?

  My hon. Friend makes such an important point. I was with the Prime Minister in New York in the last couple of weeks, talking to international partners about where the new British Government stood, and there is a sense that British leadership is back. However, if I had said to them, “We can’t do carbon capture; that’s just not an answer,” they would have said, “Well, what are we going to do about our industries?” My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we need to have all the solutions at our disposal, both for British leadership and for global decarbonisation.

  The Secretary of State will know that it is vital that we reduce our global greenhouse gas emissions if we are to avoid the worst ravages of a climate crisis that is already manifesting. Given that this deal risks incentivising hard-to-abate businesses to continue with business as usual, will he outline what steps the Government intend to take to ensure that those industries also invest in reducing their emissions?

  I welcome the hon. Member to the House. We have all kinds of projects in place to encourage business to decarbonise; indeed, our drive for clean power by 2030 is part of ensuring that we decarbonise the electricity system to help businesses to be part of the decarbonisation journey. However, I just do not recognise the picture that he paints—that this proposal is somehow a disincentive for companies. I hear lots of businesses asking how they are going to exist, frankly, in a decarbonised world. What is the answer, for example, for the cement industry in a decarbonised world? That is why CCS is so vital.

  I welcome the Secretary of State’s enthusiasm for decarbonisation and carbon capture, particularly in heavy industry, including cement. However, the track 1 projects include new gas power stations and new blue hydrogen, which will carry a huge greenhouse gas penalty caused by upstream methane emissions. Will the Secretary of State therefore commit to reviewing the full-lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions for any project before it goes to a full investment decision?

  I strongly welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s commitment to delivering for Teesside and to delivering thousands of good green jobs in clean industries—delivery after years of delay. He mentioned Solent earlier, and he knows the risk that delay can pose to CCUS and to jobs. Does he therefore agree that it is absurd for the Conservative party to try to claim credit for this proposal after failing to deliver for 14 years, failing to commit any resources and leaving our industries in the lurch?

  The Secretary of State will know that investment in these CCUS projects would not be possible without the private investment generated from our oil and gas companies. In the light of that, of him again confirming his policy on no new licences and of other policies that are set to close down the North sea, how will he ensure that that private investment continues so that more CCUS projects come forward in the future?

  I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, but carbon capture can be done in a number of ways. Anaerobic digestion plants, for example, produce as much CO2 as methane, which can be ducted into greenhouses to produce bigger tomatoes, cucumbers and lettuces. Will such natural carbon capture be included in the project, thereby helping to enhance our food security?

  I am all in favour of big tomatoes and improving our food security. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the potential uses of CCUS. On Friday, we were at a glass factory that will be using hydrogen from a new project and will be the beneficiary of a decarbonised supply. I look forward to further discussions with the hon. Gentleman.

  Full debate: Carbon Capture, Usage and Storage

• 02 Oct 2024: Tweet

  The end of British steel-making 10,000 jobs lost Importing steel from China which is 60% powered by coal Those cheering this as decarbonisation have lost the plot. This is bad for global emissions. https://twitter.com/lbc/status/1841074826569490929 [Source]

• 02 Oct 2024: Tweet

  The end of British steel-making 10,000 jobs lost Importing steel from China which is 60% powered by coal Those cheering this as decarbonisation have lost the plot. This is bad for global emissions. https://twitter.com/tylerdu50887305/status/1841205667081633971 [Source]

• 27 Sep 2024: Tweet

  If we don’t focus on cheap energy then our industries will move abroad to countries which are still powered by coal. There is no point in being world leading if no one will follow your lead. We’d be better off investing in tech to help the rest of the world decarbonise cheaply. https://twitter.com/telegraph/status/1839410052127424847 [Source]