23 June 24
The VoteClimate team has searched the party manifestos to identify any and all policy pledges that would have an impact on the UK's climate emissions. We've done our best to interpret each pledge fairly and to quantify the CO2e reductions/increases that would result.
It may be unsurprising that the Greens come out streets ahead, but there are huge differences between the consequences of the main parties' commitments:
The chart and table below show how many MtCO2e emissions would be avoided if each party's manifesto were implemented as they have promised:
Cumulative Emissions Avoided (MtCO2e) | Per Person (tCO2e) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Party | 2030 | 2040 | 2050 | 2050 |
Green | 412 | 2443 | 3819 | 57.0 |
Liberal Democrat | 89 | 599 | 1063 | 15.9 |
Labour | 162 | 552 | 654 | 9.8 |
SNP | 25 | 117 | 204 | 3.0 |
Conservative | -1 | -3 | 18 | 0.3 |
Plaid Cymru | 0.1 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 0.0 |
Reform | <0 | <0 | <0 | <0 |
Here's a zoomed-in chart to compare the main parties more easily:
All the manifestos (except Reform's) are full of warm words about tackling the climate emergency. We have reviewed the policy promises underpinning those ambitions and published a full analysis.
This analysis has been produced in a hurry and makes large assumptions and approximations. We've tried to capture that with wide (30%) error bars. It's worth noting that where the parties have overlapping policies, eg on EVs and decarbonisation, any errors will be correlated. Eg a 10% error for a particular policy would affect the emissions-reductions totals similarly for each party proposing that policy. This reduces the impact of errors on how the parties rank.
This is still work in progress and inevitably contains some errors. On the other hand, it seems unlikely, given the huge differences between them, that revisions will change where each main party stands in the rankings.
Before telling us we've got it wrong, we would kindly ask that you review our calculation documents (below) for any manifesto commitments we have missed, and let us know if you think we've made any mistakes in our calculations. We are happy to revise if any oversights are identified.
Where a party scores badly in our analysis, that is a reflection of a lack of actual policies on climate in their manifesto.
Constructive comments are welcome. Please send to .
Here is a sample of the most impactful policies.
Policy | Party | Reductions by 2050 (MtCO2e) |
---|---|---|
"a carbon tax at an initial rate of £120 per tonne, rising to a maximum of £500 per tonne of carbon emitted within ten years" | Green | 1,500 |
"An end to sales of new petrol and diesel fuelled vehicles by 2027 and to the use of petrol and diesel vehicles on the road by 2035" | Green | 500 |
"restoring the requirement that every new car and small van sold from 2030 is zero-emission" | Labour & Lib Dems | 270 |
Restoring peatlands | Green & Lib Dems | 260 |
"Make homes warmer and cheaper to heat with a ten-year emergency upgrade programme, starting with free insulation and heat pumps for those on low incomes" | Lib Dems | 210 |
"quadruple offshore wind by 2030" | Labour | 180 |
"Treble our offshore wind capacity" | Conservative | 0 |
"We would cease development of new nuclear power stations" and "phase out existing nuclear power stations" | Green | -300 |
How close do these manifestos get us to the UK's Net Zero target?
See: Party Manifestos vs Net Zero
VoteClimate will use the following ranking when advising its members on how to cast the strongest vote for climate in the general election:
Although the chart shows Labour starting off ahead of the Lib Dems, VoteClimate ranks parties based on the greatest long-term benefits. The Lib Dems' policies, eg to improve the housing stock, keep on giving into the future; whereas Labour's aggressive action on renewables produces a one-off gain, getting us faster to the mostly decarbonised grid that is coming by around 2040 anyway: see UK Offshore Wind pipeline nears 100GW.
Our recommendations will be tailored for the greatest impact in each seat based on how the parties stand locally.
Back to: News & Analysis