FAQs Database

Quick answer: Govt BEIS figures show a 46% fall in UK territorial emissions. However, this is not the whole picture. Emissions from international aviation and shipping, and from the manufacture of the products we import are all currently not counted. And instead of falling, these have grown, and now account for a third of our entire carbon footprint. Aviation and shipping are now to be added but not until 2033.

Once we include imports, aviation and shipping, our total "consumption" emissions fell by only 19% from 1990 to 2018 according to a leading study for the Global Carbon Project. That's not even 1% per year! A WWF study running to 2016 shows an even gloomier picture, with just a 15% drop.

The CEE Bill would require us to take responsibility for all our emissions, wherever they occur. The good news is that recognising the carbon cost of imports will lead to policies that encourage manufacturing and jobs to return to the UK. What's not to like about that?

More info
International aviation and shipping were omitted from the 2008 Climate Act due to complications determining which country bears responsibility. But these emissions are becoming ever more significant and it's no good ignoring them. The government has now announced it will include aviation and shipping in its 2035 targets (the sixth carbon budget), but it continues to allow airport expansion around the country which is not consistent with achieving those targets. And why don’t the Government now tell us what the adjusted emissions reduction % is including aviation and shipping instead of repeating the 46%?

Equally we cannot ignore imports. Many of our companies have outsourced their manufacturing to countries like China. When we order products from abroad, the resulting manufacturing emissions are due to our consumption decisions. It's only fair to add these emissions to our account.

Recognising the carbon cost of imports will give an advantage to UK companies, helping restore manufacturing and jobs, where we can manufacture low carbon products with our increasingly green electricity grid. This will also help take the pressure off China to build new coal power stations.

In conclusion, our headline 46% cut is in large part because we have moved so much domestic production overseas. The emissions have not gone away.

This graph summarises the problem, or you can check out our animation.

Hydrogen is being pushed hard by fossil fuel companies including the fracking lobby. They propose to produce from hydrogen from natural gas, pumping the resulting CO2 emissions underground. They call this "blue" hydrogen as distinct from clean "green" hydrogen made by electrolysis from water.

There are numerous problems associated with blue hydrogen, and independent studies show that it is absolutely not the solution for home heating and transport. These include:

• Too expensive: blue hydrogen is produced in a high energy process from natural gas. It therefore will be significantly more expensive than natural gas. No-one wants home heating bills to skyrocket. An independent study concludes that even air-source heat pumps (which aren't as efficient as ground-source heat pumps) would be cheaper to run than a hydrogen boiler.
• Carbon Capture unproven at scale: The blue hydrogen production process releases CO2. Advocates of blue hydrogen say they will capture that CO2 and lock it away underground. But this sequestration process has not been proven at scale anywhere in the world. The US government have spent $billions on failed projects. And what's more, there are no guarantees that the CO2 will remain safely underground. It would take decades to develop and then properly test this process. And then, how would governments ever check that private companies are properly capturing the CO2?
• It's far from zero carbon! Methane leaks from fracking or drilling operations - BBC May 2021 Estimates of these fugitive emissions range up to 3.7% (New Scientist). This is a major problem because methane is 84 times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2. So you only need fugitive emissions of just over 1% for the leaked methane to cause more warming than burning all the gas. And at 3.7%, blue hydrogen is worse than burning gas!
• Causes unhealthy air pollution: The New Scientist have warned that burning hydrogen in air causes significant amounts of harmful NOx air pollution, as well as creating the risk of explosion. 
• Risk of explosion: Due its very small molecule size compared to natural gas, hydrogen can escape through pipework, and since it is odourless, this does present the risk of explosion.
• Encourages fracking: The lobbyists aim is to use fracking for the natural gas to produce hydrogen.
• Public subsidies: Incredibly, fossil fuel companies are beginning to ask for public money to pay for the infrastructure to capture carbon.

It is likely that hydrogen will be needed for tough-to-fix challenges like aviation and steel manufacture, but that needs to be green hydrogen produced using renewable power.

There is no role for blue hydrogen. Fossil fuel companies have had decades to diversify into renewables, but have failed to act. They cannot now expect the public to subsidise an expensive and wholly inappropriate 'solution'.

We have existing, proven, clean technology already in place for home heating and transport: heat pumps for homes combined with significant improvements in insulation, and electric vehicles for transport. We just need our government to create the right policy environment to accelerate the transition to these solutions, and to be wary of corporate lobbying.

The Environment Bill is an important post-Brexit bill that fills the gap left in our legislation now that we are outside the EU. It does not tackle the core problems at the heart of the climate and ecological crisis and exists to tidy up lots of loose ends - looking at some select issues rather than a connected whole.

The Environment Bill contains no mention of ‘CO2’ or ‘carbon’, or ‘woodland’, and the word ‘forest’ appears only once in the entire 258 page draft, and then only in relation to commercial activity. The Environment Bill contains none of the broad requirements set out in the CEE Bill designed to ensure nature is restored and protected.

Critically, the Environment Bill does not address the connections between the climate and nature emergencies through joined-up policy making. It does not account for the UK’s entire ecological footprint including our impact on nature internationally in the production, trade, transportation and disposal of the goods we consume. And it has no overarching target to end the destruction of nature, a target that would be an equivalent to our climate “net zero”.

Quick answer: Independent scientists (the IPCC) told the world in 2018 we would burn through our remaining carbon budget by 2030 unless we made 'ambitious near term' emission cuts. But the world has ignored the science and continued on as before, with a brief punctuation for covid. So, no, 2050 is not soon enough. We now must cut faster to stay within our carbon budget. By 2050, catastrophic climate change will now be well under way and probably beyond control.

MORE INFO

The Committee on Climate Change (the government’s own independent advisors) stated in their May 2019 report that a 2050 target:

'if replicated across the world, and coupled with ambitious near-term reductions in emissions, would deliver a greater than 50% chance of limiting the temperature increase to 1.5°C.'

Firstly, it's difficult to argue that a 50:50 chance on a matter so serious is anything but reckless. But more concerning is that the 'ambitious near-term reductions' called for have not happened. A vital element of the UK's 2050 target was the need to cut emissions immediately and dramatically to buy ourselves time. Having failed to act, we have used up more of our remaining carbon budget than intended.  We now must cut emissions much faster to avoid temperatures rising beyond 1.5ºC.

Most poorer nations cannot afford to transition as quickly as developed nations like the UK. And those countries will inevitably see some growth in emissions as they reduce poverty (hence increasing consumption). This, coupled with the UK's additional responsibility for its historic greenhouse gas emissions (all still in the atmosphere), means the UK must set an even more ambitious trajectory towards net zero. UK's cumulative emissions are amongst the highest in the world. This places a particular moral obligation on us to act fast to clean up our act and lead the way. Global co-operation will not work unless we bear our fair share of the cuts. Check out this animation from The Carbon Brief showing how emissions grew since 1750.

Yes, making rapid cuts now would be an enormous endeavour, but it is no more impossible than our rapid manufacturing transition at the outset of WWII or our response to covid-19. Complacency now will result in economic disaster and suffering on a massive scale over decades to come. We are already seeing the effects of our inaction. Read more from NASA and WWF.

We must act now, without delay, according to the scientific advice.

No - the Citizens' Assembly proposed in the CEE Bill would NOT in any way circumvent parliament. MP's would still have the final say over recommendations from the assembly. The bill simply requires that the assembly's recommendations are put before Parliament not swept under the carpet. Parliament would remain sovereign.

No, the bill was in fact developed by a coalition of eminent scientists, academics and lawyers as well as campaigners, and is attracting wide support from concerned citizens and organisations from across the political spectrum. List of expert contributors.

The often repeated claim is:

"I understand that this Bill has been developed by campaign members of Extinction Rebellion, Big Ask and Power for the People."

But the Big Ask Campaign actually has not existed since 2008, and Power to the People don't even campaign on the CEE Bill.

Quick answer (well quick-ish: it's a big question): Responding to climate change presents a huge challenge to any government, and the UK has taken welcome steps in the right direction with some ambitious-sounding targets. But look beneath the surface and it’s clear we are falling short of what’s needed, particularly since our aim is to set an example to the world when we host this November’s COP26 climate talks:

• Our 2050 net zero target only offers a ‘greater than 50% chance’ of limiting global heating to 1.5ºC. These are terrible odds. The consequences of going over 1.5°C are dramatic. UN scientists have written an entire report on the importance of not crossing that threshold.
• Our targets are anyway no longer sufficient as the science has moved on, with leading climate scientist Kevin Anderson warning that the UK's targets are far from what's needed to keep temperatures within 1.5ºC of pre-industrial levels.
• Even against these insufficient targets, the UK is way off track - according to the Government’s own advisors, risking embarrassment at the COP26 climate talks.
• Our targets are so far not backed by policies, action or serious funding. Rishi Sunak has promised just £4 billion as a green investment package. This seems like a big large number until you compare it to the £106 billion price tag for HS2, or the £37 billion paid to companies for Track & Trace. This is a woefully inadequate sum to throw at such a large problem.
• There are too many policies actually running in the opposite direction to the targets such as allowing multiple airport expansions, ploughing ahead with HS2 despite a huge shift to video conferencing, a major road building program (albeit under review), and a giant new coal mine in Cumbria which has now been delayed but not cancelled.
• There is no acknowledgement of the connection between the climate and ecological crises in any existing or proposed policy, and so we are suffering from a lack of joined-up thinking.

The CEE Bill would formally recognise the link between the climate and ecological crises, helping ensure that solving problems in one doesn’t inadvertently create problems in the other.

In passing the CEE Bill, the government would be making a legal promise that our country will do its fair share to limit warming to 1.5ºC, setting an example to the rest of the world. The Bill would introduce legally binding annual targets to ensure we stay on track. It will also send a clear message to all levels of government, and to the public that we are serious about tackling climate change and biodiversity loss. The certainty created will give our innovative British businesses the confidence they need to invest in retraining and in green technology.

MORE INFO

Gambling on a 50:50 chance
The world’s leading climate scientists at the IPCC told us in 2018 that we must not put more than another 420 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere for a “greater than 66% chance” of keeping the global average temperature rise within 1.5ºC. This is our ‘carbon budget’. At the same time, they offered a higher carbon budget of 580 billion tonnes of CO2 for a more risky ‘greater than 50%’ of staying within 1.5ºC, which appears to be the route currently followed by the UK. It is hard to describe being satisfied with a 50:50 gamble on our future as anything other than reckless.

Targets no longer sufficient
The UK’s net zero plans were based on the IPCC Special Report on limiting warming to 1.5ºC. The IPCC proposed a path to net zero in 2050, but insisted that this needed “ambitious near-term” emissions cuts. Other than a brief dip due to covid, those cuts have not happened, with global emissions in December 2020 worryingly already above 2019 levels. The IPCC told us we must not burn more than a certain amount of carbon before reaching net zero. Failing to make cuts means we are burning through that carbon budget at a faster rate than we should, which in turn will mean we must cut emissions even more quickly to avoid blowing the budget.

What’s more, one of Britain’s leading climate scientists, Kevin Anderson, explains that the Climate Change Committee’s (CCC) implied carbon budget behind its 2050 net zero plan is as much as 240% too high to meet our commitment under the Paris Agreement to limit temperature rise to within 1.5ºC. The CCC are in a difficult position and appear to have made a political decision on this. Of their 2050 net zero plan, the CCC state:

Rather than providing advice solely on what is scientifically necessary, they appear to have restricted their recommendations to what they believe is politically possible. Perhaps they were right to do this before 2020, but covid has shown us that our society is capable of radical change in the face of an emergency.

This is a very serious weakness which will undermine the UK’s legitimacy when hosting the COP26 climate talks this November.

Way off track from targets
In its June 2020 Progress Report, the UK’s independent Climate Change Committee said that the UK is only on track in four out of 21 progress indicators, and that just two of 31 key policy milestones had been met over the past year. Refer to pages 18-20 of the report.

International science organisation Climate Action Tracker, which assesses every country's performance, rates the UK’s policies as “insufficient” and on track for 3ºC of warming.

A study by The University of Manchester found that the UK's planned rate of emissions cuts is less than half of that required, with the scientists suggesting a minimum annual emissions cut of 10% each year, starting in 2020. As this hasn't happened, the required rate now will be even higher.

Lacking policies, action and funding

The UK has done relatively well on setting targets, yet is falling desperately short on actual action. According to Roger Harrabin of the BBC:

‘while Mr Johnson creates jobs and cuts carbon dioxide with one hand, he's either increasing emissions - or leaving them uncut - in at least 10 other areas. These are road-building, SUVs, high-speed rail, aviation, overseas finance, oil and gas, coal mining, farming, meat-eating and peat.’

Rishi Sunak has promised just £4 billion as a green investment package. But this is a woefully inadequate sum to tackle something as huge as climate change. Just compare it to the £106bn price tag of HS2, or the £37 billion paid to companies running the Track & Trace system during covid. You can't solve climate change for less than 1/20th of the price of just one railway!

We wrote earlier this year that the targeted emissions cuts of 68% by 2030 had not been backed by any serious policy action. That still hasn't changed, yet now we have a target of 78% by 2035.  Until the government actually does something bold to reduce emissions, these are nothing better than newspaper headlines.

Quick answer: The Government’s Environment Bill is sometimes put forward as a solution to the crisis facing nature, but its main purpose is to tie up loose ends post-Brexit. It does not contain the kind of bold policy action needed to respond to the stark warnings coming from scientists. These warnings are clear:

• RSPB report: UK fails to deliver on 14 out of 20 commitments made under a UN biodiversity treaty.
• WWF warns of ecological collapse without bold action.
• RSPB's State of Nature report warns that 26% of UK’s mammals are heading for extinction, with hedgehogs having already declined by 95%.

Nature is inextricably bound up with climate change. Restoring nature is part of the solution to climate change. Trees are a great way to help absorb carbon. The UK’s woodland cover is just 13% of land area compared to an average 38% in the EU, and our uplands are nearly all bare, contributing to lowland flooding. Yet the Government plans only to plant 30,000 hectares per year - that’s only just over 1/10th of 1% of UK's land area!

By passing the CEE Bill, the government would be making a legal promise to protect and restore nature, as well as formally recognising the inter-relationship with climate change in order to encourage joined-up thinking. There is no other proposed legislation that would protect important ecosystems like woodlands, peat bogs and wetlands.

MORE INFO
Over recent decades, we have witnessed an extraordinary decline in biodiversity and the ecosystem services essential to life. From pollination & natural flood prevention, to crop nutrition provided by soils, we depend on a healthy biosphere. Humankind is part of the circle of life, not outside of it. Yet for decades, human activity has outstripped safe planetary boundaries, resulting in what scientists now define as the arrival of the sixth mass extinction event. Experts now warn of looming ecological collapse if policymakers fail to take emergency action - see World Wildlife Fund article.

The RSPB’s report A Lost Decade for Nature calls for urgent action after the UK fails to deliver 14 out of 20 commitments to nature made under a UN biodiversity treaty in 2010.

The RSPB’s 2019 State of Nature report on the UK’s biodiversity states:

• 41% of all UK’s species have declined since the 1970s (hedgehogs have declined by 95%).
• 26% of the UK's mammals are at a very real risk of becoming extinct.
• A third of the wild bees and hoverfly species have sustained losses, likely due to pesticides, habitat loss and climate change.
• 97% of the UK’s wildflower meadows have been lost in the last century. Read more from Kew Gardens on why wildflower meadows are so important to biodiversity.

Other statistics can be found in this infographic.

There is nowhere near enough Government focus on this issue which is inextricably bound up with climate change. The two need to be tackled together, with an appreciation of their interdependencies. This is why we need the CEE Bill to create a legal obligation to protect and restore nature, whilst ensuring that policies work hand in hand with those addressing climate change.

The good news is that nature can heal quickly if we just give it the chance. Read about the groundbreaking wilding project at the Knepp estate in Sussex.

Quick answer: The UK has already signed up to the Paris Agreement to make best endeavours to keep warming within 1.5%. As the planet warms, the science tells us that tipping points will be reached, beyond which warming will accelerate and become unstoppable in a vicious cycle, threatening our very civilisation. Scientists are continuing to study these tipping points, making best estimates of when we will reach them. They warn us that every 0.1ºC past 1.5ºC moves us further into this dangerous territory.

Yes, it will be expensive to tackle climate change, but the cost of inaction will be much higher.

But what's more, tackling climate change will bring benefits such as cleaner air, quieter cities, and warmer homes. Ceasing burning fossil fuels will deliver enormous health gains and a reduction in the burden on the NHS, saving up to 36,000 deaths a year.

MORE INFO

Costs
Economic studies show that, though expensive, it is significantly cheaper to act to limit climate change than face the costs of ignoring it. For example, see Nature editorial 2018.

The costs of inaction are staggering — $600tn by the end of the century - FT May 2020. Morgan Stanley bank say that climate-related disasters cost the world $650 billion from 2016-18, according to research funded by Public Health England, air pollution in England could cost as much as £5.3 billion by 2035.Health benefits
The UK Government acknowledges that there are between 28,000 and 36,000 deaths every year from air pollution. This needless suffering could be avoided by switching from petrol and diesel vehicles to public transport, active travel like cycling, and electric vehicles, as well as banning gas and oil boilers.

Jobs

UN research shows that renewable energy employs significantly more people per unit of power produced than conventional fossil fuels

Tipping points
More information on tipping points. Scientists are continuing to study tipping points, making best estimates of when we will reach them. They warn us that every 0.1ºC of warming moves us further into this dangerous territory.

Christina Figueres writes in the Financial Times:

"The next 10 years will determine whether we stand any chance of preventing the worst impacts of climate change, orders of magnitude worse than the Covid-19 disruption. If by 2030 we have not cut greenhouse gas emissions by half globally, we will not be able to avoid devastating tipping points that would shatter the global economy and pose existential human threats. The costs of inaction are staggering — $600tn by the end of the century."

More information on tipping points.

Quick Answer: We currently ignore emissions caused by manufacturing our products overseas, as well as international shipping and aviation. And instead of falling, these have grown, and now account for a third of our entire carbon footprint. So, no, the goals mentioned above are nothing to do the main source of our international carbon footprint: imports, aviation and shipping.

MORE INFO

International Climate Finance is a UK commitment to support developing countries in responding to the challenges and opportunities of climate change. It has no bearing on the C02 emissions embedded in the UK’s supply chain.

The CEE bill would commit us to accounting for the emissions we cause when ordering products to be manufactured overseas. It's basic fairness and common sense that we take responsibility for climate pollution resulting from our consumption. Accounting for such emissions will help to drive change, including policies to encourage manufacturing and jobs to return to the UK.

Quick Answer: Business-as-usual has failed for decades to deliver action. A Citizens Assembly giving ordinary people a say would help raise public awareness whilst giving the Government the mandate it needs to tackle difficult decisions quickly. Not all assemblies have worked, but many have. The claim above is incorrect.

MORE INFO

Citizens Assemblies have been demonstrated around the world to be a very effective way to find consensus on difficult national challenges. Democracy is more than just a general election every 5 years and we need to be creative and bold in engaging the public to find the answers. You will know that there are many different views on how to tackle climate change so let’s enhance our democracy and find a way forward that can complement the existing policy making mechanisms and restore a bit of trust in our politics. We can probably all agree that our established confrontational political system has not delivered the action needed on climate change over recent decades.

The Canadian Citizens’ Assemblies referred to were very badly publicised and hence the uptake on the subsequent referendum was lower than required to pass. This reflects more on the Canadian Government’s lack of commitment to the process than the worth of the process itself. Other Citizens’ Assemblies have produced excellent results, particularly the Irish Assembly on Abortion 2018 which broke years of political deadlock. The 2020 French Citizens’ Assembly followed many months of ‘gilets jaune’ civil unrest. Many radical recommendations were made which are now in the process of being considered to enter law. As long as Government acts to take the recommendations seriously they have every possibility of producing impactful, long lasting results.

Important note - the Citizens' Assembly proposed in the CEE Bill would NOT in any way circumvent parliament. MP's would still have the final say over recommendations from the assembly. The bill simply requires that the assembly's recommendations are put before Parliament not swept under the carpet. Parliament would remain sovereign.

A short video explainer on the benefits of citizens assemblies from the Economist:

Quick Answer: The Citizens Assembly of 2020 was a brilliant effort - thank you to all those involved. But it was organised independently by several parliamentary committees without buy-in from Government. There was no obligation on Government to debate its findings (many weren't), and very little publicity. The whole point of a citizens assembly is that it allows the public to engage in the process. If no-one knows about it, it's not going to work.

What's more, the assembly was not allowed a say on the most important decision of all - on how quickly we need to reduce emissions. It was also relatively small with 108 members. 

So the process needs to be repeated at a larger scale, and this time with the full backing of Government and prime time television coverage.

MORE INFO

Six parliamentary committees jointly commissioned the Climate Assembly UK (CA UK) in 2020. This was a worthy attempt, but without Government engagement, CA UK’s remit fell well short of the scale and scope required to address the climate and ecological emergency. In particular:

• the Assembly wasn't given a say on how quickly we need to cut emissions;
• there was no obligation for recommendations to be debated by parliament and a large number were simply ignored;
• members were tasked with identifying a pathway to the UK’s entirely inadequate 2050 net zero target with no mandate to question the target itself; and
• the assembly was not called upon to consider adaptation or biodiversity.

A great new BBC documentary follows some of the ordinary members of public that took part in the assembly, interviewing them as they wrestled with the big decisions on how we should respond to climate change. Watch it here on BBC iPlayer.

• Many bills at first are just presentation bills, but as they gain support they become more likely to succeed. There are many examples which have. The world leading Climate Change Act 2008 is a prime example.  It took several years for that to gain enough support. This became the most important piece of Climate legislation ever.
• The more MPs support the bill, the more likely it is to become law eventually. A decision not to support it merely because it may not succeed makes that failure more likely.
• Support for the Bill is growing fast across the country. MPs not supporting it are standing in the way of something reasonable, possible and necessary.
• There are no parliamentary measures on offer so far that will make it possible for the UK to move from being '3C compatible' on the Climate Action Tracker to 1.5C Paris Agreement compatible. Supporting other bills like the Environment Bill is no substitute for supporting this Bill which will establish a comprehensive legal framework and put 1.5Cº compatibility at the heart of Government

The warming at the Earth’s surface is the average across the whole planet. And weirdly whilst most areas will get hotter for most of the time, some areas can become cooler, at least for some of the time.

The climate is a hugely complex system and two major ways that UK can get cooler are:

Change in Ocean Currents

The gulf stream current which brings relatively warm water up to the UK from the Carribean has already slowed down around 15%. This current is why the UK doesn’t have snow on the ground all winter like other places as close to the North Pole – e.g. Newfoundland. This is due to the huge amount of ice melting in the arctic which is making the sea water less salty. It’s the heavy salty water sinking up in the arctic circle that drives this current. Have you ever seen the “Day after Tomorrow”? which deals with this idea, though the film-makers obviously massively overplayed it. Scientists are still studying how this will affect the UK.

Change in the Jet Stream
The Arctic is warming faster than anywhere on the planet. This is in part because there’s less sea ice to reflect the sun’s radiation back to space, which is instead absorbed in the dark ocean. This warming is disrupting the polar jet stream, a circle of really high speed winds usually running north of Scotland, causing it to form big ribbons sometimes bulging a long way out to the north and south. One of those ribbons has allowed colder arctic air to spill down over the UK. Another allowed tropical air to pour up into northern Russia.