A group of Liberal Democrats have called on Keir Starmer to back Lib Dem MP Roz Savage’s Climate and Nature Bill when it comes up in Parliament on 24 January. In a letter signed by 58 MPs and Peers they say:
We, Liberal Democrats, commend your and the Government’s determination to elevate the UK’s global climate and nature leadership. However, without legislation that unites our climate and nature plans, they will continue to be developed in isolation. This means your clean energy and nature restoration ambitions may fail—and, equally worryingly—may make both crises worse.
There is, however, a golden opportunity for you and the Government to showcase cross-party consensus on the need for an integrated approach to the climate-nature crisis. The CAN Bill would deliver a joined-up framework, ensuring that Britain meets its international commitments for climate and nature, as part of expediting your plans to build a nature positive, net zero economy.
Roz’s Bill should have a five hour debating slot on 24th January.
The Climate and Nature Bill is guaranteed a five-hour Parliamentary debate during its second reading on 24 January 2025. It already has the backing of some 250 Parliamentarians, including Sir Ed Davey, Carla Denyer, and Zac Goldsmith. It enjoys the support of 10,000s of members of the public, more than 1,100 businesses and organisations, as well as 1,000 climate and health experts
High-profile endorsers include Co-Operative Bank, The Body Shop, Oxfam, Save British Farming, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Ecotricity, The Wildlife Trusts and Triodos Bank.
Unless this Bill gets Government time, it is unlikely to become law. This would be a very easy win for Starmer and Labour so let’s hope they see sense.
The letter in full is published below:
Keir Starmer MP
Prime Minister of the UK
13 January 2025
Dear Prime Minister,
We write to you as the Liberal Democrats’ Parliamentary Group, welcoming the leadership of Dr Roz Savage MP, and asking the UK Government to support the passage of her cross-party Climate and Nature Bill, including at the CAN Bill’s second reading on 24 January.
As you recently said in Azabijan during COP29, global warming above 1.5ºC will expose hundreds of thousands more people in the UK to flood risk, greater economic instability and national insecurity. We agree. The importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to strengthen climate security cannot be understated. But current targets are not adequate for anything near to achieving your 1.5°C obligations; and concerningly, would see the UK overshoot its 2030 Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) emissions plan by 33%.
Moreover, it will not be possible to do without also reversing the damage inflicted on our shared natural world. These two issues are deeply and inextricably linked. As the Environment Secretary said recently, nature is dying. The UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries on Earth, and though our current legislation, the Environment Act 2021, signals the correct direction of travel, it fails to go far enough. Reversing the decline of the health, diversity and resilience of species, populations, habitats and ecosystems is key; alongside that Act’s target on species abundance. Putting nature on the path of recovery by 2030, is crucial, and is also the mission of the Global Biodiversity Framework 2022, of which the UK is a signatory.
The impacts of the climate-nature crisis are growing. As the 2024 Labour manifesto made clear, this is the greatest, long-term, global challenge we face. As part of rising to this moment, and in order to tackle the root causes of the intertwined crises we face, we need a stronger, science-led—and integrated—statutory framework, as proposed by the CAN Bill.
We, Liberal Democrats, commend your and the Government’s determination to elevate the UK’s global climate and nature leadership. However, without legislation that unites our climate and nature plans, they will continue to be developed in isolation. This means your clean energy and nature restoration ambitions may fail—and, equally worryingly—may make both crises worse.
There is, however, a golden opportunity for you and the Government to showcase cross-party consensus on the need for an integrated approach to the climate-nature crisis. The CAN Bill would deliver a joined-up framework, ensuring that Britain meets its international commitments for climate and nature, as part of expediting your plans to build a nature positive, net zero economy.
The Bill has been before Parliament since 2020, and was championed by Caroline Lucas, Lord Redesdale, Olivia Blake MP, Alex Sobel MP and now, Roz Savage MP. It is supported by 255 Parliamentarians from all main parties; alongside over 375 local councils, 1,100 charities, NGOs and businesses, 1,200 scientists, and 60,000 members of the public.
We ask you to support the Climate and Nature Bill, and to allow all MPs a free vote for the Bill at its second reading vote on 24 January.
Yours sincerely,
Daisy Cooper MP Baroness Walmsley
Al Pinkerton MP
Alison Bennett MP
Andrew George MP
Anna Sabine MP
Bobby Dean MP
Brian Mathew MP
Cameron Thomas MP
Caroline Voaden MP
Claire Young MP
Clive Jones MP
Edward Morello MP
Helen Maguire MP
Ian Sollom MP
James MacCleary MP
Jamie Stone MP
Jess Brown-Fuller MP
Josh Babarinde MP
Lee Dillon MP
Liz Jarvis MP
Manuela Perteghella MP
Marie Goldman MP
Martin Wrigley MP
Max Wilkinson MP
Mike Martin MP
Monica Harding MP
Munira Wilson MP
Olly Glover MP
Richard Foord MP
Sarah Dyke MP
Steffan Aquarone MP
Steve Darling MP
Susan Murray MP
Tessa Munt MP
Tim Farron MP
Tom Morrison MP
Victoria Collins MP
Vikki Slade MP
Wendy Chamberlain MP
Wera Hobhouse MP
Baroness Burt of Solihull
Lord Clement-Jones
Lord German
Baroness Humphreys
Baroness Kramer
Lord McNally
Lord Oates
Baroness Parminter
Baroness Pidgeon
Baroness Pinnock
Earl Russell
Baroness Scott of Needham Market
Lord Sharkey
Lord Shipley
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
Lord Storey
Lord Teverson
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings
3 Comments
It’s well worth pushing as the most ambitious proposal with a chance of passing. I can’t help noticing though that the definition of ‘our’ emissions is based on CO2 which is actually emitted here (or in transit by sea or air). Our real consumption includes the energy that goes into all the goods and services we consume (minus those we export).
The distinction is particularly important now because the only way that small economies like ours (or even quite large ones like the EU) can affect global emissions When any one big economy (currently USA) is not on board is some form of Carbon Added Tax. It’s paid by consumers of high carbon goods but it’s paid to their own government so every government can move forward at its own pace without making themselves uncompetitive.
Those neandertals in “Reform” and the Conservative party who think Climate change and biodiversity loss should be ignored should take a look at the United Kingdom Food Security Report 2024 published last month. I do not think I have seen any reference to it in the media.
Among other things it states:
“Climate change, nature loss and water insecurity pose significant risks to the ability of global food production to meet demand over the longer term”
“Extreme weather events continue to have a significant effect on domestic production, particularly arable crops, fruit and vegetables. ”
“Long term decline in the UK’s natural capital is a pressing risk to UK food production.”
“Agri-food sector labour and skills shortages continue and are compounded by significantly more restrictive access to EU labour and skills since freedom of movement with the EU ended in 2021”
“There has been a notable rise in inflation …..for the category of food ………. since the beginning of 2021.”
Lots more here for Lib Dem MPs to get their teeth into:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/united-kingdom-food-security-report-2024
Peter is absolutely right.
The definition of “our” emissions is absolutely fundamental to whether the proposals turn out to be a useful step in the direction of Net Zero or whether they are simply yet more Government Greenwash.
So far, our country’s efforts to reduce carbon emissions have been based on one simple strategy – Go for the easy option.
Initially we continued a process that had begun before long carbon emissions had become a major political issue – moving our major energy systems from coal power to gas and as we had North Sea Gas this was relatively cheap at the start and not particularly difficult.
Second, we went for a massive growth in wind and solar power generation, with huge subsidies being offered to commercial bodies to build wind turbines, and more recently solar farms. However now there are huge delays due to there having been next to no investment in the grid infrastructure needed to transmit it to where it was needed.
Thirdly, we have offshored ever increasing amounts our UK industrial production from reasonably efficient plants based in the UK to plants in China with their massive use of coal as a source of energy and then the extra carbon emissions to transport finished goods half way around the world.
All in all so far our so called “progress” has been little more than taking lazy options coupled with a game of pass the CO2 parcel and we need something much, much better.