John Milne

The effectiveness of any carbon budget relies on two things: accuracy and attainability. If the numbers are wrong, the budget is meaningless, and if the plans are unrealistic, the budget is undeliverable. If the public lose confidence in either of those things, they lose confidence in the wider environmental project itself. That is why I want to focus less on any individual target and more on the credibility of the framework. When goals are repeatedly missed or look unachievable, there is always a temptation for Governments to adjust the assumptions, alter the methodology, or redefine success. That satisfies nobody: it frustrates environmentalists who want genuine emissions reduction and emboldens sceptics who claim that the targets were never realistic, and it leaves the public wondering whether we are solving problems or simply moving numbers around on spreadsheets. What we need is a reset to ensure that we are having honest conversations about emissions, environmental challenges and climate policy, based on sound data. That is why I question the overconfidence in the budget in carbon capture and storage. The budget makes it clear that CCS plays a significant role in the pathway towards meeting future emissions targets, and I recognise that it does have an important role to play in industries that are genuinely hard to decarbonise, such as chemicals, cement and the heavy industrial processes. The Liberal Democrats have always been willing to support emerging technologies in such cases. However, we should be honest about what is being assumed. Much of the proposed CCS roll-out is tied to large gas-powered infrastructure projects, which means that we are effectively locking ourselves into gas infrastructure for decades to come. The problem is that the North sea cannot possibly supply our gas needs, no matter how much we drill and no matter what we do. The more we rely on gas-backed CCS assumptions in the budget, the more we are locking ourselves into imported fracked LNG, mostly from the US. That contributes to global warming, whether it happens in Texas or Teesside. Yet UK carbon budgets are, of course, primarily territorial in nature—and that is precisely the sort of accounting contortion that can undermine public confidence. People are not interested in whether the emissions have disappeared from a spreadsheet; they want to know if they have disappeared from the atmosphere. The same problem exists in aviation. The Climate Change Committee warned that aviation is likely to become one of the largest sources of UK emissions by 2040 because other sectors are expected to decarbonise more quickly. The committee stated that demand management remains the most effective way of limiting aviation’s impacts, but at the same time, we continue to debate expansion at Gatwick, Heathrow and Luton. Many people struggle to reconcile those two positions, and it is not hard to see why. Communities in my part of Sussex—in villages such as Warnham, Slinfold and Rusper—face the prospect of increased aircraft noise and new flightpaths. While the people bear the brunt, the industry is rewarded. We need stronger accountability within the aviation sector, including the creation of an independent aviation ombudsman. If we want support for climate action to endure, honesty matters: honesty about imported emissions, honesty about LNG, honesty about airport expansion and honesty about the role and limitations of carbon capture and storage. The greatest threat to environmental progress is not ambition, but the loss of public faith that the targets and pathways are credible.