Treasury Criticised by Leading Labour MP for ‘Short-Sighted’ Refusal to Back Rainforest Fund at COP30
Olivia Blake warns Government that “what happens in the global south affects the global north” and calls for ministers to prioritise taxing private jets
Last Wednesday saw the launch of a new cross-party group in Parliament, the Climate and Nature Crisis Caucus. It comes as both Reform UK and the Conservatives push the conversation on climate action to the right – including dismantling the landmark Climate Change Act.
We spoke to the Chair of the new caucus, Sheffield Labour MP Olivia Blake, about the state of the climate and nature debate in Britain – and what the Government must do at the United Nation’s key COP30 conference in Belém (Brazil) happening now.
Josiah Mortimer: The consensus on climate change seems to be splintering in the UK. Is that one of the drivers behind setting up this group? Are you concerned that the consensus is falling apart?
Olivia Blake: Absolutely, it’s a risk. My personal view is that the consensus is still very broad, but there are very loud voices questioning whether Net Zero is achievable or cost effective. Which is completely ridiculous, because we all know that the costs of inaction will outweigh the costs of action.
When it comes to climate science, we know that things are worse than we predicted. Every alarm bell is sounding at the moment. Some people don’t seem to want to listen, which is frustrating.
But the reason why it’s so important that we’re working across parties is because so many people right across the political spectrum still believe that this is the biggest threat to us in the long term. We’re seeing that play out locally. We’ve had droughts, burst pipelines this year, storms… fires…These things are coming to the UK. They’re happening now. It will only get worse.
We’re just not resilient. That’s before you get into the deeper arguments about science.
It’s really disappointing to see politicians who should know better jumping on a bandwagon of saying: “Oh, this isn’t as it seems,” when all the evidence we have is very much saying this is worse than it seems.
We are signed up to the Paris Agreement, but [keeping to] 1.5 degrees warming is going to be tricky, and we’re already seeing talk about moving to 2.5 or 3 degrees, which would be catastrophic in terms of impact.
Now is the time for action. We’ve delayed and dithered too long.
This is all about trying to build a group of parliamentarians across both houses – Commons and Lords – to stand up and say the right thing on this, and to stand up to our leaders. To make sure that this continues to be prioritised and that we don’t think in short-term ways around this, we think about the long term. That’s really important.
JM: There was a finding a couple of days ago from the UN Environment Programme saying 1.5 degrees just isn’t going to happen now, that we’ve already overshot. Do you think environmentalists need to be honest about that now and say, “Look, we’re not going to get to 1.5, but perhaps we can keep it below 2”?
OB: We are being honest. The problem for us is there hasn’t been enough action. We’ve been far too timid. I’m talking globally here…Other places are stepping up in the run-up to this COP.
But that’s what we want to continue to say – we’re not doing enough. We are beyond that [1.5 degree warming] point. What that means now is a different conversation about resilience and how we make our communities more resilient against the worst effects of this.
We’re living it now. Climate change is happening around us, and we can still take actions that will reduce the impact of that…We can take policy decisions and actions as parliamentarians, as leaders and as the Government to radically shift the change that we need to see.
JM: Are you disappointed by the Government’s decision not to invest in the global forestry fund that’s been widely mooted at COP? Is that a concern for you?
OB: Absolutely, all these things are of concern for me. We’ll see what happens over the coming days, but I’m certainly concerned that we wouldn’t be taking the opportunity to help prevent devastation of our precious rainforests.
It’s important to remember we live on a single planet. What happens on the other side of the Atlantic affects here. What happens in the global south affects the global north. We’re not immune to the devastation, which is why these global meetings happen.
We need to protect our oceans, we need to protect our rainforests, we need to protect our peatlands in the UK, in order for us all to benefit. Otherwise, if we continue to have habitat loss at the rate that we’ve seen and degradation of carbon stores and sources, we will see rising temperatures at a much faster rate than we’re currently predicting.
It’s never been so important to stop the deforestation that we’re seeing. Actually having a financial mechanism for that is something that I was really excited to see coming out of Brazil. They’ve been leading that, and I really am hopeful that they’re able to get the private investment in.
The fund is going to be majority private investment, but it would be sensible for nation states to step up to the plate and help fund that first 25 billion. It’s not just the UK who are being a bit hesitant… it’s frustrating.
JM: Is there still time do you think for the Government, maybe the Treasury, to have a rethink on this and say: “Okay, we will cough up”?
OB: Yes…because we want to be seen as leaders in this space globally. The Treasury should think hard about this.
It’s not the last opportunity to get involved. We’ve made clear that we want to see private investment from the UK going into this fund, as well as public. Public finances are very restricted at the moment, as we all know, in the run-up to the budget.
But it all comes down to political decisions at the end of the day. Hopefully in the future, we’ll see funds like this helping to make climate finance stack up and empower countries to take the right decisions.
This fund is all about protecting those ecosystems that we’ve been talking about that not only benefit that community, but benefit the people who’ve invested in it... I hope that the Treasury will continue to review its position on this. But yes, I do think it’s disappointing at this stage to not be one of the front runners on this.
JM: What else are you keeping an eye out for at COP (from afar)?
OB: There’s a lot on delivery [of previous pledges], which we want to see. There has been a bit of difficulty with some countries, like the US, not wanting to engage in a similar way.
There’s a lot riding on this COP…I don’t think we’ll see the same level of debate around [strengthening] targets. It’s much more about how we are going to deliver what we said we want, which is right, because without that action, we’re not getting anywhere.
JM: Do you think the UK is in a bit of a tricky position, given Trump’s outright denial of the climate crisis?
OB: It all plays into it. But, the PM yesterday was very clear about us continuing to go for becoming a green energy superpower. Of course, I will always ask for more, because we always need to step up.
It is challenging when the UK’s allies are not doing the right thing, and that’s where diplomacy comes in. That’s a big challenge, but it’s really key that we continue to take the strong leadership position on those policies that we are doing well on, and that we continue to make sure that we’re progressing, because that’s going to benefit our communities back here.
That’s a big part of what the caucus is all about – to say, not just in climate terms, but in nature terms, the benefit to our communities is absolutely huge if we have a green transition which provides jobs to communities that have lacked or lost industry in the past.
If we can mobilise innovation, we can be the front runners in a lot of these areas that are still being developed. We know we’ve got great scientists, for example, in the UK, and we should be supporting that. But it goes all the way down to the community level and how we benefit.
That’s true for nature as well…If we restore our peatlands, we can keep more water in the uplands, and that’s going to protect communities from floods. All these different layers are so important.
JM: Reform-run council areas are rolling back many flood defence works, reversing climate change declarations, and cutting back on energy investment. But many of those Reform-controlled areas are at higher risk from flooding due to climate change. Do you think Reform is going to come a cropper on this stuff – when floods do get worse, and people think, “Well, it probably is the climate crisis”?
OB: Absolutely. The proof is out there. We know that the cycle of drought and heavy rains increases the chance of flash flooding. We know that rainfall is unpredictable at the moment. There are all these different factors about the change in climate and the changing weather patterns that we’re seeing as a result, that will mean that places are more exposed.
It’s cutting your nose off to spite your face. Reducing flood defence spending is not something that I would be encouraging any area to do when we’ve seen one-in-100 year flood events happening much, much more regularly up and down the country.
They will face angry communities if they do not take the right actions on these issues.
JM: One of the issues is that a lot of these areas are at flood risk, people can’t even get insurance on their homes.
OB: Exactly. It’s something that I’m very pleased to see that ministers are taking seriously, and they’re completely reviewing the way the funding formula works, which is really important.
Places like Hull, for example, are at risk of flooding from the rivers, but also from the sea. So we do need to change the way we’re doing things. I’m glad that that work is ongoing.
But the reality is that we can only continue to build walls higher and higher for so long before it becomes ridiculous. So we need to do more around nature-based solutions as well, and keeping the water out of the rivers – by tree-planting or restoring the peatlands, and so on. It’s important that we create space for this extra water to be held back, to stop the massive flooding events that we’ve seen. That takes a coordinated approach.
But as a group, we are very aware that certain political parties are taking a different stance on this, and it’s worrying to see decisions being taken that will harm communities.
So we’re here to beat the alarm bell and stand up against this. I’ve said we need to wrestle the microphone from these politicians who are trying to make it a culture war.
This isn’t anything to do with opinion. The science is so solid and we can’t get away from it… The risks of inaction are huge for a whole range of different areas, from flooding right through to the fact that we’re losing nature at the fastest pace in hundreds of years. It’s scary.
JM: I’m guessing, by those unnamed attackers of climate action, you’re referring largely to Nigel Farage and Kemi Badenoch?
OB: It’s hugely disappointing seeing two leaders of political parties just being so blithe about this issue.
It’s been powerful that we’re a cross-party group, because we had Conservatives at the launch saying, do not get rid of the 2008 Climate Act, which Kemi wants to get rid of, which is just so short-sighted.
Why would we shoot ourselves in the foot on this? It’s essential that we take more action, because if we don’t, and if we continue to think we can carry on as we are, or we can return to where we were 15 years ago, which is what they’re suggesting… we’re going to be in such a horrible nightmare.
I don’t think there’s a full appreciation of that. These [climate disaster] events are happening again and again and again, more and more regularly. It’s just becoming part of the everyday, and it’s becoming less shocking.
If some of these events had happened 20 years ago, people would have been really shocked, but we’re becoming a little bit immune to it. We have to wake up to the fact that this will have huge consequences.
And for the issues that they say their parties are concerned about – migration will be hugely influenced by climate breakdown. So yes, it doesn’t even make sense on their own terms not to take action.
JM: I’m not surprised that Reform don’t appear to have signed up to the caucus. But was it difficult to get Conservatives on board? Or is there still an openness there, do you think?
OB: There’s definitely an openness. There are people who have long been concerned about these issues that are getting involved, which is fantastic.
I can’t speak for them, but there is a general sense across all the parties that we need to be vocal, and we need to work together to help rebuild any consensus that has been lost.
The consensus is much, much more broader than people might like to paint it. But we need to continue to be that voice and the canary in the coal mine, because people need to be challenged on the decisions they’re taking.
Ultimately, if we don’t push for change, then we’re going to be stuck.
JM: What areas do you think the Government needs to go further and faster on?
OB: The work that’s been done on energy has been really good.
Some of the areas where we need to protect the framework are around electric vehicles, and the way we’re handling that issue [amid rumours of pay-per-mile charging], public transport, and the more challenging areas around housing. We need to see those standards improving.
It’s all running through everything that the current Government is doing, but we do need to just continue to be stepping up to the mark on it… We’re seeing the green shoots of good work and responsibility from this Government, and we want to encourage that to really flourish and bloom.
We’re in a different place than we were 18 months ago, with the previous Government. This Government is much more switched on to it, but it’s about protecting that and keeping the movement alive. We’re on the right track, [but] we need to continue.
There is much more we can do. Of course there is. There’s always going to be more things that I’ll be asking for, and we’ll be shouting for. [We’ll] continue to press this as parliamentarians, with the urgency that needs to be there.
JM: There are suggestions that there’s going to be a pay-per-mile for electric vehicles introduced. Do you think maybe a better way of clawing back some money would be reversing the cuts to fuel duty? Is that not sending mixed signals at the moment about climate efforts?
OB: I’m not going to get into the details of that, because we don’t know yet what’s the final outcome of it…
I’m not so worried about the fuel duty. The majority of consumers want to move away from polluting fuels for air quality reasons, as well as anything else, and I’m glad that the Government has reintroduced a grant to support people to do that.
But the payment mechanism of how fuel [revenues are replaced] when we move to full electric is a reasonable conversation to have. Anything that discourages people making that move, would be a mistake.
But there are other things to look at – private jet fuel. There are other more polluting forms of transport, which, at the moment, are receiving state subsidies, essentially. And all these things we need to discuss.
It’s not just the cars that people use. It’s also the public transport that people are using, and how we can clean that up and move people out of cars, by providing a much better public service . Because that’s just as important.
JM: That would be quite an eco-populist move, to hike tax on private jet fuel. That seems like a no-brainer?
OB: Yes, it just feels strange that we would not be doing that because very few people would be impacted by that, but the huge discount they get seems wrong when we’re living through these issues…It’s a suggestion.
JM: In the UK, we’ve made massive strides towards Net Zero. We’re pretty much halfway there in reducing CO2 compared to 1990 levels. That fact often gets lost. Do you think it’s hard to strike that balance between saying, “Look, things are really bad and they’re going to get far worse if we don’t act on this,” but also saying, “Look, we have actually made really big strides.” How do you do that?
OB: We’re over the hump of the hill here. The reason sectors are getting frustrated is because they, for so long, wanted certainty. And now to have the opposition parties saying, “Oh, well, we want to pull the rug out from under this” is really dangerous.
The growth that we’re seeing in green industries in the UK is a benefit of doing that hard work. There is a lot more to do… but a huge amount of work has been done which has been so sensible, and taking us in the right direction.
Whole industries are now looking at ways that they can green themselves, and that’s fantastic.
Like I said, 15 years ago, we would have been shocked at the climate incidents we’re having. 15 years ago, we probably would have thought we’ve done really well to get to this point.
So we need to continue down this path. To turn around now and say, “Oh, we don’t need to do anymore. We can just hang where we are” – or even worse, to say, “Actually we want a reversal of the good work we have been doing” – would not only be economically illiterate, it would be very destructive to the jobs and the industries that are flourishing at the moment with the opportunity that they’re being given, and it would be incredibly harmful to our communities.
So yes, we need to continue down this path. We have come far. It’s a long way to go, but we just need to be strong and continue.
People think that the new reality of where we need to get to is so far away, but we have to take it a step at a time, and this has to be a transition.
We can’t just go to the last minute and then suddenly be like, “Oh, it’s okay. We’ll continue polluting at the level we’ve been polluting until the year 2049.”
JM: And then we’ll wheel out the big solar reflectors, and it’ll all be fine…
OB: Exactly. You can’t just be like, “Oh, we can carry on as normal till the last moment. And then we’ll switch.” The damage is being done year on year. The more we can reduce each and every year, the better. The pace is just as important as the final target.