Let me start by echoing what Rt Hon Kemi Badenoch MP, my party leader said in the Daily Telegraph this morning,
‘Climate change is real. We can see its effects all over the world, not least the current spate of heatwaves here in Britain. Conservatives have always understood that we have a duty to protect our natural inheritance.’
I agree and we must all act together- so people with all size pockets are bought in and everyone is able and willing to play their part. I would greatly like to thank those constituents who have contacted me about the National Emergency Briefing film project that has been shown in some local venues across our constituency this summer and elsewhere and I sent out a statement out to those who requested one as part of the event.
While I haven’t been able to attend an in-person showing due to a packed parliamentary and constituency diary, I would be very happy to watch the film if it could be sent to me or via a YouTube link, for example. I fully understand concerns about tackling climate change, however, Ministers have already said it would be for the media to arrange a screening and not the Government. I shall therefore not be supporting calls for the Government to screen an emergency briefing.
I am proud the UK has already halved its emissions since 1990, and I agree it is important we thoroughly consider the evidence on climate change. However, we must acknowledge the UK is responsible for less than one per cent of global emissions, and I therefore believe it is vital we set an environmentally responsible but economically sensible example for other countries to follow if we are to reduce global emissions.
As the Leader of the Opposition set out very clearly,
‘Net zero scepticism is too often confused with climate-change scepticism. But they are not the same thing. It is an elementary distinction, but an important one. Climate change is a scientific phenomenon. Net zero by 2050 is a political programme.
One can accept the science while questioning whether a particular collection of laws, subsidies, targets and prohibitions will actually solve the problem. The current net zero 2050 plans do not.’
We, all of us, need to be able to challenge the current orthodoxy, the ‘moral narrative’, the ‘approved right think’, that is dominating on a number of critical issues without being cast as heretics, deniers or simply bad people. This determined stifling of the ability to dissent or debate is not good for our society, for politics, for anyone.
A great example of this was reported today as campaign groups including The Moorland Association along with the Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs select committee Alistair Carmichael say that government net zero policies on farming and rewilding are ‘actively fuelling the crisis’ of wildfires in the UK. Rewilding advocates reject these claims.
The point is that a great many of these policies, their aims and outcomes, are contested, not ‘settled’. My position and that of the Conservative Party is that,
‘We should preserve our countryside, encourage biodiversity, invest in flood defences and ensure that Britain is resilient. The question isn’t whether we should act. The question is whether the policies imposed in the name of climate action are effective, affordable and honest. Too many people cannot tell the difference between talking about climate change and dealing with it. They have accepted that the Left’s chosen policies are the only practicable policies, and that anyone who questions them must secretly want the planet to burn. This is intellectually lazy. It’s also dangerous.’
That is why I think the Labour Government must set out a plan to tackle climate change in a way that is practical, affordable, and aligns with our national interests. As I have said repeatedly, I do not believe other countries will follow our lead if we continue to deindustrialise our economy through carbon taxes and regulation, maintain the highest electricity prices in the world, and reject the ability to produce our own oil and gas and refine our own fuels to meet our current energy needs.
I think this applies equally to protecting nature, and I believe that in any discussion about land use and food security we must consider the amount of essential agricultural land that is now being lost to renewable energy infrastructure such as ground-mounted solar panel installations. That is why I am in favour of building new nuclear power, which uses far less land to generate electricity when compared to wind or solar while still being a clean source of power as we look to move away from a reliance on fossil fuels.
While I appreciate that this may not be the response some were hoping for, I hope to have explained to you my reasons for believing we must set out a serious plan to address the global nature of climate change that balances affordability, security, and sustainability.
Meanwhile, I will try to catch this production at some point and if there is a U-tube version shared, I will make seeing it a priority when I am able to- equally those who are advocating for this can make it as inclusive and engaging for all to see and discuss.
