🌍 Climate and Nature Bill

• Introduction of the Bill: Dr Roz Savage introduced the Climate and Nature Bill in the House, emphasizing its critical role in addressing the intertwined crises of climate change and nature loss. The Bill, which took four years to develop, received support from various groups, including campaigners, unions, scientists, and young people.

• Connection to International Commitments: The Bill aims to align the UK with international commitments, bridging the gap between promises and actual results in tackling climate and nature crises. It seeks to close ambition and delivery gaps in the UK’s environmental policies.

• Ambitious Scope of the Bill: While it is ambitious as a private Member’s Bill, it is considered not ambitious enough for the scale of the climate and nature challenge. It aims to chart the next step from the current situation towards sustainable progress, with the guiding principle of being good ancestors to future generations.

• Environmental Benefits for Communities: The Bill, drafted by experts, aims to offer local benefits like improved air and water quality, wildlife revival, and support for green jobs and affordable energy, specifically beneficial for communities like those in the South Cotswolds.

• Integrated Strategy: The CAN Bill is unique in its approach to tackle climate and nature crises together, preventing siloed approaches that could exacerbate the crises. It advocates a whole-of-Government strategy and would enshrine international commitments into UK law.

• Public Involvement: The Bill proposes a climate and nature assembly to involve the public in the process, ensuring diverse voices are heard and enabling just transitions for workers and vulnerable communities.

• Support and Concerns from Farmers: There was discussion about ensuring the National Farmers Union and the Ulster Farmers Union support the Bill, reflecting the need to consider agricultural impacts. The Bill aims to support nature-friendly farming, crucial due to agriculture’s significant use of land in England.

• Urgency and Implementation: The urgency for action was stressed, with mention of various environmental improvements needed, such as increased tree planting, better chemical and land use strategies, and protection of more land and sea for nature.

• Current State of Nature: The session highlighted alarming statistics on the UK’s biodiversity loss, with calls for government action to halt further decline and reverse losses, particularly supporting nature-friendly farming practices.

• Cross-Party Support and Political Consensus: The Bill found cross-party support, with speakers urging a return to the political consensus on climate change that had been strong until 2015. The importance of collective action was emphasized as crucial for the Bill’s success.

• Criticism of Specific Policies: There was critique of some unsustainable practices, like the operation of Drax power station and airport expansions, which could undermine environmental efforts. The need for sustainable growth, not just any growth, was highlighted.

• Emotional and Personal Appeals: Personal testimonies underscored the call for action, including the impact of environmental degradation on future generations and the need to protect and revive nature for their sake.

The session demonstrates moderate disagreement, primarily focused on policy specifics and implementation rather than partisan polarization. Key points of contention include:

1. Cross-party critiques of policy effectiveness: Members from multiple parties questioned gaps between government commitments and measurable outcomes, citing delayed initiatives and insufficient funding for environmental targets.
2. Intra-party differences: Conservative members expressed divergent views on economic priorities versus environmental protections, particularly regarding infrastructure projects and international competitiveness.
3. Technical challenges to legislative mechanisms: There were substantive debates about the practicality of annual targets versus multi-year frameworks, and concerns about democratic accountability in climate governance structures.
4. Sector-specific tensions: Agricultural stakeholders’ perspectives generated debate about balancing environmental goals with food security and rural livelihoods.
5. Strategic disagreements: While all speakers acknowledged environmental urgency, differences emerged regarding the pace of transition and appropriate balance between domestic action and global considerations.

The session maintained constructive dialogue with members frequently acknowledging shared goals, but revealed substantive policy divisions requiring resolution through amendments rather than fundamental opposition to environmental action itself.