Green emissions promise ‘means more hardship’
ECO plans touted by Sir Keir Starmer could bring “hardship” to ordinary Britons, the Shadow Energy Secretary has warned.
The Prime Minister yesterday announced the UK would slash emissions by 81% on 1990 levels by 2035 – replacing a previous pledge to cut them by 76%.
But Claire Coutinho said his green strategy makes “no sense”, leading Labour to hit back by insisting the move away from carbon – unveiled by the PM at the UN COP29 talks in Azerbaijan – would lower people’s bills.
Ms Coutinho said: “The Climate Change Committee said this [81%] target [means] an accelerated shift away from meat and dairy, less travel and a gas boiler ban, yet the Government’s approach would see our reliance on Chinese imports, a country that is 60% powered by coal, go through the roof.
“Does he agree that an approach which is asking for more sacrifice and hardship from Britons in return for more goods from one of the world’s largest emitters would mean less jobs here and more carbon in the atmosphere?” Sir Keir denied people’s lifestyles would have to change, saying: “I don’t think the way to do [this] is to tell people how to run their lives and instruct them how to behave.”
ENERGY giant Shell has won a landmark case, overturning an earlier ruling requiring it to cut its carbon emissions by 45%.
The Hague Court of Appeal said there is currently insufficient consensus in climate science on a specific reduction percentage to which an individual company should adhere.
In 2021 The Hague District Court, in the Netherlands, had handed down a ruling requiring Shell to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 45% by the end of 2030, and to zero by 2050.
It ruled that Shell has an obligation towards citizens to limit its emissions to protect them from the dangerous impacts of climate change.
The claim was launched by several non-governmental organisations, including the Dutch branch of Friends of the Earth, Milieudefensie.
It was the first time a court had imposed such a mandate on an energy company, and the judgement is said to have inspired many other similar claims.
But Shell appealed the decision, and yesterday the Court of Appeal overturned the lower court’s ruling.
Wael Sawan, Shell’s chief executive, said after the ruling: “We are pleased with the court’s decision, which we believe is the right one for the global energy transition, the Netherlands and our company.
“As Shell has stated previously, a court ruling would not reduce overall customer demand for products such as petrol and diesel for cars, or for gas to heat and power homes and businesses.
“It would do little to reduce emissions, as customers would take their business elsewhere.
“We believe that smart policies from governments, along with investment and action across all sectors, will drive the progress towards net-zero emissions that we all want to see.”
It is unclear if Milieudefensie will appeal the decision.
Donald Pols, director of Milieudefensie, said: “We are shocked by today’s judgement.
“It is a setback for us, for the climate movement and for millions of people around the world who worry about their future. But if there’s one thing to know about us, it’s that we don’t give up.”