The UK government has set out a long-awaited plan explaining how it will cut emissions in the 2030s, on its legally bound path to net-zero by the middle of the century.
Under the Climate Change Act, the government must lay out “carbon budgets” that set limits on the UK’s emissions over five-year periods.
In 2021, the government announced it would cut emissions by 78% by 2035 under its sixth carbon budget, but the “delivery plan” detailing how this would be achieved proved contentious.
The new “carbon budget and growth delivery plan” (CBGD) is the third draft, after the previous two delivery plans were successfully challenged in court.
Unlike previous versions, in this plan the government concludes that it has sufficient climate policies to achieve its sixth carbon budget and “96-99%” of its international obligations under the Paris Agreement.
This is in spite of the government scaling back its expectations for various climate policies, including clean-hydrogen production, tree-planting and carbon capture and storage (CCS).
The CBGD plan comes amid a fractured political consensus in the UK on climate action, with the Conservative party vowing to repeal the Climate Change Act and the hard-right Reform UK party repeatedly attacking net-zero.
Below, Carbon Brief gives an overview of the 363 pages of documents included in the plan, what it says about meeting UK emissions targets and what it means for individual sectors.
- Why is there a new ‘carbon budget delivery plan’?
- What does the new delivery plan say?
- How does the new delivery plan meet the UK’s emissions targets?
- What does the delivery plan mean for the UK economy?
Why is there a new ‘carbon budget delivery plan’?
This is the third version of the sixth carbon budget delivery plan produced by the UK government, with the previous two having been ruled unlawful by the High Court.
The then-Conservative government passed the sixth carbon budget in 2021, legislating an emissions cut of 78% below 1990 levels by 2035. Carbon budgets are interim targets that act as “stepping stones” on the pathway to net-zero emissions by 2050.
However, in July 2022, the High Court ruled that the government had breached sections 13 and 14 of the Climate Change Act in adopting the delivery plan for the budget.
These sections refer to the government’s duty to prepare and adopt policies to meet its climate targets and publish on these policies so that parliament and the public can “scrutinise” them.
It ruled that the then-secretary of state Kwasi Kwarteng had “insufficient knowledge” to adopt the plan, as he did not know what emissions savings individual policies would be responsible for.
The plan also lacked “critical information” on a number of elements – for example, the reason for a shortfall in the emissions cuts, according to the claimants Friends of the Earth, ClientEarth and Good Law Project.
The High Court ordered the government to revise its strategy to correct these errors and a new plan was published in March 2023.
Once again, this was challenged in the High Court. The same claimants argued that the government did not consider “delivery risk” in a lawful way or publish sufficient information to allow meaningful scrutiny of its net-zero policies, among other breaches of sections 13 and 14.
In May 2024, the court sided with the claimants, finding that the secretary of state – by that time Claire Coutinho – had not been adequately informed about the delivery risks associated with the proposed policies. It also called for transparent, evidence-based policies to meet the carbon budget.
The government was given a new deadline of May 2025 to publish another version of the delivery plan. This was later extended to October 2025, as a result of last year’s general election.
What does the new delivery plan say?
The new plan includes an overview document highlighting the government’s key political messages and a 238-page report laying out the details of expected emissions cuts.
The government emphasises how its policies will help the UK to “take back control of our energy” by expanding domestic renewables – cutting bills and boosting jobs in the process.
It also highlights how Labour’s climate plans will improve “quality of life and health”, plus help to “protect our natural environment”.
Other components of the delivery plan include a “technical annex” with details of modelling and accounting, an “investor prospectus” that outlines net-zero investment opportunities in the UK and a methane action plan, with sectoral plans for cutting the greenhouse gas.
The plan confirms that the government has all the climate policies in place to meet the UK’s fourth and fifth carbon budgets, covering the period 2023-2032.
Crucially, it also establishes that the government has enough extra policies in the pipeline to ensure 100% of the emissions cuts required for the sixth carbon budget are also achieved.
This is a step up from the plan released by the previous Conservative government, which only covered 97% of the cuts required for the period 2033-2037.
The new report explains that 76% of emissions cuts for the sixth carbon budget are covered by policies that have already been “implemented, adopted or planned”.
The remaining emissions cuts come from 169 additional proposals and policies that have been modelled by the government for the coming years, ranging from electrified steel plants to accelerated rates of tree-planting. The plan also accounts for another 12 “early-stage” proposals.
In addition to its domestic carbon-budget goals, the UK also has international climate targets under the Paris Agreement, known as nationally determined contributions (NDCs).
Unlike carbon budgets, which provide flexibility by allowing a set amount of emissions over a five-year period, the UK’s NDC goals involve specific emissions-reduction targets for single years, compared to a 1990 baseline.
The government calculates that its plans will cut emissions by 66% below 1990 levels by 2030 and 81% by 2035. These reductions are just shy of the UK’s NDC targets for 2030 and 2035 – representing 96% and 99% of the required cuts, respectively.
(Notably, the 2030 NDC target is more ambitious than the UK’s domestic climate target for that period, as the latter was set prior to the UK committing to net-zero emissions by 2050.)
In the delivery plan, the government says it will “seek to improve delivery and, where appropriate, will explore further measures, to ensure that the UK will meet its international commitments”.
The CBGD plan also considers the risk that government climate programmes underdeliver – for example, due to slow consumer uptake of low-carbon technologies.
Part of the legal case against the previous iteration of the plan was centred on its lack of adequate information about delivery risk. The new strategy appears to include a more extensive consideration of risk, stressing that there are “mechanisms in place to monitor and mitigate risks for each individual policy”.
It also states that the emissions savings for each policy are “credible” because, in cases where risks could not be avoided, the government revised down the emissions savings.
As a result, it concludes
“We, therefore, have confidence that each and every proposal and policy will deliver its planned scenario emissions savings.”
How does the new delivery plan meet the UK’s emissions targets?
The government’s CBGD plan lays out what it describes as a “credible level of emission savings”, enabling the UK to hit all of its upcoming domestic carbon budgets under the Climate Change Act.
Yet, a striking aspect of the plan is that the government has, in fact, significantly scaled back its expectations for several important sectors.
Government forecasts of low-carbon hydrogen production and peatland restoration are among the elements that have been downgraded since the 2023 plan. Expectations for biofuel-crop planting have also dropped to zero hectares in the near term.
Some of these policy areas have underperformed so far, such as tree-planting, or are less-established technologies, such as industrial carbon capture and storage (CCS).
These deployment assumptions have been highlighted in red in the table below. The relatively few sectors that have seen ambition ramped up are highlighted by Carbon Brief in green, while those that have remained steady since 2023 are grey.
Comparison of sectoral deployment assumptions in the new carbon budget delivery plan (2025), compared to previous versions from 2023 and 2021. Source: DESNZ. Chart: Carbon Brief
The rolling back of expectations for key emissions-cutting policies raises the question of how the new plan can still put the UK on track to meet its sixth carbon budget, which covers the period 2033-2037.
First, the “baseline” emissions from which future reductions are calculated is considerably lower in 2025 than it was in the 2023 delivery plan.
This is largely because a set of policies that were previously “under development” have now been integrated into the baseline, as they are considered “implemented or developed”.
These include the zero-emissions vehicle (ZEV) mandate to encourage electric-car sales and the “sustainable aviation fuel” (SAF) mandate to drive the uptake of “clean” aviation fuels.
Together with some modelling adjustments, these changes reduced baseline emissions by 46.1m tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) during the sixth carbon budget period. This shrinks the emissions gap that must be filled by upcoming climate policies and proposals.
Crucially, there are also three new categories of emissions savings that the Labour government has introduced, all of which further reduce this gap.
First, the government has captured the impact of various societal shifts that could affect decarbonisation, using the term “wider factors” to describe such changes. As an example, it mentions “developments in digital technologies including AI”.
Together, the plan states that these factors could “credibly” cut emissions by an extra 99MtCO2e in the sixth carbon budget period.
Second, the government also has a new category termed “other early-stage policies and proposals”. These are ideas deemed too preliminary to fully model, except for the sixth carbon budget period, during which the government estimates they could contribute an extra 43MtCO2e in emissions cuts.
Among these proposals are marine CO2 removals, saltmarsh restoration and policies to boost the market for “low-carbon industrial products”.
Finally, another 24MtCO2e over the sixth carbon budget period comes from what the government calls “cascade effects”. These “occur when changes in one system propagate through connected systems” – for example, when the uptake of net-zero technology becomes a “social norm”, the plan explains.
The combined impact of these three additional factors – none of which were considered in the 2023 plan – can be seen in the chart below.
Collectively, these components help to cut the remaining emissions during the sixth carbon budget period by 34MtCO2e, compared to the 2023 plan, in the government’s forecast. This is enough to meet the target, according to the government, rather than breaching it by 32MtCO2e as the previous plan did.
What does the delivery plan mean for the UK economy?
The CBGD plan includes an overview of how the government plans to make changes across different sectors of the economy, in order to bring down their emissions in the 2030s.
Transport
The transport sector continues to be the UK’s biggest source of emissions, accounting for 26% of the country’s total, the CBGD plan says. This figure rises to 35% when the UK’s contribution to international aviation and shipping is considered.
In 2023, road travel accounted for around 90% of domestic transport emissions, the plan continues, chiefly from journeys by petrol cars and vans.
After entering power in July 2024, the Labour government met a manifesto pledge to reinstate a 2030 ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles.
This target was originally set by the Conservative government under Boris Johnson’s leadership in 2020, but then delayed to 2035 by Rishi Sunak in 2023 as part of a wider rollback of net-zero policies.
Johnson’s government had also pledged to introduce a zero emissions vehicle (ZEV) mandate to set specific sales targets for car manufacturers in the lead up to the ban.
The ZEV mandate came into force in January 2024. Labour’s CBGD plan notes that it is “driving sales that made the UK Europe’s largest zero-emission car market in 2024 and the third largest globally”.
However, despite growing numbers of EVs on UK roads, the market is currently set to miss the ZEV mandate for 2025. In May, EVs accounted for 21.8% of new car registrations, below the 28% target set by the ZEV mandate.
In April this year, the government made some “tweaks” to the ZEV mandate, including introducing rules allowing manufacturers to count hybrid and plug-in hybrid vehicles towards their pure EV sales goals.
In a letter to the transport secretary, the Climate Change Committee warned that the changes “could encourage a greater role for hybrid vehicles and a reduction in emissions savings”.
In addition, Labour’s CBGD plan sets out less ambitious targets for the total proportion of ZEV cars on UK roads than previous strategies set out under the Conservatives in 2021 and 2023.
Namely, the CBGD plan sets targets of 21% of all cars being ZEV by 2030 and 48% by 2035. This compares to targets of 24% by 2030 and 53% by 2035 set under the 2021 net-zero strategy.
The government’s new CBGD plan notes that key risks to delivering its planned cuts to transport emissions include that “zero emission cars and vans do not displace their petrol and diesel counterparts at the rate we forecast”. This is as a result of lower than anticipated demand or “wider global supply chain challenges”.
Another key risk could be “unanticipated growth in travel demand”, with this being “most acute for our projections of emissions from cars, vans and air travel”, the plan says.
Commentators have noted a lack of new action in the plan to tackle emissions from rising demand for air travel in the UK.
Juliet Michaelson, director of climate charity Possible, said in a statement that the plan “still lacks realistic thinking on the most difficult to decarbonise areas, such as aviation”.
Colin Walker, head of transport at the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), added that the government is continuing to “pin its hopes for cutting aviation emissions on sustainable aviation fuels and technological innovations that are still very much in their infancy”, while “failing to encourage ultra-frequent flyers from making more sustainable choices”.
Heat and buildings
Buildings remain one of the biggest sources of emissions in the UK, accounting for 74MtCO2e in 2023, or 17% of the country’s emissions.
This is predominantly due to the use of gas in heating systems, with 85% of UK homes using the fossil fuel to keep warm, according to the NGO Nesta.
However, efforts to decarbonise emissions from heating, in particular, have been viewed as contentious in some sections of the UK media, with outlets often referencing the “fury” of the public at policies dubbed “boiler bans” or “boiler taxes”.
One of the most significant policies to cut emissions in the sector is the “warm homes plan”, which the government is planning to publish “shortly”. The plan was set to be published in October, but is now expected after the autumn budget in November.
The scheme was first announced in spring 2025 by the newly appointed Labour government, with the goal of lifting more than a million households out of fuel poverty by 2030. During the spending review over the summer, the government said £13.2bn would be allocated to the scheme.
The policy is set to support the rollout of heat pumps and heat networks, alongside energy efficiency measures and other technologies, such as solar and batteries. More details are set to follow when the warm homes plan is published.
Beyond this, the CBGD plan includes other previously announced policies, such as the “boiler upgrade scheme”, which provides vouchers of up to £7,500 to support the rollout of heat pumps. The plan notes that the budget for this scheme has been almost doubled this financial year to £295 and funding will continue to increase each year up to 2029/30.
The delivery plan states that the government’s “vision is that, over the next decade, low-carbon solutions will become the natural choice for all households”.
It adds that, by the early 2030s, the government expects that more than one million existing homes will transition to low-carbon heating, as part of the “normal cycle of replacing an existing heating appliance (such as a gas boiler) at the end of its life”. By 2035, low-carbon heating will represent the majority of all heating-system replacements.
This new target seems to take over from the previous goal of 600,000 installations a year by 2028, which was included in the previous two versions of the CBGD plan. While the number of installations has been increasing, the UK has consistently fallen short of the level needed to meet this goal.
Additionally, the delivery plan removes the controversial “ban” on the sale of gas boilers in 2035, set under the previous Conservative government. The government notes that it will “continue to refine” its approach in coming years and consider additional interventions if needed.
The delivery plan’s technical annex notes that the modelling does not include any use of hydrogen for heating at present, but that the government will consult on it further in the future. It adds:
“As hydrogen is not yet a proven technology for home heating, any role would come much later and would likely be limited. If we conclude that hydrogen could play a role then some of the savings to be delivered by heat pump deployment in on gas grid homes could instead be delivered through hydrogen heating.”
Industry, CCS and hydrogen
In 2023, the UK’s industry emissions were 64MtCO2e, equivalent to 15% of total territorial emissions, the government says.
According to the CBGD plan, this represents a 12% decrease from 2019 levels and a 60% drop from 1990 levels.
The plan notes that the industrial sector “has a significant contribution to make to enable carbon budgets to be met”.
In June, the government set out a 10-year industry strategy, which it says aims to “drive long-term sustainable, inclusive and secure growth through securing investment into crucial sectors of the economy”.
The plan says that the government will also set out a “refreshed industrial decarbonisation plan”, which will “set the strategic direction for our approach to working with industry towards a competitive and low-carbon industrial base in the UK”.
It continues that the government is “looking at what could be delivered with further government action on resource and energy efficiency, fuel switching and CCUS [carbon, capture, utilisation and storage]”.
The plan says that the government is supporting fuel-switching and energy efficiency through its industrial energy transformation fund, which was launched in 2020 with plans to support the deployment of projects until 2028. (In July, the government confirmed that it is closing the fund to new applicants.)
In June, Miliband confirmed that £200m will be provided to progress the Acorn carbon capture and storage (CCS) scheme in Aberdeenshire, Scotland.
Despite this, the CBGD plan is less ambitious on both industrial resource efficiency and industrial CCS than previous net-zero strategies under the Conservatives in 2021 and 2023.
The government’s 2021 net-zero strategy set a target of industrial resource efficiency providing 11MtCO2e in savings by 2035. However, the CBGD plan has a target of just 5.4MtCO2e.
In addition, the 2021 net-zero strategy targeted 7MtCO2e of industrial CCS by 2035. The CBGD plan targets just 4.3MtCO2e.
The CBGD also cuts back a separate target for engineered greenhouse gas removal (GGR) techniques to provide 5MtCO2 in emissions savings by 2030, first made in the 2021 net-zero strategy.
(Engineered GGRs are technological methods for removing CO2 from the atmosphere, such as by using giant fans to suck the gas out of the air.)
The CBGD revises down this target to just 0.51MtCO2 a year from 2028-32.
Commenting on this decision, Prof Steve Smith, a GGR scientist at the University of Oxford, posted on LinkedIn, saying:
“This revision is reflective of the fact that little-to-no removal tech has actually been deployed in the UK since the 5Mt target was set. 2030 is really not far away in project development terms. We know from 20 years of experience with emission reductions that plans often fall behind (e.g. home insulation, CCS). Sensible strategy involves pursuing new technologies while being live to the risk of over-optimism in them.”
On hydrogen, the CBGD plan says the government is continuing to “support the rollout of hydrogen production to meet demand across sectors requiring hydrogen to decarbonise”.
It notes that, as part of the autumn 2024 budget, the government confirmed support for 11 green hydrogen projects and shortlisted another 27 projects for potential approval in April 2025.
However, the CBGD also significantly reduces ambition on clean hydrogen production, compared to previous net-zero strategies.
The CBGD targets 4 terawatt hours (TWh) of clean hydrogen production by 2030 and 24TWh by 2035. This compares to 40TWh by 2030 and 80-140TWh by 2035 under the 2021 net-zero strategy.
On LinkedIn, Harry Smith, an industrial emissions expert at the consultancy Aether, posted that the “deployment of low-carbon hydrogen no longer meets the 2030 targets set out in the 2021 UK hydrogen strategy”.
A new hydrogen strategy is due to be published this autumn.
Electricity
The power sector now makes up 10% of the UK’s emissions, accounting for around 44MtCO2e in 2023. Of this, gas combustion makes up around 75%.
Overall, the sector has decarbonised significantly, with CO2 emissions per unit of electricity falling by more than two-thirds in a decade, according to previous Carbon Brief analysis.
This is due to the rollout of renewable energy technologies and the closure of coal-fired power plants.
However, the UK has some of the most expensive electricity in the world. While this is due predominantly to gas prices – which set the wholesale cost of electricity 98% of the time – it remains a challenge for driving decarbonisation through electrification.
The cost of electricity in the UK is a key focus of the CBGD plan, which notes:
“The price disparity between electricity and gas needs to be addressed to make it more attractive for consumers to install clean technologies like heat pumps. Over this parliament, the government will be working relentlessly to translate the much cheaper wholesale costs of clean power into lower bills for consumers. This will be core to every decision we make. We will set out our plan in due course.”
The new CBGD plan does not include “rebalancing” the cost of gas bills relative to electricity, as the previous delivery plan did. It also does not consider shifting levies away from electricity bills.
Instead, the focus is broadly on the expansion of clean-power technologies, predominantly through pre-existing policies.
This includes investing in 80 power networks and enabling infrastructure projects, costing an estimated £40bn annually in the coming years. The plan recognises that the electricity network “must undergo unprecedented expansion”. (It is worth noting that, with or without net-zero targets in place, the UK’s grid would need constant investment and upgrades.)
The government also notes that it will work to “ensure appropriate planning arrangements, acceleration of grid connections and strong supply chains” to underpin this.
For example, the “strategic spatial energy plan” was commissioned to the National Energy System Operator in October 2024 and aims to “support a more actively planned approach” to electricity infrastructure.
The CBGD plan often points to the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan, published in December 2024, which set out the government’s approach to decarbonising the electricity sector by 2030.
It states that the government is investing “record amounts in clean energy, climate and nature”, including £63bn in capital funding.
The plan specifically highlights a final investment decision that was taken earlier this year to build Sizewell C nuclear power plant in Suffolk, with £14.2bn in funding allocated to the project. The government has also brought in reforms to the upcoming contracts for difference renewable energy subsidy auction to “maximise competition between bidders and reduce the costs to consumers”.
In addition, the first projects by the government’s new, publicly owned clean-energy company, Great British Energy, have also now been launched.
To support the rapid expansion of power-sector infrastructure, the plan notes that the “urgent need for change means we must undertake a wide-ranging reform programme”.
Finally, the plan notes that “hydrogen to power” has the “potential to play a key role” in the electricity system, along with other technologies that offer flexibility, such as power CCUS and energy storage.
Farming and land use
In 2023, agriculture and other land use accounted for 11% of the UK’s total greenhouse gas emissions, when international aviation and shipping is included, the CBGD plan says.
It adds that cow and sheep farming “currently make up the largest share of these emissions”.
The CBGD lists some of the government’s major policies for cutting emissions from agriculture and land use.
This includes the environment land management schemes (Elms), a post-Brexit project to pay farmers to cut CO2 emissions and protect nature on their land, first introduced by Boris Johnson’s government in 2020.
The CBGD plan says that “half of all farmed land” is now under Elms and that spending for the schemes will increase from £800m in 2023-24 to £2bn by 2028-29.
The National Farmers Union (NFU) has previously called the claim that spending had increased “misleading”, as farmers were originally promised a figure of £2.4bn a year from Elms after Brexit, the Guardian reported.
The largest of the Elms schemes is the sustainable farming initiative, the CBGD plan says.
In May, the government was forced to reverse a decision to close applications for the scheme after the NFU threatened legal action, according to Edie.
More widely, Labour’s plans to introduce an inheritance tax on farmers when businesses are worth more than £1m has caused mass protests across the country in recent months.
The CBGD plan revises down its deployment assumptions for the percentage of farmers taking up low-carbon practices, when compared to net-zero strategies from the Conservatives in 2021 and 2023.
Previous net-zero strategies set an assumption of 75% of farmers taking up low-carbon practices by 2030 and 85% by 2035. The CBGD sets assumptions of 67% by 2030 and 74% by 2035.
The Climate Change Committee has said the government must have a comprehensive plan for restoring peatlands if it is to meet the UK’s net-zero goal.
Healthy peatlands are carbon-rich habitats that support a range of species. However, some 80% of the UK’s peatlands are degraded, with the carbon they release accounting for 5% of the UK’s total greenhouse gas emissions.
The CBGD plan says that, under the Elms landscape recovery scheme, 35,000 hectares of peatlands will be restored, in addition to the 30,000 hectares targeted for restoration under a separate nature for climate peatland grant scheme.
However, the CBGD also revises down its deployment assumptions for peatland restoration, compared to previous net-zero strategies.
The 2021 net-zero strategy assumed that just over 10,000 hectares of peatlands would be restored in 2030. The CBGD plan has a lower figure of just under 8,000 hectares for the same date.
The CBGD plan also significantly revises down expectations for tree-planting, compared to previous strategies.
The 2021 net-zero strategy assumed that 40,000 hectares of new trees would be planted in 2030. The CBGD has a much lower number of 7,455 hectares for 2030.
Tom Cantillon, senior analyst at the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), noted in a statement that the CBGD plan “seems to reduce ambition” on restoring peatlands and planting trees. He adds:
“With climate change worsening flooding in the UK, unless we work with nature by planting more trees and restoring habitats like peatlands to capture rainfall, people’s homes and farmers’ fields will be at ever greater risk.”
The post Q&A: The UK government’s ‘carbon budget delivery plan’ for 2035 appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Q&A: The UK government’s ‘carbon budget delivery plan’ for 2035
The UN body that regulates mining in international waters has defended its authority over ocean governance after two subsidiaries of deep-sea mining firm The Metals Company (TMC) launched legal action to halt an investigation into their conduct.
Speaking at the International Seabed Authority’s (ISA) annual meeting in Kingston on Monday, secretary-general Leticia Carvalho said the regulator’s role “matters more than ever” as governments grapple with growing pressure to exploit the deep seabed for minerals needed for the energy transition.
“The deep seabed belongs to no single country and no corporation; it belongs to all of us,” Carvalho said, describing its resources as “the common heritage of humankind”.
“If we lose sight of this,” she added, “we risk repeating on the ocean floor the same injustices and destruction we still strive to remedy on land.”
The conflict stems from TMC’s attempt to bypass the UN process by applying for US-sponsored ocean mining permits offered last year by the Trump administration. The Canadian firm aims to become the first company to mine the seabed for minerals like nickel, rare earths and manganese used in the production of both clean energy technologies and military equipment.
Several governments, including China, condemned the move as a “violation of international law”. In response, ISA member states agreed to open an inquiry into its licence-holders – among them two of TMC’s subsidiaries – to make sure they have complied with international law. If they are ultimately found to have breached those obligations, their exploration contracts could be revoked.
In June, the two TMC subsidiaries – Tonga Offshore Mining Ltd (TOML) and Nauru Ocean Resources Inc (NORI) – filed claims against the ISA at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), asking the court to suspend the inquiry while the case proceeds. The companies argue they are being targeted “without lawful procedural basis”, “in breach of due process”, and without “good faith”.
Environmental groups have accused The Metals Company of using legal tactics to block the investigation into its subsidiaries.
“We find ourselves in this Orwellian situation where these companies are trying to effectively get an injunction against the ISA from continuing its inquiry,” said Louisa Casson, who leads Greenpeace’s global campaign against deep-sea mining.
“The stakes are so high and that’s why we’re seeing this pretty extraordinary move to try to get an injunction against the ISA,” she added.
-
Trump throws lifeline to Canadian deep-sea miner, setting scene for international clash
US president’s executive order looks like a victory for Vancouver-based The Metals Company (TMC) and other industry advocates, but fierce environmental and international opposition still stands in the way of ocean floor mining -
UK government faces legal challenge over deep sea mining permits to “opaque” firm
Greenpeace says UK may have acted unlawfully by transferring deep-sea mining licences to firm with US ties -
Loss and damage fund delays first project approvals as needs dwarf resources
The new Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage faces an overwhelming number of initial requests for its limited pot of money and board members decided to take more time to choose which to back first
Mining the deep ocean floor
The ISA has been negotiating a mining code for the deep ocean floor for over 12 years without success. Nearly 40 governments, including the UK, France and Germany, have called for a moratorium or precautionary pause on deep-sea mining until there is sufficient scientific evidence that it can proceed without causing serious harm to marine ecosystems.
Rather than wait for the UN process, industry frontrunner, The Metals Company, decided to apply for US permits offered by the Trump administration last year. In May, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) certified TMC’s application to explore 120,000 square kilometers of sea floor.
The firm wants to mine an area in the Pacific known as the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, which holds critical minerals inside potato-sized rocks found in the deep ocean floor known as polymetallic nodules. The minerals like manganese, nickel and rare earths are used in clean energy technologies like batteries and wind turbines.
But the area is also a little-understood ecosystem inhabited by thousands of unnamed species. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the world’s largest environmental network, says mining this area would threaten the existence of over half of all molluscs reliant on deep-sea vents.
Governments launch inquiry
Seeking to discourage companies from bypassing the UN process, the ISA’s member states unanimously agreed to open an inquiry into whether holders of its exploration licences complied with their contractual obligations under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
“The stage we’re at now is countries grappling with what they can do about this. What tools do they have to constrain this pathway that would go against international law,” Casson said.
Both NORI and TOML continue to hold ISA exploration contracts in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone. NORI’s license, however, expires later this month on July 21st and is up for review.
The inquiry is currently ongoing, but Casson said that if governments decide to cancel NORI’s license, other firms could apply for the ISA permit and compete for mining rights in the area.
“If that happens, it could really put into jeopardy TMC USA’s application (for US permits) because then suddenly that area could be open for a competing claim,” she explained. “At the moment, TMC is trying to kind of play both sides and shore up the area so that there will be no competition.”
Deep-sea mining firms push back
The cases before ITLOS are the first contentious disputes over deep-sea mining to reach the court designed for maritime disputes and the first brought directly by private contractors against the ISA. Among the companies’ legal advisers is former ISA secretary-general Michael Lodge.
Both NORI and TOML claimed that, unless the inquiry is suspended, there is a “real
and imminent risk of prejudice” that “may have significant legal and practical consequences” for
their activities.
The claim was backed by the Pacific island nation of Nauru, which has sponsored TMC’s push to mine the Clarion-Clipperton Zone and would benefit from the economic activity. The country raised “concerns on the adherence of due process with respect to the treatment of NORI”.
The mining companies allege that the ISA has singled them out among other applicants by requesting additional documentation, and that the UN auditors did not give them an opportunity to “meaningfully respond” to their concerns.
The ISA rejected those allegations as “wholly unsupported assertions”. It added that, given TMC’s application for US mining permits, it had done “what any reasonable regulator would do”: with the unanimous support of member states, it opened an inquiry simply to establish the facts.
Delay tactics
A decision from the maritime court is now expected by July 18, which has added to a “climate of significant regulatory uncertainty”, according to global law firm HSF Kramer.
As ISA countries meet in Kingston this week, the court’s president asked them “not to act in any way that could hinder any order” the court may make.
At the hearing representing the ISA, renowned human rights lawyer Philippe Sands said the deep-sea mining firms were engaging in “strategic litigation” meant to delay the inquiry and send the ISA into a years-long legal process.
“It’s a delaying tactic, and nothing would make them happier than for you to kick this into the long grass for two years while you sort out the merits. That is what they want this Tribunal, the Chamber, to do. You are being instrumentalized in this process,” Sands told the judges.
The post UN seabed regulator defends authority as mining firms seek to halt inquiry appeared first on Climate Home News.
UN seabed regulator defends authority as mining firms seek to halt inquiry
The UK’s incoming prime minister Andy Burnham has remained tight-lipped on his views on climate change during his leadership campaign.
When asked his views on reversing Labour’s manifesto pledge to stop new North Sea drilling in June – a move that the oil-and-gas industry and right-wing media have pushed for in recent months – he said he had “something of an open mind” on the issue.
But a trawl of Burnham’s past comments about climate change, net-zero and fossil fuels reveals a different picture.
Just a year ago in June 2025, Burnham, while mayor of Greater Manchester, gave his support to the fossil fuel treaty – a proposed international pact on phasing out coal, oil and gas – calling it a “lifeline” that “all governments” should join.
In a video message endorsing the treaty, he also said that “there should be no turning away from net-zero”.
During his last bid to be Labour leader in 2015, he used similar language, saying:
“Labour under my leadership will never turn our back on either our duty to tackle climate change or the prospects offered by the green economy.”
Burnham has spoken about the threat of climate change since at least 2008, noting in 2021 that accelerated action could “create thousands of good jobs”, but also warning that net-zero risked becoming the “next Brexit”.
Burnham is yet to appoint his cabinet, but there is much speculation that he will select current net-zero secretary Ed Miliband as his chancellor – with their ally Miatta Fahnbulleh having a “strong chance” of taking Miliband’s former position.
Below, Carbon Brief recounts 28 things that Burnham has said about climate change, net-zero, fossil fuels, energy and transport.
Climate change
“Tackling climate change isn’t just about protecting the planet – it’s a powerful opportunity to build a fairer, greener future for our communities and businesses.”
Calling for local councils to be given more power and money for climate action, 29 November 2025
“There is little doubt that Greater Manchester’s biodiversity has taken a hit over the years, with habitats being lost, destroyed and becoming less diverse due to the impact of development, climate change, pollution and invasive species…We are committed to delivering a city-region for all residents to enjoy – a fairer, greener and more prosperous place for everyone.”
Statement after Greater Manchester declared a “biodiversity emergency”, 25 March 2022
“Over the next decade, if we accelerate our response to the climate crisis, we can create thousands of good jobs, improve homes, overhaul our transport system and make [Manchester] an even better place to live.”
Greater Manchester Green Summit, 18 October 2021
“The environment has never been higher on the national and international agenda.”
Statement after visiting a peat bog restoration project in England, 9 January 2020
“I think climate change [action] will be driven more quickly from the bottom up, if I’m honest. It’s the will of evolution if you wait for the government to act…When governments aren’t listening you get out and get your voice heard…so I think [climate protesters] deserve our encouragement, not our criticism.”
Speaking to Manchester Evening News at a student climate protest in Manchester, 24 May 2019
“Labour under my leadership will never turn our back on either our duty to tackle climate change or the prospects offered by the green economy.”
Labour leadership candidate speech, 15 July 2015
“Climate change can seem a distant, impersonal threat – in fact the associated costs to health are a very real and present danger…We need well-designed climate change policies that drive health benefits.”
Speaking to the Guardian about a study on climate and health, 25 November 2009
“The Stern report on the economics of climate change has changed the debate, in this country and around the world. It made it clear that the people who could suffer most from a failure to tackle climate change, or from a lack of ambition in our approach to it, are those living in the developing countries. They are the most vulnerable…[and] Stern said that the cost of not acting would be large. That is why the government took various measures in the recent spending review to ensure that we are prepared to face the challenges posed by climate change.”
Speaking in the UK parliament on the economic impacts of climate change on his final day as chief secretary to the Treasury, 24 January 2008
Net-zero
“There should be no turning away from net-zero.”
Speaking after giving his support to the fossil fuel treaty – a proposed global pact to introduce laws to phase out coal, oil and gas – on behalf of Manchester, 6 June 2025
“An opportunity is opening up for Britain as other countries move away from net-zero. We should seize that…We can make Britain a green leader. This is not the time to tiptoe, it is the time to commit to this path.”
Speaking at Innovation Zero World Congress in London, 29 April 2025
“[We] need a government that fully buys into the 2038 vision because the UK will not get to 2050 unless places like Greater Manchester are freed up to go faster – and we’re ready to go faster.”
Speaking about Greater Manchester’s aim to reach net-zero by 2038, 19 October 2022
“In Greater Manchester we have plans to build 30,000 net-zero social rented homes because we recognise that a successful city region needs good quality, affordable accommodation for everyone.”
Speech on the future of cities, 24 June 2022
“By building a broad consensus behind the drive to net-zero, we can ensure that the transition is a fair one that delivers social justice as well as climate justice. This is an opportunity for all of us to show how cutting carbon emissions in our cities can make a real difference to our communities – away from the abstractions and rooted in the real world.”
Panel discussion in Glasgow during the COP26 climate summit, 12 November 2021
“To the extent that people have picked up anything from COP26, it’s a sense that the drive to net-zero will mean cost and inconvenience for ordinary people and offsetting for the wealthy and entitled. All of a sudden, you can feel how net-zero could become the new Brexit – a debate that gets very divided on class grounds…This has got to be a wake-up call. We cannot let this happen. We need to act now to build a broad social consensus behind the drive to net-zero. How to do that? It starts with taking control of the climate narrative from those steering it in the wrong direction and turning it around…We must show how, if done in the right way, the drive to net-zero is actually an opportunity to reduce the cost of living; to make people’s lives better and society fairer.”
Writing for the London Standard, 5 November 2021
“The drive to net-zero is a chance to re-industrialise the north of England, this time in a clean way. Create really good jobs, future-facing jobs for people, better public transport, improve people’s homes…If we go quickly towards net-zero, it’s the quickest way to level up the country.”
ITV interview at COP26, 1 November 2021
“If we really embrace the drive to net-zero, that is the route to level up the country…But it needs substantial investment, upfront, now, of the kind that Rachel Reeves, shadow chancellor [and chancellor under Keir Starmer’s government], has been talking about. We need long-term predictable funding.”
Interview with GB News at COP26, 1 November 2021
“I would have preferred to hear slightly less about carbonated wine and much more about a decarbonised economy.”
Referencing a UK budget, which included tax cuts for sparkling wine and other drinks, 28 October 2021
“Decarbonising is not just about lowering costs on to people. It’s the route to get better, cheaper public transport. It’s the route to getting homes that are cheap to run. It’s actually the way we can create thousands of good jobs for the people who live in Greater Manchester. This is the route to levelling up the country by going further and faster on decarbonisation.”
Speaking to Manchester Confidential, 20 October 2021
“[I am] asking people to stop seeing the environmental agenda as a cost and a burden agenda. I think this is a barrier that we’ve got to get over. Already in the media interviews I’ve done today, people are saying ‘can you afford it?’, ‘can it be achievable when times are tough?’.
“My answer to that is, at some point in the 21st century, all homes will be zero-carbon. At some point in this century, all buildings of any kind will be zero-carbon…All cars will be zero-carbon, all public transport will be zero-carbon…The question is: when? And surely the places that embrace those things first are putting themselves in a position of economic strength when it comes to facing up to the future. Rather than seeing the whole agenda as a burden, we’ve got to see it for the benefits that it can bring.
“There may be a greater upfront cost in a zero-carbon home, but let’s stop thinking, as we tend to do in Britain, of the short-term, the short-termist approach to life. Surely let’s start talking to the public about the lifetime cost.”
Greater Manchester Green Summit, 21 March 2018
Fossil fuels
“I’ve got something of an open mind, you know. I don’t have a sort of fixed position.”
Speaking on the issue of new North Sea oil and gas in a New Statesman interview, 3 June 2026
“We would fight this in GM [Greater Manchester]…Communities across the north would face all the danger and disruption while big oil and gas walk away with all the profits.”
In response to Reform’s call for fracking, on X, 25 August 2025
“I am proud to endorse the fossil-fuel treaty proposal today on behalf of Greater Manchester. It’s not just a plan – it’s a lifeline. It’s a call to end coal, oil and gas, hold polluters accountable…I urge all governments, nationals and subnationals to join this fight.”
Statement upon endorsing the fossil-fuel treaty, 5 June 2025
“Fracking is the past, it is not the future.”
Speech at London climate protest, 20 September 2019
“I have called for a moratorium on fracking. Far too many potential risks and unanswered questions.”
On X, 22 June 2015
Energy and transport
“What I would do, if successful, is lay out a plan for more public control over water, energy, transport, so that over the period we can get those bills down, fares down, and give people and give businesses breathing space.”
LBC interview, 2 July 2026
“I am all in favour of tough decisions at a national level. I don’t believe there should be a third runway at Heathrow, for instance. But I think those are decisions for national government.”
Guardian interview, 13 June 2019
“There is a debate to be had about aviation, isn’t there? There are changing public attitudes about aviation. Rather than just saying no to people flying, don’t we need to accelerate research into low and zero-carbon forms of aviation?”
Guardian interview, 13 June 2019
“Today, I stand alongside the mayors of some of the greatest cities in the world. I’m committed to a cleaner, greener and healthier future for Greater Manchester. Around a third of greenhouse gas emissions in our city-region come from transport.”
When signing the C40 Fossil-Fuel-Free Streets Declaration, which includes support for zero-emissions vehicles and walking and cycling, on behalf of Manchester, 14 September 2018
The post 28 quotes from next UK leader Andy Burnham on climate, net-zero and fossil fuels appeared first on Carbon Brief.
28 quotes from next UK leader Andy Burnham on climate, net-zero and fossil fuels
Suresanathan Murugesu is the country director of Action Against Hunger in the Philippines
The Philippines is caught in an extreme weather trap. Here, forecasts for a strong El Niño in the months ahead do not just indicate a period of drought – they also point to torrential rain and flooding.
It could hardly come at a worse time, threatening communities that are still struggling to recover from previous typhoons, such as last year’s Typhoon Tino, as well as two strong earthquakes – in Cebu in September 2025 and last month’s 7.8-magnitude quake in Mindanao.
Forecasts point to the arrival of one of the most intense El Niños in recent history this year and into 2027, with the United Nations warning that it could be the strongest in decades around the world.
The peak of the El Niño is expected towards the end of the year, but the weather phenomenon is already estimated to have caused agricultural losses of nearly €30 million (£25.9 million), potentially affecting the livelihoods of 4 million farmers.
-
Scientists warn El Niño could intensify climate extremes in 2026
Climatologists say a particularly powerful weather pattern could amplify wildfire risk, heatwaves and flooding worldwide as global temperatures continue to rise -
WHO issues new guidance on heat-health action plans, as El Niño sets in
Amid warnings of “unprecedented” weather extremes this year, the World Health Organization urges governments to strengthen protections for vulnerable groups -
Philippines storm victims to seek damages from Shell in “unprecedented” climate claim
The case is the first civil claim to directly link an oil firm’s climate impact to deaths and personal injury in the Global South, its backers say
On the climate frontline
For many, El Niño is a figure in a report or a distant headline, but for those of us who live and work on the ground, it is a reality that is already hitting the most vulnerable families.
When I travel through the communities of the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region – in the south – or speak with families on the island of Siargao or in the Zamboanga region, I do not see data or graphs.
I see a father looking at his cracked rice field, wondering how he will pay off the debts from a harvest that is already lost before it has even begun. I see a mother walking under a relentless sun because her village’s well has dried up, carrying the water that sustains the health of her children and her entire community.
And what we are seeing today – 26 provinces experiencing drought and millions of dollars in agricultural losses – is only the beginning.
Loss and damage fund delays first project approvals as needs dwarf resources
Many Filipino families are still trying to rebuild and recover after last year’s typhoons and the two earthquakes. In Mindanao, where the recent magnitude 7.8 earthquake displaced more than 90,000 people and destroyed over 19,000 houses, uncertainty remains about when the people will be able to fully recover and return home.
Today, they are trying to protect the meagre possessions they have and, if they are lucky enough to have their home unscathed by typhoons and earthquakes, their homes from flooding; tomorrow, they will have to survive the hardship and impact of drought.
The effects of El Niño threaten to exacerbate their troubles.
Struggle for basic needs
Many low-income Filipino families already face significant challenges to meet their basic needs.
In our daily visits, we see how life is becoming increasingly difficult for millions of people. Rising fuel and transport costs are driving up the price of basic foodstuffs, making them unaffordable for many families. At the same time, crop failures and income losses are leaving households without livelihoods, while disasters contribute to further suffering.
But we are not just talking about hunger. We are talking about health, safety and dignity. Water shortages are forcing many people to resort to unsafe sources, increasing the risk of disease. And, as is the case in so many crises, it is the most vulnerable who bear the heaviest burden: walking long distances every day to fetch water or food, enduring enormous physical strain and facing risks of violence and insecurity.
Building resilience
Faced with this reality, our response is based on a simple idea: to be there before the crisis reaches its most critical point. At Action Against Hunger, we work alongside communities to anticipate the situation, assessing the impact of the drought and activating early response mechanisms to protect their livelihoods and access to water.
We translate climate forecasts into concrete action plans: from support for farmers to programmes ensuring safe water. All of this is done in coordination with local authorities and international partners, because we know that what we do today will make the difference tomorrow.
The hardest months are yet to come. But the question is not just what will happen, but what we are doing now to prevent it. How many tables will remain empty and how many children will see their health compromised will depend on our ability to act in time.
We cannot stop El Niño. But we can prevent it from becoming a crisis of human dignity. We cannot afford to look the other way whilst the earth cracks and opportunities disappear. Because behind every statistic, there is a family struggling to get by. And that is a reality we cannot ignore.
The post A strong El Niño spells more climate pain for the Philippines appeared first on Climate Home News.
A strong El Niño spells more climate pain for the Philippines
-
Greenhouse Gases11 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change11 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy9 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases12 months ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测