British civil servants have grave doubts about their government’s favoured techno-fixes for climate-polluting industries like meat production and air travel, new documents show.
In risk assessments made public because of an ongoing court case, officials warned that technology to reduce methane emissions from cow burps is “nascent” and there might not be enough plants or hydrogen available to power the world’s planes more sustainably.
Yet despite the uncertainties surrounding these and other climate solutions like carbon dioxide removal, the UK government is relying on such technologies to meet a big chunk of its climate plans.
Internal government documents disclosed in court show civil servants had “low” or “very low” confidence in about half of their planned emissions reductions up to 2037 and “very high confidence” in just a tiny fraction.
UK civil servants rated about half their planned emission cuts as “low” or “very low” confidence
In court, the government’s lawyer said that these categories should not be taken out of context – and that certain measures could be rated “very low confidence” just because it is “early days”.
The risk analysis was put together by unnamed civil servants at the UK’s Department for Energy Security and Net Zero in 2022 and was supposed to help shape the government’s latest carbon budget delivery plan, aimed at keeping the country on track for net-zero emissions by mid-century.
The plan was published in March 2023 along with a sanitised version of the risks and uncertainties that civil servants foresaw in meeting it.
But the full risk tables were made public this week as environmental campaigners took the government to court, arguing that civil servants did not give then climate minister Grant Shapps enough information to judge whether the UK’s climate plan was sufficient.
The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
BIG WIN YESTERDAY: We’re finally been able to publish the Government’s climate risk tables
TODAY: We’re arguing in court that its refusal to disclose them is in breach of the Climate Change Act
https://t.co/Y1QNveDde1
— Good Law Project (@GoodLawProject) February 21, 2024
Katie de Kauwe, a lawyer for Friends of the Earth, one of the groups bringing the case, said the analysis shows “much of the government’s ‘strategy’ to meet legally-binding climate targets amounts to wishful thinking”.
ClientEarth lawyer Sam Hunter Jones, said: “These risk tables only further prove that the government is choosing to look the other way when it comes to the clear possibility of its climate plans failing.”
Where’s the green fuel?
The government has said it plans to cut 611 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from 2023 to 2037 from international aviation and shipping – about an eighth of its total emissions reductions over those 15 years.
Plans to decarbonise aviation currently rest largely on sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), made from plant material called biomass.
Countries draw battle lines for talks on new climate finance goal
But the civil servants privately warned there may not be enough of this biomass required to power the planes.
“Feedstock availability is a key dependency to supply necessary quantities of SAF,” the risk assessment says, adding “increased global demand for biomass could impact the deliverability of these project savings”.
“Zero emission flight technology is at an early stage of development and delivery of this ambition will be challenging,” it notes.
Planes could also – at least in theory – be powered with hydrogen but this may also be in short supply.
The civil servants say “the availability of low carbon hydrogen at scale from 2030 onwards is likely to be critical”.
The government’s plan does not mention strategies to reduce flight numbers or encourage people to travel by train.
Cow super-foods
The carbon budget delivery plan also estimates that the damage done by livestock, particularly cows, burping the potent greenhouse gas methane can be reduced by 4 million tonnes between 2023 and 2037 by giving them special food and not feeding them too much.
But the previously unpublished analysis warns that the emissions savings from this are “uncertain” as the technology is “nascent”. The plan does not include measures to reduce the numbers of ruminants like cows or to promote a move away from meat-based diets.
The most recent summary of climate science from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that technologies that ease pollution from livestock flatulence based on seaweed or algae are “promising” but there are doubts about the environmental side-effects and whether the emissions cuts from using them will be lasting.
The UK government’s plan also relies on technologies that suck carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to contribute 30 million tonnes of CO2 reduction between 2023 and 2037.
Despite Cop28 pledge, France keeps fossil fuel subsidies for farmers
But the civil servants say they are “uncertain” this will be delivered. This is partly because “greenhouse removals technologies have never been deployed at scale, creating inherent uncertainties and risk”, and “additional research and innovation” is required.
These technologies vary but include burning plant material or hydrogen for electricity and capturing the carbon emitted, as well as sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere with direct air capture machines.
In addition, the officials flag concerns about using hydrogen – a gas that doesn’t damage the atmosphere when burned and can be made with carbon-free electricity – to heat homes as an emissions-cutting bet.
“The use of hydrogen for heat is not yet a fully established technology,” they say, adding “there is uncertainty on the carbon savings associated with hydrogen heating policy”.
They do not raise doubts about heat pump technology except with regard to cost and how to heat buildings where pumps are not suitable.
Climate finance fail
Despite cuts to the UK’s development aid budget since the COVID-19 pandemic, the UK government has insisted it will deliver on a much-hyped promise to deliver £11.6 billion ($14.7 bn) in climate finance to developing countries between 2021 and 2026. But in the newly released documents, civil servants warn of “material risks” to meeting that commitment.
They blame this on the UK cutting its annual aid spending from 0.7% of gross national income to 0.5%, and the redeployment of almost a third of the aid budget to cover the cost of hosting Ukrainian refugees.
This supports the claim made by former environment minister Zac Goldsmith, who resigned in June saying the government had “effectively abandoned” the climate finance pledge, which was “one of the most widely reported and solemn promises we have made on this issue”.
The Guardian newspaper also last year published a leaked government document warning the UK would find it a “huge challenge” to respect the pledge. At that time, the foreign and development ministry said “claims that the international climate finance pledge is being dropped are false”.
Emma Dearnaley, legal director of the Good Law Project, asked: “How can the UK credibly claim to be a world leader in tackling climate change when it is falling behind on its legal commitments to help those who will bear the brunt of it?”
Developing countries have been angered by news on the expected shortfall in Britain’s climate funding. Last June, an African negotiator told Climate Home it was “disappointing”, while Bolivia’s Diego Pacheco said the UK would not be respecting the United Nations climate change convention or the Paris Agreement.
The court hearing finished today, but it is likely to be months before the judge returns a verdict.
The post Revealed: UK civil servants’ secret doubts over climate techno-fixes appeared first on Climate Home News.
Revealed: UK civil servants’ secret doubts over climate techno-fixes
SYDNEY, Thursday 30 October 2026 — In response to reports that the Albanese government is set to introduce draft legislation this year that would seek to ban data centres in Australia’s suburbs, Joe Rafalowicz, Head of Climate and Energy at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said:
“These reports are a testament to the growing community opposition to these completely inappropriate AI factories that have sprung up across our suburbs, and Big Tech corporations should take heed — the data centre build-out must not happen without the endorsement of the Australian people.
“But the government can’t simply ship this problem out to regional Australia without addressing the fundamental issues with this extractive new industry.
“We’re already seeing a trend of AI data centre proposals moving to the regions, in areas that are more water-scarce, more environmentally sensitive, and next to sources of fracked and coal seam gas to support their massive BYO gas-fired power plans — a pattern we’ve seen play out in the United States.
“From the Beetaloo Basin in the NT to the Western Downs in Qld, we’re seeing a wave of AI data centre proposals that would see new gas fast-tracked to support their massive energy demand, and threaten to completely derail Australia’s energy transition.
“Just as suburban Australians are asking, “what for?”, regional communities like Berry Springs and Dalby do not want dirty data centres setting up shop with absolutely no benefit to their communities. Greenpeace is calling for a moratorium on AI data centre developments until strict and enforceable safeguards are in place to protect our climate and our communities.”
-ENDS-
Media contact
Kate O’Callaghan on +61 406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
AI data centre ban in suburbs would not address fundamental issues: Greenpeace
In the thick of the COP29 climate summit in Azerbaijan in 2024, the UN climate talks were rattled by what can only be described as a major PR disaster. The BBC, Reuters and The Guardian all carried headlines, attributed to leading climate policy experts, that the COPs were “no longer fit for purpose”.
The articles outlined a series of reforms called for in an open letter signed by 22 eminent scientists and politicians, including a former UN secretary-general and previous UN climate chief, with a further 150 lending their support. The headlines shook confidence in the COP process, just as governments were wrestling over a new climate finance goal.
The Club of Rome – which handled the media relations for the letter – hurried to say that its “constructive, supportive ideas” had been “misinterpreted”. Negotiators kept calm(ish) and carried on, in the end landing the finance goal after some high-stakes drama on the final day.
-
Early speakers’ list suggests few powerful leaders will attend COP31
Just 77 heads of state or government are scheduled to address the COP31 climate summit in Antalya, a third less than the COP28 peak -
Africa wants adaptation finance on COP31 agenda, raising risk of a fight
The African Group wants dedicated space on tripling adaptation finance, the Green Climate Fund and trade, setting up a possible clash
To my surprise, when I went back this week to read the letter again, I could not find the offending line about the COPs not being fit for purpose. The Club of Rome has yet to respond to my query about its disappearance.
Whatever happened to the wording, that sentiment has been widely shared. COPs have ballooned in size while the importance of their outcomes seems to have diminished since the 2015 Paris Agreement (with the exception of the 2023 COP in Dubai where countries agreed to transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems).
The same on the surface
Two years on from those painful headlines in Baku, has anything changed for the better? You might be forgiven for thinking not. Official decisions are still made by consensus rather than the majority voting some have called for to stop blockers.
Tens of thousands of officials, activists and business execs still scurry around the halls to an ever-growing list of side events, roundtables and dialogues, while deals still come down to rows, all-nighters and jargon-filled texts adopted to rounds of applause.
But it would not be true to say that COPs have completely failed to respond to the very real need to translate the words of the Paris Agreement into action in the outside world.
Global warming is projected to be around 1.3C lower this century than it would have been if the world had not committed to tackle the climate crisis under that accord. Developing countries have a valued space at COPs in which their voices have equal weight in decision-making, unlike in many other international fora. And most importantly, perhaps, there has been a subtle shift, tipping the balance away from negotiating towards doing.
Brazil branded last year’s summit in Belém as the “COP of Implementation”, corralling the sprawling Action Agenda into six axes. This was a bid to impose some structure on the mushrooming efforts between governments, UN agencies, cities, businesses and civil society to set targets and spur faster results on their pet issues, from methane emissions to health and adaptation in conflict zones. COP30 alone saw the launch of 120 “plans to accelerate solutions”.
COP30 roadmaps off the cuff
Meanwhile, as the formal negotiations drew to a close, it was clear that consensus decision-making was evolving into something a little more improvised.
With only around half of all countries on board with the idea of a roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels, COP30 President André Corrêa do Lago announced his team would put one together over the coming year, along with another on how to meet a global goal to halt deforestation by 2030. Those roadmaps will be launched next week, presented and discussed at COP31, though it’s still unclear whether or how they’ll be incorporated into the formal negotiating agenda.
Some leading policy-makers don’t think that matters too much. Speaking to journalists before the Antalya summit, COP30 CEO Ana Toni and Dutch climate minister Stientje van Veldhoven said “coalitions of the willing” can move ahead without needing consensus from the COPs. This, they said, was evident this year at the first global conference on TAFF, co-chaired by van Veldhoven and attended by 60 countries.
“Consensus or no-consensus in the general COP doesn’t make a difference for the choices I have to make in my country to get my country to phase out fossil fuels,” said the Dutch minister. The Netherlands recently became one of the first to publish a national TAFF plan.
COP31 banks on flagship voluntary initiatives
This thinking has permeated the management and expected outcomes of this year’s COP too. Earlier this year, Türkiye, supported by international energy agencies, floated the idea of a voluntary goal to boost electrification to 35% of the world’s final energy consumption by 2035 – and this is now being touted as one of the main results to be expected from Antalya.
Türkiye is also championing a pledge on AI and climate, while co-host Australia is pushing to ease access to climate finance for least developed countries and small island states.
COP31 presidency announces AI pledge as UN climate chief says Big Tech ‘on thin ice’
None of these needs consensus. But with a political cover decision already in the works, as trailed by the COP presidents, they – and perhaps the fossil fuel roadmap – may find a home in the official text if language acceptable to most can be found, giving them them additional weight.
UNFCCC reform process in the shadows
Formal reform is underway too, if quietly. UN climate chief Simon Stiell is leading a review informed by ongoing consultations with a group of 15 well-respected climate policy experts, three of whom signed the open letter in 2024.
Among them is leading Swedish climate and sustainability scientist Johan Rockström who has strong ideas about how to make COPs function better, including a switch to majority voting. He told the same press briefing nothing stands in the way of this, because the rules of procedure for making decisions at COPs have never been formally agreed.
Still, to get away from the default setting of consensus would require agreement on a new system that may be impossible to achieve given the rise in bullying tactics by fossil fuel heavyweights.
Comment: The UN climate process was built for negotiation – now it must support implementation
The deliberations with the high-level policy gurus, as reflected in a summary of June’s session in Bonn, largely echo what’s already happening organically, calling for stronger partnerships and accountability both in and between the Action Agenda and negotiations. It doesn’t mention voting.
A general overview of the reform exercise says that “improving and optimizing the [UN climate] process over the medium to long term… will be critical to fostering trust, enhancing collaboration, and catalyzing increased ambition”.
In the short term, don’t hold your breath for anything concrete on reform at COP31 but watch for signs in what ends up dominating the headlines from Türkiye.
The post Editor’s Desk: COP reform is happening quietly, behind the headlines appeared first on Climate Home News.
Editor’s Desk: COP reform is happening quietly, behind the headlines
With the COP31 climate summit in Turkey looming, all eyes are on China to see what the country will push for in the negotiations.
At COP30 last year, China helped to secure a “dialogue” on climate-related “unilateral trade measures”, as well as a two-year “work programme” concerning climate finance.
The nation also championed south-south cooperation throughout the conference and co-led a summit on methane, alongside Brazil and the UK.
In a recent press conference, China’s environment vice-minister Li Gao noted the need to “uphold multilateralism” and send a “clear political signal” that the global community is united around climate action.