Connect with us

Published

on

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.

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”.

Loss and damage must be a focus of IPCC’s next reports

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

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Nature cannot be ignored by Europe’s next big budget

Published

on

Adeline Rochet is a programme manager for the Corporate Leaders Group Europe, a business coalition driving the transition to a sustainable, competitive, and resilient economy convened by the University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership (CISL).

Europe’s economy depends on the natural world functioning as it should, but the effects of climate change risk undermining increasingly delicate ecosystems. Talks about the European Union’s next long-term budget miss this fact.

Climate-related losses in the EU have already reached €822 billion since 1980, with a quarter of that damage concentrated in just the past four years. Ecosystems are under increasing pressure: more than 80% of protected habitats are in poor condition, soils are degrading and water stress is rising across the continent.

The latest state of the climate report by the EU’s Earth monitoring service Copernicus confirms this worrying state of affairs: 95% of Europe experienced above-average temperatures in 2025.

Economic exposure to nature-related risk is also growing. Businesses, banks and insurers are beginning to reflect this in their risk assessments.

So, will the policymakers in charge of developing the European Union’s next big budget integrate this vision? We are in the midst of finding out.

    Every seven years, the EU must negotiate a new budget that will help fund priorities over a seven-year-long period. The current one, which runs out next year, is worth more than a trillion euros.

    Talks about the next multiannual financial framework (MFF) for 2028-2034 are now getting serious and the initial outline of this new budget shows it will focus on competitiveness, resilience and prosperity.

    But, as the European Parliament adopted its negotiating position for the crunch budget talks and EU member states shape their approach ahead of a Council meeting on May 26, it is clear that the positioning of nature within this framework is strategically underestimated.

    Why nature impacts economic growth 

    Back in 2022, France’s nuclear power output was severely affected when heatwaves drove up the temperature of the rivers used to cool atomic reactors, impacting other European countries too. This was particularly poor timing given the energy price crisis triggered earlier that year by Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine.

    Low river levels caused by drought have also heavily impacted economic activity and growth in countries like Germany, due to the negative effect on inland trade, while degraded fields in the Netherlands combined with heavy rainfall have ruined potato harvests.

    These examples show that we cannot detach the health of the European economy from the good functioning of nature.

    UN General Assembly backs “climate obligations” set by world’s top court

    Nearly three-quarters of businesses in the eurozone rely directly on ecosystem services such as clean water, fertile soils and pollination. That dependency extends into the financial system, where around 75% of bank lending is exposed to companies dependent on these natural assets.

    They entirely underpin supply chains and financial stability across the European economy. If load-bearing ecosystems collapse, businesses not only face disruption in their own operations, but they will also be exposed to failures from suppliers and customers.

    This is not just a risk for individual companies, it is a threat for the whole system.

    A budget that looks greener than it is

    According to the latest proposals for the next MFF, a single 35% climate and environmental target will replace priorities that used to have distinct funding. As it stands, biodiversity has a 10% target, yet spending has struggled to reach even 8%, already showing how easily it is put to one side in practice.

    In the new framework, biodiversity is absorbed into a broader category with no separate tracking or visibility. Dedicated instruments are folded into larger funding envelopes, and nature-based investments are placed in direct and distorted competition with industrial projects.

    These are often faster to deploy and easier to measure, making them more attractive.

    Headline figures reinforce some appearance of ambition, with €587–635 billion allocated to climate and environmental objectives. But since these are aggregated numbers, they do not show how much will reach ecosystem conservation or restoration.

    Less visibility, weaker accountability

    Biodiversity funding also remains structurally fragile, with around 80% concentrated in agriculture policy rather than supported by a diversified investment strategy.

    This shift is structural: nature has been relegated from a defined priority to a mere discretionary allocation, and the governance model reinforces this dynamic.

    Webinar: From Santa Marta to Bonn – where next for the fossil fuel transition?

    Greater reliance on National and Regional Partnership Plans (NRPPs) moves decision-making into national spending choices, where fiscal and domestic political pressure will likely mean long-term ecosystem investments struggle to compete with short-term economic demands.

    The current MFF paints a worrying picture of structural triple risk for nature: reduced visibility, increased competition for funding and weaker accountability.

    Nature is critical infrastructure

    It is a point worth reiterating: investment in nature offers clear economic returns. Healthy ecosystems drive resilience by reducing exposure to climate damage and supporting local economic activity.

    Public finance plays a decisive role in enabling these investments at scale, making budget design a question of risk management and capital allocation.

    Nature-based solutions already perform essential economic functions. They regulate water systems, restore carbon sinks, provide a buffer against extreme weather events and support agricultural productivity.

    These are characteristics of infrastructure. Energy systems, transport networks and digital capacity are treated as strategic investments because they underpin competitiveness.

    Natural systems play the exact same role, so why does the current budget plan not reflect this?

    The next EU budget will shape investment for the decade ahead. Its structure will determine how risks are managed and where capital flows. Nature cannot be erased in favour of competing short-term priorities.

    In the upcoming negotiations, European leaders still have the option to treat nature as a structural objective and a core asset, supporting Europe’s resilience and long-term competitiveness. But they must act now, before it’s too late.

    The post Nature cannot be ignored by Europe’s next big budget appeared first on Climate Home News.

    https://www.climatechangenews.com/2026/05/25/nature-cannot-be-ignored-by-europes-next-big-budget/

    Continue Reading

    Climate Change

    In Florida, an Agricultural Town in Need of an Economic Boost Eyes Hyperscale Data Centers

    Published

    on

    Across the state’s heartland, communities such as Indiantown are weighing proposals for hyperscale data centers. The massive facilities would reshape Florida’s rural lands.

    INDIANTOWN, Fla.—Carroll McAllister frets over the prospect of a hyperscale data center opening next to the grassy expanse where she grew up, in a shack her father built.

    In Florida, an Agricultural Town in Need of an Economic Boost Eyes Hyperscale Data Centers

    Continue Reading

    Climate Change

    USDA Extends Pause on Loans for Controversial Digesters That Turn Manure Into Biogas

    Published

    on

    Anaerobic digester loans showed “significant delinquency rates,” the U.S. Department of Agriculture said, while environmental groups see the technology driving an expansion of large-scale animal farming operations.

    The federal government’s pause on new loans for anaerobic digesters, the controversial method of converting animal manure from large-scale feeding operations into biogas, will now extend through the end of the year.

    USDA Extends Pause on Loans for Controversial Digesters That Turn Manure Into Biogas

    Continue Reading

    Trending

    Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com