The UK would be able to increase its emissions while still meeting its next legally binding climate goal if the government uses a “surplus” to weaken the target, official advisers warn.
The government has asked the Climate Change Committee (CCC) if it should carry over “surplus” emissions, after the UK overachieved the third “carbon budget” for 2018-2022.
This surplus is equivalent to an extra year’s worth of emissions, so carrying it forward would increase the size of the fourth carbon budget for 2023-2027 by a fifth.
Doing so would make it far easier for the next government to meet that budget, allowing emissions to rise by around 15% from current levels – instead of falling towards net-zero.
In a letter, published today, the Climate Change Committee (CCC) says its “unequivocal” advice is that doing this would place the UK’s future climate goals at “very serious risk” and would make the 2050 net-zero target “more expensive and harder to achieve”.
The letter says that the surplus is largely the result of a sluggish economy and the impact of Covid-19. The committee emphasises that the UK’s emissions cuts need to accelerate to stay on course for long-term goals, rather than slow down.
‘Surplus’ emissions cuts
Under the Climate Change Act, the UK must hit legally binding interim emissions targets, known as carbon budgets, that get gradually lower on a pathway to net-zero emissions by 2050.
Earlier this month, the government published final greenhouse gas emissions figures showing that the UK overachieved in its third carbon budget. Total net emissions were 2,153m tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) between 2018 and 2022, the figures show, against a target of 2,544MtCO2e.
This means the UK came in 391MtCO2e – or 15% – below the budget for this five-year period. This “overachievement”, largely due to the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and other external factors (see below), is equivalent to around one year of UK emissions.
Earlier this month, UK climate minister Graham Stuart asked the CCC for its view on “carrying forward” the emissions “surplus” to the next carbon budget.
Under section 17 of the Climate Change Act, the government is legally entitled to do this if it wishes, but must first seek and take into account the CCC’s advice.
Carrying forward some or all of the surplus effectively weakens the UK’s next carbon budget, by an equivalent amount. Nevertheless, the flexibility was included in the Climate Change Act in order to encourage – and reward – early action to cut emissions.
Five years ago, the CCC issued a similar warning that the UK should not carry forward the surplus from the second carbon budget to the third period, because that overachievement was also largely due to external factors rather than genuine early action.
However, the government ignored the CCC’s advice – the first time it had done so – and carried forward 88MtCO2e into the third carbon budget.
Today, the CCC has once again written to the government warning it not to weaken the fourth carbon budget by making use of surplus emissions.
Indeed, as the chart below shows, making full use of the third budget surplus would allow the UK to legally increase its emissions in the current fourth carbon budget period 2024-2027, rather than cutting them in line with its longer-term goals.
With the third carbon budget surplus of 391MtCO2e being equivalent to a whole extra year of emissions in the UK, the country could emit around 20% more over the five-year budget than the amount officially legislated.
Adding this amount to the fourth carbon budget would enable the UK to emit 200MtCO2e more between 2023-27 than it did over the course of its third carbon budget, following decades of relatively consistent cuts.
This would amount to a 9% increase in emissions between budgets and an increase of as much as 15% from 2022 levels, across the fourth budget period.
It would also push the UK far off course from the government’s own carbon budget delivery plan for meeting near- and long-term targets, which it set out last year.
If the government decides to carry over the surplus and emissions are allowed to rise to their maximum level under a looser fourth carbon budget, getting back on track for the fifth carbon budget would require a “huge and impractical” total emissions reduction of 1,036MtCO2e over the following five years, according to the CCC.
This is twice as fast as anticipated in the government’s plan – and 40% quicker than the most ambitious scenario devised by the CCC.
‘Very serious risk’
In light of these potential outcomes, interim CCC chair Prof Piers Forster writes in his response to Stuart’s request that the surplus should not be used:
“The committee’s unequivocal advice is that surplus emissions from the third carbon budget should not be carried forward.”
The committee warns against “setting conditions that allow for a legally compliant slowdown in progress” when the focus “should be on accelerating and broadening emissions reductions”.
It concludes that both the UK’s domestic goal of the sixth carbon budget for 2033-37 and its 2030 international climate target under the Paris Agreement would be placed at “very serious risk” if the carryover is allowed.
The fourth carbon budget was set when the UK’s 2050 emissions goal was an 80% reduction rather than 100%. This means that the government should be overachieving, rather than underachieving, on the budget’s target emissions reductions in order to stay on a “sensible” track for its future goals, according to the CCC.
The CCC’s response reiterates its previous recommendations to Stuart’s predecessors about carrying forward surplus from the first and second carbon budgets.
Moreover, the committee points out that “most” of the surplus emissions cuts in recent years have not been the result of the government’s climate policies.
According to the committee, roughly half of them resulted from a “tighter than expected” EU ETS cap. This meant “less was required” of government policy in areas outside of the ETS, such as transport and heating buildings.
Most of the remaining surplus is accounted for by “lower-than-expected GDP” and less travel due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the CCC adds.
The CCC emphasises the need for continued incentives and pressure to make emissions cuts across all sectors, concluding:
“The Climate Change Act and the carbon budgets provide a clear, longrun signal to investors and businesses on the UK’s decarbonisation trajectory. Carrying forward the third carbon budget surplus would weaken this message, causing uncertainty, and could ultimately result in net-zero being more expensive and harder to achieve.”
The post UK emissions could rise by 15% if government uses ‘surplus’ to weaken climate goal, CCC warns appeared first on Carbon Brief.
UK emissions could rise by 15% if government uses ‘surplus’ to weaken climate goal, CCC warns
Climate Change
FLIP OFF WOODSIDE TO SAVE SCOTT REEF: Greenpeace, Michael Caton, Thinkerbell mobilise Australia to challenge gas project at Scott Reef
6 November 2026
Greenpeace Australia Pacific has joined forces with Thinkerbell and iconic Australian actor Michael Caton on a major public movement and behaviour change initiative to save Scott Reef, calling on Australians to “flip off” gas corporation Woodside. The company plans to drill for gas at Australia’s largest oceanic reef, home to vulnerable green sea turtles, endangered pygmy blue whales, and thousands of marine species, off the coast of Western Australia.
WATCH THE FULL VIDEO HERE
At the heart of the collaboration is somebody who knows a thing or two about fighting off corporations to protect a home: Michael Caton. Set in a courtroom, Caton gives his voice to a voiceless inhabitant, a green sea turtle, and together they invite the public to show their support to save Scott Reef.
Designed to shift public behaviour and drive national debate, the movement asks the public to tag their MPs – applying direct political pressure on Environment Minister Murray Watt and Prime Minister Albanese Albanese to “flip off” Woodside’s dirty gas project, which would see up to 57 toxic wells drilled around Scott Reef off the coast of Western Australia.
Voiced by Michael Caton and set to a soundtrack provided by Radiohead, the narrative centres on our hero turtle defending her home from corporate overreach in a courtroom showdown. As the turtle defiantly flips her flippers at Woodside, Michael Caton calls on everyday Australians to take a stand and help save her home.
Michael Caton said: “I’m proud to lend my voice to Greenpeace to help save Scott Reef. The marine life out there can’t speak up, so we need to. Some things are too precious to risk.”
Glenn Walker, Head of Nature at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, added: “Woodside’s dirty gas project at Scott Reef, Australia’s largest oceanic reef, is an environmental disaster waiting to happen, threatening thousands of species, including the extremely vulnerable green sea turtles that nest there. By literally flipping off Woodside and Big Gas, Aussies are cutting through corporate spin and sending an unignorable message to Environment Minister Murray Watt and the Albanese government: save Scott Reef.”
Adam Ferrier, co-founder of Thinkerbell, said: “You can fight a corporation in the courtroom forever, but the real power to deliver lasting protection rests in parliament. Right now, our MPs hold an extraordinary opportunity to safeguard Scott Reef for generations to come. I’m proudly from WA, and I know how much the natural environment means to the people and economy of Western Australia. I’m also sure Woodside wants to do the right thing, and with enough public support and government action we’ll together save Scott Reef.
Paul Swann, Chief Creative Tinker at Thinkerbell notes: “When the stakes are this high, polite ads don’t work. You need an unignorable provocation that galvanises people and puts the pressure squarely where it belongs, on our leaders in Canberra. This isn’t just about protecting a reef; it’s about holding power to account.”
Greenpeace has been campaigning to stop Woodside’s dirty gas plans for years, increasing pressure on the Australian government to save Scott Reef from becoming an industrialised gas zone. From actions aboard Woodside’s gas platform to cinemas across Australia, Greenpeace isn’t backing off in their advocacy to save Scott Reef.
Rolling out across OOH, digital, social and cinema with an interactive landing page, this project will be amplified by high-profile figures urging Australians to take action, tag their MPs, and defend Scott Reef. The movement combines cinematic storytelling with organic social mobilsation and earned media, planned via Thinkerbell’s Alchemy model to drive real behaviour change and impact.
Marking their first Australian tour in 15 years, English rock band Radiohead will play 16 arena shows across Perth, Melbourne and Sydney in May and June 2027. A $2 donation is included in every ticket price with proceeds going to Greenpeace Australia Pacific and the Australian Marine Conservation Society. Radiohead will match the final amount raised.
ENDS
WATCH NOW:
FOR ASSETS OR MORE INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT:
Adam Ferrier | 0413 633 344 | adamferrier@thinkerbell.com
Kimberley Bernard | 0407 581 404 | kbernard@greenpeace.org
ABOUT THINKERBELL
Thinkerbell is a 9-year-old independent creative company. We practise Measured Magic – the coming together of marketing science and hardcore creativity – to help our clients build their brands and change behaviour.
ABOUT GREENPEACE
Greenpeace Australia Pacific is a global independent campaigning organisation that uses peaceful protest and creative confrontation to expose environmental problems and promote solutions that are essential to a green and peaceful future.
Climate Change
Jimmy Barnes, King Gizz lead Aussie music supergroup on new release to save Scott Reef
SYDNEY, Monday 9 November 2026 — Australian music icons Jimmy Barnes AO, King Gizzard & the Lizard Wizard, Fred Leone, Gordi & Montaigne are among the more than 20 Australian artists who have joined forces to release a new song with an urgent message: save Scott Reef.
Released today, “If Not Now” is a reimagining of King Gizzard & the Lizard Wizard’s Environmental Music Prize-winning song “If Not Now, Then When?”, and is a collaboration between Greenpeace Australia Pacific, Green Music Australia, and p(doom) Records.
Scott Reef is a 15-million-year-old ancient coral reef located 270 kilometres off the Kimberley coast of Western Australia. It is Australia’s largest oceanic reef and is home to thousands of marine animals and endangered species, but fossil fuel corporation Woodside plans to drill up to 57 toxic wells under and around the reef, threatening to turn it into an industrial gas zone.
“If Not Now” is the reef’s first and only release, out on all digital platforms and on limited edition 7” vinyl. The song is accompanied by cover art and visualiser from acclaimed Australian artist and ARIA-winning music video director Jonathan Zawada (Flume, The Avalanches).
Speaking about the track, Stu Mackenzie (lead singer, King Gizzard & the Lizard Wizard) said: “Why are we still digging up coal and gas? Why are we allowing this? Why is the Australian government so hell-bent on destroying our beautiful wild and untouched places? I’m proud that a King Gizz song was chosen to represent a growing movement of people who are asking these questions and applying pressure. Let’s shut it down and keep it beautiful.”
Rock legend Jimmy Barnes AO said: “Scott Reef is one of the few pristine reefs left in the world and it happens to be on our doorstep. We’re custodians of it — we’re supposed to be looking after it. It’s ridiculous. We must protect our country and look after what we value most, which is the nature and the beauty of this country.”
Hannah Schuch, Senior Campaigner for Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said: “I’m filled with hope by the incredible musicians and artists who are using their voices and skills to amplify the voices of half a million Australians who are calling on the government to stop Woodside’s nature and climate-wrecking gas plans and save Scott Reef. Australian music has long been a powerful catalyst for change, so saving Scott Reef is a no-brainer for Australian music lovers.”
Contributing artists (in alphabetic order):
- Alex Lahey
- Brinkley Davies (marine biologist/freediver)
- Birdland
- Close Counters
- DOBBY
- Fred Leone (Artist of the Year at the 2026 NIMAs, singing in Butculla)
- Gordi
- John Butler
- Jimmy Barnes
- King Gizzard & the Lizard Wizard
- Leah Senior
- Mahalia Barnes
- Montaigne
- Ngaiire
- NIDALA
- Peppa Lane (Spacey Jane)
- Ruby Rodgers (2026 Environmental Music Prize winner)
- Terry Guyula (Drifting Clouds, singing in Yolgu Matha)
- Tom Mahler (The Moving Stills)
- Urthboy
Production cast:
- Becki Whitton (G Flip, Allday, Stella Donnelly)
- Stu McKenzie (King Gizzard & the Lizard Wizard)
- Tay Blunt (FVNERAL)
- Tim Shiel (Green Music Australia)
Three generations of the Barnes family, Jimmy Barnes, his daughter, Mahalia Barnes and granddaughter Ruby Rodgers, contributed to the track.
The release comes amid growing national pressure on the Federal Government to save Scott Reef from Woodside’s gas drilling plans.
Last week, a leaked letter from WA’s environmental watchdog to Woodside revealed the agency deemed drilling risks to Scott Reef ‘serious, significant and irreversible’, while Greenpeace Australia Pacific activists occupied a major Woodside gas platform, and Perth communities delivered one of the biggest environmental petitions in Australia’s history to Woodside HQ.
The Federal Government is expected to make a decision on Woodside’s Scott Reef drilling plans in the coming months.
-ENDS-
Media contact
To arrange an interview or for more information, contact Emma Sangalli on 0431 513 465 or emma.sangalli@greenpeace.org
High res images and footage of Scott Reef can be found here (NEW) and here.
Jimmy Barnes, King Gizz lead Aussie music supergroup on new release to save Scott Reef
What might a high-school course look like if it helped students understand climate change—and see a place for themselves in responding to it?
Not simply a course about emissions or environmental problems. A course that connects science with the places students know, the decisions their communities face, and the work they might one day do.
Canadian schools already teach climate change and environmental responsibility, including through required curriculum expectations. Ontario’s Grade 9 science course, for example, asks students to assess climate change’s effects on ecosystems and communities, including First Nations, Métis, and Inuit communities. Across Canada, however, the depth and placement of climate learning vary, and opportunities for more specialized study often sit within elective courses.
Part 1 explored how we could build on that foundation through sustained learning from elementary school onward, shaped with First Nations, Inuit, and Métis governments, educators, and education authorities.
One next step worth considering is a required senior-secondary course that brings these threads together. Imagine a course called Climate, Land, and Future Economies: a place to explore climate evidence, community resilience, Indigenous governance, practical solutions, and the possibilities of a changing world.
The idea is not to turn every student into a climate scientist. It is to give every student a stronger foundation for the choices ahead—whether their path leads to university, college, an apprenticeship, employment, entrepreneurship, public service, or work within their own Nation or community.
Start with the science—and make room for questions
A meaningful course would begin with sound science: how the greenhouse effect works, how carbon moves through living systems, how energy choices affect emissions, and how scientists study a changing climate.
But the learning could become more engaging when students have an opportunity to investigate questions close to home.
What can local weather records tell us? How do we distinguish a single unusual season from a longer-term trend? What does a climate projection mean for a community planning its roads, housing, or water systems? What can a dataset tell us—and what remains outside its scope?
These questions invite students into the process of understanding evidence rather than asking them simply to memorize conclusions.
They also create space to discuss uncertainty honestly. Students could explore how researchers reach conclusions, why findings sometimes change, and how to distinguish a legitimate scientific question from a misleading claim.
The aim would be informed curiosity: the confidence to ask good questions, find credible information, and explain what the evidence supports.
Look at climate through the life of a community
Climate learning becomes more meaningful when it moves beyond global averages and into the places people live.
A class might explore a neighbourhood with little shade, a community concerned about flooding, or the choices involved in preparing a school for extreme heat. Students could examine a local emergency plan, speak with community planners, or investigate how housing and transportation decisions affect environmental risk.
The questions soon become as much about people as about climate.
Who has access to a cool, safe place during a heat wave? Who can leave when an evacuation is ordered? What happens when roads, water systems, or food supplies are disrupted? What resources does a community need to prepare?
A course could help students explore how housing, health, income, disability, infrastructure, and access to services shape people’s experiences of environmental change. It could also introduce environmental racism and historic dispossession through carefully researched cases, giving students a way to understand why risks and resources are not always distributed fairly.
That approach would connect climate learning with civic life. Students would begin to see that resilience is not only about stronger buildings or better technology. It is also about relationships, public services, and the ability of communities to care for their members.
Recognize that climate decisions are governance decisions
Consider the questions surrounding a new transmission line, wind project, mine, protected area, or housing development.
Where should it go? Who decides? Whose knowledge informs the decision? Who benefits, and who carries the costs?
These are environmental questions, but they are also questions about governance.
A climate course offers an opportunity to introduce Treaty relationships, Indigenous rights and title, consent, and jurisdiction through specific places and decisions. Rather than presenting these concepts as a single checklist, students could explore the Nations, agreements, histories, and legal frameworks relevant to the case they are studying.
Indigenous governments and communities would enter the discussion as decision-makers with their own laws, responsibilities, and priorities—not only as people affected by projects proposed elsewhere.
Learning of this kind would be strongest when developed through relationships with the relevant Nations and Indigenous education authorities. Their participation could help determine which local examples are appropriate, who should guide the learning, and what knowledge can be shared.
The purpose would not be to simplify difficult issues. It would be to help students understand why responsible decisions require attention to authority, relationships, evidence, and rights.
Explore solutions without pretending they are simple
Students deserve to encounter possibilities as well as problems.
Home retrofits, renewable energy, public transit, ecological restoration, local food systems, repair businesses, flood planning, and community emergency preparedness all offer starting points for investigation.
A class could compare options for improving the school building. Another might study a community-owned energy proposal or explore what would make a neighbourhood safer during extreme heat.
The interesting learning lies in looking beneath the label. Calling something “green” tells us little on its own. What does it accomplish? What materials and energy does it require? Who owns it? What effects might it have on land, water, workers, or neighbouring communities?
Students could learn to ask:
- Does this reduce emissions, strengthen resilience, or both?
- What environmental benefits and harms need to be considered?
- How are Indigenous rights and jurisdiction addressed?
- Who participates in decisions, and who receives the benefits?
- What alternatives or trade-offs deserve a closer look?
These questions do not require students to become cynical about solutions. They invite them to become more thoughtful about what makes a solution worthwhile.
A good course would make room for the possibility that different approaches suit different places—and that a useful idea can st