Following the Labour party’s historic win in the UK general election, Carbon Brief put together a panel of climate and energy experts to discuss the key climate-related priorities for the new government.
More than 900 people joined the webinar to hear about the huge list of issues facing Keir Starmer’s government, including everything from Labour’s plans to reach zero-carbon power by 2030, to its climate-related industrial strategy and adaptation.
Carbon Brief’s deputy editor and senior policy editor Dr Simon Evans, as well as section editor for policy Molly Lempriere, were joined by three panellists:
- Emma Pinchbeck, chief executive, Energy UK
- Camilla Born MBE, independent climate advisor and former UK senior official at COP26
- Adam Bell, director of policy at Stonehaven
A recording of the webinar (below) is now available to watch on YouTube.
The conversation quickly turned to the rise of populism and its impact on climate action. Bell said that voters have resorted to populism because they have felt ignored by successive governments, and that tackle this rise needs a push to improve people’s lives.
Climate action can form a key part of this, he said, in particular the decarbonisation of energy, but there are other areas of climate action that can play a part. Bell explained:
“[O]ld seaside towns [feel they] have been ignored by government after government for decades upon decades. How you support those towns is, I think, going to be key, and that is through funding for adaptation, because some of those towns will be threatened by sea level rises.”
He added:
“You will need to find ways of encouraging culture to flourish in those towns as well…Margate is now a hub for hipsters, for example. How do you replicate that across Hastings, across Clacton and change the features of these towns so that they can feel as though the government is on their side and therefore the climate policy is on their side too.”
Born noted that the percentage of people who voted for a populist party in the UK in the recent election was roughly the same as voted for UKIP in 2015 and Brexit in 2016. While this vote share had not increased, it did suggest that the underlying problems have not been tackled, she said.
Beyond populism in the UK, Bell argued that one of the most important things the country could do over the coming years internationally is demonstrate the “politics of pace, demonstrating what is possible, [and] retaining public support for very, very rapid change”.
The Labour party’s 2030 net-zero electricity target will be core to this, he said, as “delivering that would mean that we have done what no nation has ever done, fully decarbonised our power system within five years now”.
Pinchbeck agreed, noting that the decisive factor in terms of global climate goals was around how fast emissions fall, driven by the rollout of renewable energy. She added:
“I think we need to see a massive roll out of infrastructure of the kind that we haven’t seen for the past decades – decades plural – [we’re] talking about sort of seven times the amount of infrastructure over the next 10 years that we built over the previous three, largely in the power sector.”
Born highlighted that the last time there was a Labour government in the UK, the Paris Agreement had not been made, marking how significantly things have changed over the period. She added:
“[The new government has to] really show what we’re doing at home, [because] the UK massively punches above its weight on what we’re doing on the transition internationally, people watch what we’re doing, and that is in both policy terms, but also in political terms.”
The panellists agreed that the 2030 net-zero electricity target is challenging, but doable, with Pinchbeck noting that it is not that much more ambitious than the previous government’s 2035 target. Bell added that efforts towards achieving the goal were likely to trigger “pylon wars”, given the need for infrastructure build out.
Nearly 200 questions were submitted during the webinar, ranging from food security to distrust in politics, making the conversation wide ranging across the hour.
Concluding the session, Born said “the shakeup is a really good opportunity” for the UK.
Pinchbeck highlighted that the UK is ahead of the curve in terms of power decarbonisation and this presented a raft of potential benefits that the new government should continue to pursue. She said:
“If you go early, you get the industrial benefits, the jobs, the growth and the industries in the country, and that’s the reason – apart from the altruism – that we should go faster. There’s loads of reasons the UK could still massively benefit from [decarbonising], even if we’re small and windy and rainy, cynical and tired, there’s still massive amounts of hope for us here. So don’t [let] anyone tell you otherwise.”
The post Webinar: What are the key climate priorities for the new UK government? appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Webinar: What are the key climate priorities for the new UK government?
The case shows that climate change is a fundamental human rights violation—and the victory of Bonaire, a Dutch territory, could open the door for similar lawsuits globally.
From our collaborating partner Living on Earth, public radio’s environmental news magazine, an interview by Paloma Beltran with Greenpeace Netherlands campaigner Eefje de Kroon.
A Tiny Caribbean Island Sued the Netherlands Over Climate Change, and Won
Climate Change
Greenpeace organisations to appeal USD $345 million court judgment in Energy Transfer’s intimidation lawsuit
SYDNEY, Saturday 28 February 2026 — Greenpeace International and Greenpeace organisations in the US announce they will seek a new trial and, if necessary, appeal the decision with the North Dakota Supreme Court following a North Dakota District Court judgment today awarding Energy Transfer (ET) USD $345 million.
ET’s SLAPP suit remains a blatant attempt to silence free speech, erase Indigenous leadership of the Standing Rock movement, and punish solidarity with peaceful resistance to the Dakota Access Pipeline. Greenpeace International will also continue to seek damages for ET’s bullying lawsuits under EU anti-SLAPP legislation in the Netherlands.
Mads Christensen, Greenpeace International Executive Director said: “Energy Transfer’s attempts to silence us are failing. Greenpeace International will continue to resist intimidation tactics. We will not be silenced. We will only get louder, joining our voices to those of our allies all around the world against the corporate polluters and billionaire oligarchs who prioritise profits over people and the planet.
“With hard-won freedoms under threat and the climate crisis accelerating, the stakes of this legal fight couldn’t be higher. Through appeals in the US and Greenpeace International’s groundbreaking anti-SLAPP case in the Netherlands, we are exploring every option to hold Energy Transfer accountable for multiple abusive lawsuits and show all power-hungry bullies that their attacks will only result in a stronger people-powered movement.”
The Court’s final judgment today rejects some of the jury verdict delivered in March 2025, but still awards hundreds of millions of dollars to ET without a sound basis in law. The Greenpeace defendants will continue to press their arguments that the US Constitution does not allow liability here, that ET did not present evidence to support its claims, that the Court admitted inflammatory and irrelevant evidence at trial and excluded other evidence supporting the defense, and that the jury pool in Mandan could not be impartial.[1][2]
ET’s back-to-back lawsuits against Greenpeace International and the US organisations Greenpeace USA (Greenpeace Inc.) and Greenpeace Fund are clear-cut examples of SLAPPs — lawsuits attempting to bury nonprofits and activists in legal fees, push them towards bankruptcy and ultimately silence dissent.[3] Greenpeace International, which is based in the Netherlands, is pursuing justice in Europe, with a suit against ET under Dutch law and the European Union’s new anti-SLAPP directive, a landmark test of the new legislation which could help set a powerful precedent against corporate bullying.[4]
Kate Smolski, Program Director at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said: “This is part of a worrying trend globally: fossil fuel corporations are increasingly using litigation to attack and silence ordinary people and groups using the law to challenge their polluting operations — and we’re not immune to these tactics here in Australia.
“Rulings like this have a chilling effect on democracy and public interest litigation — we must unite against these silencing tactics as bad for Australians and bad for our democracy. Our movement is stronger than any corporate bully, and grows even stronger when under attack.”
Energy Transfer’s SLAPPs are part of a wave of abusive lawsuits filed by Big Oil companies like Shell, Total, and ENI against Greenpeace entities in recent years.[3] A couple of these cases have been successfully stopped in their tracks. This includes Greenpeace France successfully defeating TotalEnergies’ SLAPP on 28 March 2024, and Greenpeace UK and Greenpeace International forcing Shell to back down from its SLAPP on 10 December 2024.
-ENDS-
Images available in Greenpeace Media Library
Notes:
[1] The judgment entered by North Dakota District Court Judge Gion follows a jury verdict finding Greenpeace entities liable for more than US$660 million on March 19, 2025. Judge Gion subsequently threw out several items from the jury’s verdict, reducing the total damages to approximately US$345 million.
[2] Public statements from the independent Trial Monitoring Committee
[3] Energy Transfer’s first lawsuit was filed in federal court in 2017 under the RICO Act – the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a US federal statute designed to prosecute mob activity. The case was dismissed in 2019, with the judge stating the evidence fell “far short” of what was needed to establish a RICO enterprise. The federal court did not decide on Energy Transfer’s claims based on state law, so Energy Transfer promptly filed a new case in a North Dakota state court with these and other state law claims.
[4] Greenpeace International sent a Notice of Liability to Energy Transfer on 23 July 2024, informing the pipeline giant of Greenpeace International’s intention to bring an anti-SLAPP lawsuit against the company in a Dutch Court. After Energy Transfer declined to accept liability on multiple occasions (September 2024, December 2024), Greenpeace International initiated the first test of the European Union’s anti-SLAPP Directive on 11 February 2025 by filing a lawsuit in Dutch court against Energy Transfer. The case was officially registered in the docket of the Court of Amsterdam on 2 July, 2025. Greenpeace International seeks to recover all damages and costs it has suffered as a result of Energy Transfers’s back-to-back, abusive lawsuits demanding hundreds of millions of dollars from Greenpeace International and the Greenpeace organisations in the US. The next hearing in the Court of Amsterdam is scheduled for 16 April, 2026.
Media contact:
Kate O’Callaghan on 0406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
The Trump administration’s relentless rollback of public health and environmental protections has allowed widespread toxic exposures to flourish, warn experts who helped implement safeguards now under assault.
In a new report that outlines a dozen high-risk pollutants given new life thanks to weakened, delayed or rescinded regulations, the Environmental Protection Network, a nonprofit, nonpartisan group of hundreds of former Environmental Protection Agency staff, warns that the EPA under President Donald Trump has abandoned the agency’s core mission of protecting people and the environment from preventable toxic exposures.
Former EPA Staff Detail Expanding Pollution Risks Under Trump
The Positive Effects We’ve Had on Others Are Profound, Whether We Know It or Not
A Tiny Caribbean Island Sued the Netherlands Over Climate Change, and Won
Greenpeace organisations to appeal USD $345 million court judgment in Energy Transfer’s intimidation lawsuit
-
Greenhouse Gases7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change7 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
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
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 Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits