Menu Menu

New UK prime minister renews concern over climate nihilism

Since the anointment of Liz Truss as the new Conservative prime minister, a renewed lack of clarity around the continuation of vital research funding and climate measures has experts worried.

UK citizens are understandably preoccupied with policies impacting the immediate future. Eco experts, however, are looking to the long term and what a new change of leadership could mean for our efforts to mitigate climate change by the mid-century.

Despite the many scandals former prime minister Boris Johnson embroiled himself in, the UK had supposedly positioned itself to become a leading nation for sustainability during his tenure.

Now, with Liz Truss in the hot-seat potentially until 2025, its unclear whether the country’s previous road-map to a greener future will be honoured, or whether priorities – and plans for funding – are now subject to change.

Johnson had frequently championed what his government called ‘science superpower’; an official agenda summarised by the key aims of doubling government spending on scientific research (including climate change) by 2024, increasing open-access publishing, and preventing bureaucratic obstacles from hindering UK science from recruiting foreign talent.

Put simply, the latter facet refers to ‘the science part’ of the Brexit deal, as eloquently put by president of the Royal Society Adrian Smith.

Truss’ Tory competitor Rishi Sunak, who had served as Johnson’s finance minister and presided over the climate science budget, had planned to uphold the memo in full, but failed to gain enough support from his peers in the electoral vote this week.

Mere days later, and wasting no time, Truss has already stated that simultaneously growing the economy while preventing energy prices from soaring is the first order of business. That means government spending will likely be reviewed, and science policy researcher James Wilsdon is concerned that research funding provides ‘potentially a fat source of money to raid.’

Climate activists and opposition politicians have had their trepidations worsened today, with the news that Truss has appointed Jacob Rees-Mogg – a man who previously blamed high energy prices on ‘climate change alarmism’ – as the new energy secretary.

‘No government that’s remotely serious about tackling the twin climate and nature emergencies would even contemplate putting Jacob Rees-Mogg in charge of that portfolio,’ said Caroline Lucas, the Green MP for Brighton Pavilion. ‘He’s the worst possible candidate at the worst possible moment.’

Greenpeace echoed this sentiment, calling Mr Rees-Mogg ‘the last person’ who should be in charge of the energy brief.

Following his inauguration yesterday, he declared that fossil fuels ‘will be needed’ in the immediate future, asserting that the UK will still achieve net zero by 2050. Only last week, Truss also reiterated her intention to shore up Britain’s long term energy supply with a new licensing round for North Sea oil and gas exploration.

While no one would argue that energy prices should be left to snowball further – a lasting result of the pandemic and Russia’s ongoing oil monopoly – it’s concerning to think that climate change could become a secondary consideration with just a few years left to reach the terms of the Paris accord.

What we now need to clarify, is Truss’ stance on environmental protection, food safety, and chemicals. All three were previously covered by EU legislation, which the UK is now entirely free to shed should it wish to create its own interpretation.

This eventuality, as Shaun Spiers of the Green Alliance states, would spell ‘seriously bad news for the environment.’ But, you can bet the British public would not take this retreat, and any others involving the future of the planet, lying down.

Accessibility