No legal requirement to update heating in new bill
The Scottish government has announced a revised plan to decarbonise Scotland's heating systems by 2045.
Acting Net Zero Secretary Gillian Martin scrapped the previous plan last month, saying it would "make people poorer".
The revised Heat in Buildings Bill sets targets for decarbonisation but it stops short of legally requiring homeowners and businesses to replace their heating systems by 2045, as outlined in the previous version.
Scottish Greens co-leader Patrick Harvie, who drafted the previous bill, warned that the government was "watering down" the legislation and and "stripping away almost all of its serious policy measures".
Acting Climate Action Minister Alasdair Allan said the Scottish government would bring forward the revised bill for consideration by the Scottish Parliament later in 2025.
Ministers scrap green heating plans for new homes
Scottish government scraps climate change targets
The production of heat accounts for more than half of Scotland's energy demands and is the largest contributor to the country's carbon emissions.
MSPs have already passed legislation committing the country to achieving net-zero emissions by 2045.
Proposals drawn up while the Scottish Greens were still in the government would have required property owners to switch from "polluting" heating systems, such as gas boilers, to more environmentally-friendly alternatives like heat pumps.
Mr Allan said the 2045 target sends a "strong signal to homeowners, landlords and other building owners on the need to prepare for change".
However, he accepted the upfront costs customers have to pay for "clean heating systems remain higher than those for fossil fuel systems".
He told MSPs at Holyrood that the new approach "moves away from penalising individuals and instead commits to collective action".
Mr Allan added: "Instead of placing prohibitions on every homeowner, we will establish targets for government to reach."
Harvie - who recently announced plans to step down as co-leader of the Scottish Greens - said his original legislation was being "gutted" and warned that the government's new approach was "very clearly going to fail".
He added: "If there is one thing that we have learned about climate policy in recent years, it is that setting targets without decisive action to meet them is meaningless."
He also claimed that not including a "property purchase trigger" - which would have required people buying a home to commit to changing the heating system to a greener alternative within a fixed time period - would mean a "dramatically slower uptake of clean heating in Scotland".
Labour also raised concerns, with Paul O'Kane highlighting how the Scottish government had abandoned its target of cutting emissions by 75% by 2030.
He said: "Given the government has failed to deliver on their climate change targets, and literally broke their own legislation on it, how can the people and industries of Scotland have faith that they will deliver and meet heat in building targets?"
Conservative housing spokesperson Meghan Gallacher said the "rehashed bill still provides no clarity on the costs to the public".
She said: "Rather than continually setting net-zero targets that they fail to meet, the SNP must finally outline a fair and affordable transition for hard-pressed, over-taxed Scots."
Charities have warned that the legislation "risks being a toothless bill".
Io Hadjicosta, from WWF Scotland, said Scots were seeing "yet more targets without meaningful measures to provide certainty to industry or to reduce emissions".
Lewis Ryder-Jones, from Oxfam Scotland, said: "Weakening Scotland's clean-heat plans risks leaving people to struggle with sky-high bills and cold, draughty homes while pouring cold water on the transition to a greener Scotland that works for everyone."
What is a heat pump and how much do they cost?
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Israel-Iran conflict exposes the true cost of North Sea decline
Israel's war with Iran is drawing attention to oil prices again, as the world watches nervously for disruptions to global supplies. The conflict has turned attention back to Labour's proposed ban on new drilling in the North Sea, one of the party's most eye-catching policies in last year's election. The pledge not to issue new oil and gas licences is based on 'science', according to Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, amid projections that licensing any new fields globally would be incompatible with net zero targets. In its election manifesto, Labour also argued that allowing more extraction from the North Sea 'will not take a penny off bills, cannot make us energy secure and will only accelerate the worsening climate crisis'. It was a premise that was questioned by some experts but won praise from others, as well as from environmental campaigners. But critics warn it risks leaving Britain more exposed to geopolitical crises. It's no secret that the North Sea is in decline. Whether Labour presses ahead with a ban on new licences or not, Britain's oil and gas output will continue to fall. But while that fall is inevitable, the rate of decline is not. The independent Climate Change Committee estimates that there will be demand for between 13bn and 15bn barrels of oil and gas in the UK over the next 25 years. Under current policies, less than one third of this overall demand is expected to be met by domestic production. That is equivalent to about 4bn barrels, with an estimated 3bn that could be exploited left underground. The balance would come from foreign imports. Mr Miliband has said boosting production would bring no material benefit to consumers because oil and gas prices are set by international markets and the output of the North Sea is too small to make a difference. But while many economists agree up to a point, some say this argument misses the importance of energy security. 'As long as you are a big importer, it doesn't make sense to reduce your production,' says Bjarne Schieldrop, analyst at SEB Research. 'What you need to do is to reduce your consumption as fast as possible. Energy has become more politically sensitive in recent years, with Russia using energy as a weapon. 'So actually, security of supply is extremely important. It's not just about the price.' Simon French, chief economist at Panmure Liberum, adds that if Britain and Europe produce more oil and gas collectively, they would be less dependent during a crisis on supplies shipped from the Middle East. In a global supply crunch, it is still unlikely that the UK would be at risk of shortages given its ability to outbid poorer countries for shipments when prices rise. However, French adds: 'Why would you leave yourself so exposed to doing that, when you potentially have the opportunity to divert your own domestic supply and give yourself more strategic resilience?' Producing more oil and gas domestically also brings other benefits in a crisis. In a scenario where the Iran-Israel conflict spreads, one of the biggest worries would be the prospect of shipping in the Strait of Hormuz seizing up. Around one fifth of the world's oil passes through this vital trade artery. 'If it's disrupted for any protracted period of time, then either global demand needs to fall substantially – which means a pretty deep recession – or the price of oil has to go up to ration it,' says French. In such a time, Britain would face higher oil and gas prices like every other country. But as a producer, it would also benefit from higher tax revenues, giving the Government more firepower to boost the flagging economy. For example, when the invasion of Ukraine sparked an energy crisis across Europe in 2022, the UK's tax take from company profits also jumped from £2.6bn to £9.8bn, providing valuable cash for schemes to support households with their bills. 'If the Exchequer feels that it needs to cap the price of energy, as it did previously, it rather helps if you're getting higher corporation tax receipts from the North Sea,' adds French. Another factor to consider is the impact the Government's windfall tax and licence ban will have on decommissioning, the process of safely retiring spent or uneconomical oil and gas wells. Analysts at Wood Mackenzie and Stifel have both argued that Labour's policies will speed up the rate of closures. This could make life harder for Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, because oil and gas firms can offset decommissioning costs against their corporation tax bills. As a result, squeezing the North Sea may deal a double whammy to tax receipts by cutting output and accelerating decommissioning. This is partly because oil and gas firms continuously drill new wells alongside old ones to improve the economic viability of their portfolios as a whole. Without the ability to keep drilling new wells, it becomes harder to continue drilling old ones economically. 'If you were to continue to licence, then that extends the life cycle of some fields, and therefore decommissioning comes later in the fiscal horizon,' says French. 'So you would start to rebuild more fiscal headroom than you might otherwise have – and one thing the Chancellor definitely needs, going into the autumn, is more fiscal headroom.' Mr Miliband's claim that cutting domestic oil and gas production is good for the planet may also be in doubt. This is because unless Britain also slashes demand for these fuels substantially, it will simply have to import larger quantities from abroad. And that could actually end up generating higher carbon emissions overall, if we continue to rely on larger and larger amounts of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the US and the Middle East. According to Rystad Energy, LNG can be up to 10 times more carbon intensive than pipeline gas. This is because while the emissions from burning it are the same, it requires energy to cool LNG to -160C and transport it by ship around the world. The analysis, reported by the BBC, found that piped gas from Norway generated around 7kg of CO2 per barrel, compared to an average of 70kg for LNG imported to Europe. Accelerating the decline of the North Sea may mean the UK also ends up with fewer green jobs. Academics at Robert Gordon University warned that oil and gas jobs were disappearing faster than new clean energy roles were being created as a result of the slower-than-expected deployment of wind farms. Whereas the offshore wind sector may only generate 29,000 jobs by 2030, some 58,000 disappear from oil and gas in the worst-case scenario. Paul de Leeuw, director of the university's Energy Transition Institute, said earlier this month: 'You have to wait pretty well to the back end of this decade before there's enough capacity in the renewables sector to take all the people coming out of oil and gas. 'It's a timing issue.' To avoid heavy job losses, researchers said Mr Miliband needed to either attract a larger share of turbine manufacturing to the UK or reverse his ban on new North Sea drilling licences to temporarily boost oil and gas production. For example, the report found that even if Mr Miliband hits his clean power targets, he could boost the number of green jobs in 2030 by boosting oil and gas production. Production of 500,000 barrels per day leads to just over 150,000 jobs – whereas production of 700,000 barrels creates around 200,000 jobs. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is consulting on a plan for the North Sea and says it envisions large numbers of jobs coming from offshore wind as well as more nascent industries such as carbon capture and hydrogen production. A department spokesman said: 'We are closely monitoring the situation in the Middle East. As the Chancellor said on Sunday: things are moving rapidly – we will follow that closely and will always do everything in our power to protect ordinary working people in this country. 'Increased domestic production of oil won't affect the price being set internationally. In fact, even if we extracted every drop of oil in the North Sea, this would not make any difference to the price people pay at the pump. 'Recent events underscore the importance of our mission to make the UK a clean energy superpower, to get off the roller-coaster of international fossil fuel markets, replacing it with clean homegrown power we control, to protect family and national finances.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
National Housing Bank ‘will boost delivery of new homes'
A new Government-backed 'housing bank' is being established to boost the construction of homes. The National Housing Bank, a subsidiary of Homes England, will be publicly owned and act as a consistent partner to the private sector, bringing stability and certainty to housing developers and investors, the Government said. It will be designated as a public financial institution and will work with mayors and local leaders to back housing projects meeting regional priorities. It is hoped the bank will help to unlock a wide range of sites, including bigger ones which struggle to get upfront lending given their risk and complexity. The Government also said the move will help SMEs (small and medium-sized enterprises) to grow and build out their housing pipeline more quickly. The bank will deploy some of the £2.5 billion in low-interest loans announced at the spending review to support the building of social and affordable homes. It will be backed with £16 billion of financial capacity, on top of £6 billion of existing finance to be allocated this Parliament, the Government said. It said the new public investment could help build more than 500,000 new homes. Deputy Prime Minister and Housing Secretary Angela Rayner said: 'Our foot is firmly on the accelerator when it comes to making sure a generation is no longer locked out of homeownership – or ensuring children don't have to grow up in unsuitable temporary accommodation, and instead have the safe and secure home they deserve.' The announcement builds on plans for a 10-year affordable homes programme and comes ahead of a 10-year infrastructure strategy to be published on Wednesday, setting out plans to 'rebuild the UK' over the decade ahead. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said: 'The new National Housing Bank will unlock £53 billion of additional private investment.' Homes England chairwoman Pat Ritchie said: 'Establishing the National Housing Bank, as a part of Homes England, builds on the agency's expertise at providing a wide range of finance to partners and places to unlock the delivery of new housing and mixed-use schemes.' A spokesperson for the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors said: 'The launch of a National Housing Bank is an exciting innovation which could propel much-needed investment into housebuilding. 'The industry, and especially SMEs, need all the support they can get for the country to build. 'Confidence is key if the Government is to meet its 1.5 million home target and new streams of investment and support should invigorate new and existing projects.' The Conservatives warned the remit of the new bank must be 'laser-focused'. Kevin Hollinrake, the shadow housing secretary, said: 'While the ambition to increase housing supply is welcome, history teaches us that governments are often poor at picking winners and Homes England has very mixed results. 'The new National Housing Bank must be laser-focused: it must not crowd out private capital, must not subsidise developments that would have proceeded anyway and must not be lured into funding pie-in-the-sky or unviable projects – instead its role should be limited to de-risking only those schemes that are genuinely unable to attract finance, to ensure taxpayer money is not wasted and private investment is not crowded out. 'But beyond this we must look at the root cause of the housing problem – including why SME developers have been driven out of the market and why financing has become so unattractive that the Government needs to step in. Only Kemi Badenoch and the Conservatives are doing the deep thinking necessary to address these root issues.' Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Chicago Tribune
8 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
UK lawmakers vote to decriminalize abortion amid concern about the prosecution of women
LONDON — British lawmakers voted Tuesday to decriminalize abortion in England and Wales after a lawmaker argued that it was cruel to prosecute women for ending a pregnancy. The House of Commons approved an amendment to a broader crime bill that would prevent women from being criminally punished under an antiquated law. Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi, the Labour member of Parliament who introduced one of the amendments, said the change was needed because police have investigated more than 100 women for suspected illegal abortions over the past five years, including some who suffered natural miscarriages and stillbirths. 'This piece of legislation will only take women out of the criminal justice system because they are vulnerable and they need our help,' she said. 'Just what public interest is this serving? This is not justice, it is cruelty and it has got to end.' The amendment passed 379-137. The House of Commons will now need to pass the crime bill, which is expected, before it goes to the House of Lords, where it can be delayed but not blocked. Under current law, doctors can legally carry out abortions in England, Scotland and Wales up to 24 weeks, and beyond that under special circumstances, such as when the life of the mother is in danger. Abortion in Northern Ireland was decriminalized in 2019. Changes in the law implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic allow women to receive abortion pills through the mail and terminate their own pregnancies at home within the first 10 weeks. That has led to a handful of widely publicized cases in which women were prosecuted for illegally obtaining abortion pills and using them to end their own pregnancies after 24 weeks or more. Anti-abortion groups opposed the measures, arguing it would open the door to abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy. 'Unborn babies will have any remaining protection stripped away, and women will be left at the mercy of abusers,' said Alithea Williams, public policy manager for the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, which describes itself as the U.K.'s biggest pro-life campaign group. The debate came after recent prosecutions have galvanized support to repeal parts of the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act. In one case, a mother of three was sentenced to more than two years in prison in 2023 for medically inducing an abortion about eight months into her pregnancy. Carla Foster, 45, was released about a month later by an appeals court that reduced her sentence. Judge Victoria Sharp said that case called for 'compassion, not punishment' and there was no useful purpose in jailing her. Last month, a jury acquitted Nicola Packer on a charge of unlawfully self-administering poison or a noxious thing with intent to procure a miscarriage. Packer, who took abortion medicine when she was about 26 weeks pregnant, testified that she did not know she had been pregnant more than 10 weeks. Supporters of the bill said it was a landmark reform that would keep women from going to prison for ending their pregnancy. 'At a time when we're seeing rollbacks on reproductive rights, most notably in the United States, this crucial milestone in the fight for reproductive rights sends a powerful message that our lawmakers are standing up for women,' said Louise McCudden of MSI Reproductive Choices. A second amendment that would have gone even further than Antoniazzi's proposal, barring the prosecution of medical professionals and others who help women abort their fetuses, did not get to a vote. A competing Conservative measure that would have required an in-person appointment for a pregnant woman to get abortion pills was defeated.
