Proposed candidate to lead Climate Change Committee defends flying record
Nigel Topping, who worked as the UK's high-level climate action champion, was accused of hypocrisy earlier this year after The Telegraph reported that he accrued 40,000 air miles flying to conferences despite backing a frequent flyer tax.
MPs on the Energy Select Committee quizzed him on Wednesday about how he would approach the role of CCC chairman.
If he is formally appointed, Mr Topping will oversee the committee's work of advising ministers on climate targets and reporting to Parliament on progress made in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Asked about claims that his air travel has been 11 times greater than that of the average Briton, Mr Topping said: 'I think flying is part of our economy.
'It has some real benefits, both in terms of people's ability to go on holiday, but also the ability to do business and politics internationally.'
Mr Topping said relationship-building and advice he can provide on trips such as to Belem in Brazil – where the Cop30 UN climate conference will be held in November – is 'very difficult to do remotely'.
Concerns have been growing over the lack of infrastructure and accommodation to host the international conference in the small port city of Belem, which has been chosen for its location next to the Amazon Rainforest.
Challenged on whether he could do the work remotely, he said: 'I do a lot of video conference, but you can't do everything by video conference.
'You can't, for example, visit the physical site where the Cop's going to be to form an opinion of how effective that's going to be, especially when there's a lot of contention around whether the physical preparation will be adequate, and that's leading to uncertainty about the multilateral process.'
Asked if he has plans to look at his own carbon footprint in the role as CCC chairman, he said: 'I don't anticipate flying much at all in the role as chair of the Climate Change Committee. There may be a need to fly to Brazil in that role.
'But of course, it's a domestically focused role and and I am very conscious of the flying that I did, and only (do so) when I really think it's necessary, and very, very rarely for personal use.'
Mr Topping was also asked how he will approach the declining political consensus on climate action as Tory and Reform UK MPs increasingly criticise net-zero policies.
'I think that's one of the most important aspects of the role – to try and maintain that evidence-based narrative around that transition.
'I do see that in my work over the last years, historically, that that consensus has been seen as a real strength of this country, and that consistency of policy signal has been seen as a real strength from the business and investor community.
'So my way to tackle that would be to focus on providing the evidence that this transition is feasible and beneficial economically at the macro level and the household level.'
Mr Topping said the loss of consensus could be a 'political weakness' in terms of the UK's ability to attract the investment needed for the industries of the future.
But he added that the committee's role is not to 'stamp consensus on the politics of the house' but rather to provide the evidence to help politicians in their discussions.
On what might keep him up at night in the role, Mr Topping said growing political division on climate matters that do not appear to be based on solid evidence, citing the 'easy conflation' between the UK's uncompetitive electricity prices and its commitment to net zero.
'It's easier to say those two are facts and therefore one causes the other when it's not in fact true.
'The high electricity prices are caused largely by the fact that our electricity prices are based on the marginal cost of gas.
'So it's a volatility tail wagging the net-zero dog.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
13 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Reeves can raise taxes as much as she likes, but it won't bring in any more money
The IMF has warned Chancellor Rachel Reeves that she must make tough choices to cut the UK's deficit, potentially including some combination of raising taxes on working people, abandoning the pensions triple lock or charging for the NHS. The first of these options – raising taxes – is considered politically the most likely. After all, Labour MPs didn't even agree to cuts to winter fuel payments. It's impossible to imagine them agreeing to cut the NHS, and abandoning the triple lock seems like political suicide. Yet it's highly doubtful whether raising tax rates further will produce any more tax revenue out of the UK economy. Even as matters stand, taxes are scheduled to go higher than they've ever been since World War II, and to be around 37½ percent of GDP for the rest of this Parliament. But that considerably understates the situation. Prior to 2021/22 they'd only ever once been above 35 percent of GDP since the 1950s, in 1969/70, and then for only one year before falling back sharply. Thereafter, until the 2020s, it was rare for them to be above 33½ per cent of GDP. We aren't merely at a record. We are at an out-of-the-park record scheduled to be sustained for an absolutely unprecedented period of time. The chances of the UK economy delivering even the tax levels already scheduled are slim, let alone imagining taxes could be raised a lot further. Yet despite these astonishing record-high taxes, the economy is still running a large deficit of over 5 per cent of GDP. Remember the 'Maastricht Convergence Criteria' requiring budget deficits to be no higher than 3 per cent of GDP? Well, we're way above that. When the deficit exceeded 6 per cent of GDP in the 1990s we had a significant fiscal consolidation under Norman Lamont and Kenneth Clarke. Yet at that time the UK's national debt was under 40 per cent of GDP. Now it's over 100 per cent. Our situation is way worse than it was in the early 1990s. We need a fiscal consolidation to address that 5 per cent deficit. But the current thinking appears to be that all of that deficit cut will come from tax rises. Indeed, possibly more than all of it, because spending will probably go up further. To balance the books we'd need to rise from that record 37½ per cent of GDP spending to over 42½ per cent. Add in a percentage point for further spending rises and we'd be over 43½ per cent or fully 10 percentage points of tax higher than the UK has ever produced on a sustained basis in well over 80 years. One key reason tax takes top out at some point relative to GDP is that they destroy growth. Over the long-term having a high share of tax in GDP damages long-term growth – each 10 per cent rise in tax reduces the growth rate by around 1.2 per cent – which in the UK's case would mean reducing its sustainable growth rate to zero. In the short-term, raising taxes often triggers recessions, bringing down tax revenues. That loss of tax revenues as growth peters out, or outright recession ensues, means that tax-based fiscal consolidations typically don't work. If you have a high deficit, raising taxes is almost never a way to cut that deficit – even if it were a Good Thing to have higher tax in itself, it simply doesn't work in that situation. The normal advice the IMF and similar bodies used to provide in fiscal consolidations was that they should be predominantly spending cuts-based. The IMF often used a rule of thumb of about two thirds spending cuts to one third tax rises. The EU used much the same rule of thumb in the Eurozone crisis era austerity programmes. However, the most successful consolidations – the ones where the deficit falls and stays down, with debt dropping away relative to GDP over time – tend to have higher ratios of spending cuts, of around 75 to 80 per cent to 20 to 25 per cent tax rises. We need at least that ratio in the UK now, if not higher. But that is not what Labour backbench MPs will ever agree to.
Daily Mail
13 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Pharmacist issues urgent warning to UK holidaymakers travelling with weight-loss injections
With millions of Brits on weight-loss injections, those taking them have been urged to consider how they will travel with the medication this summer. A trip to a tropical island or a European city break, whatever the destination, there's often lots to plan for. Pharmacist Jason Murphy has warned travellers on weight-loss jabs against storing them in the hotel fridge. He explained how such appliance is not 'medically safe'. The expert advised: 'If you're staying in a hotel, the mini bars in rooms are often more mildly cool than medically safe. 'And you don't want your jab snuggling up next to someone else's sparkling rosé. Instead, contact the hotel in advance and ask to store your medication in a staff fridge.' Murphy recommends travellers not to 'just toss it in your suitcase and hope for the best'. Instead, he encourages people to think about intricacies such as the temperature it needs to be kept at and customs rules. Pharmacist Jason Murphy has warned travellers on weight-loss jabs against storing them in the hotel fridge Murphy said: 'Travelling with weight-loss medication isn't out of the question, but it does require some forward planning. 'You can't just toss it in your suitcase and hope for the best. Between time zone changes, storage issues, and customs restrictions, it's more of a 'carry-on mission' than most people realise.' He explained how weight-loss injections need to be kept in a refrigerator, but that some can be stored at room temperature for a limited time. 'These medications are designed to be kept refrigerated between 2°C and 8°C before use, but both Wegovy and Mounjaro can be stored at room temperature – below 30°C – for a limited period,' Murphy said. 'That gives patients more flexibility when travelling, but it's still important to keep pens out of direct sunlight and away from excessive heat. 'I always advise using a medical-grade travel cool bag with ice packs, especially if you're flying to a hot destination.' The pharmacist also advised against packing medication in hold luggage in case it was lost, as well as the added complication of the lack of temperature control. 'Never pack injections in checked baggage. 'Luggage holds aren't temperature-controlled, and there's a risk of delays or loss,' he explained. Murphy continued: 'Carry your medication in your hand luggage, in its original packaging, along with a copy of your prescription or a signed letter from your prescriber or pharmacist - something we provide routinely for patients.' Travellers carrying medication also need to be aware of customs rules and what is allowed to enter certain destinations. The pharmacist said: 'Some countries (such as, Japan, UAE, and Singapore) are strict about what medication crosses their border. 'In some cases, your jab may be considered a controlled substance, so you should always check embassy rules before you fly to save you a heap of holiday hassle.' He also explained how people may experience 'jet-lagged jabs' when the local time varies with the medication schedule the traveller may usually follow at home. Murphy said: 'If you're hopping multiple time zones, your injection routine may need a refresh. 'Weight-loss injections are typically once weekly, but timing still matters.' He advised using techniques such as setting an alarm in line to ensure the medication is taken in line with the typical routine. The pharmacist added: 'I'd always suggest setting an alarm for your injection based on your original UK schedule, then gradually shift it to local time over a few days. 'You'll feel more in sync and avoid what we call "jet-lagged jabs".'
The Guardian
20 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Tens of thousands at risk of poverty despite Labour's benefit U-turn, MPs warn
About 50,000 people who become disabled or chronically ill will be pushed into poverty by the end of the decade because of cuts to incapacity benefit, despite ministers dropping the bulk of its welfare reform plans, MPs have warned. The work and pensions select committee report welcomed ministers' decision earlier this month to drop some of the most controversial aspects of its disability reforms in the face of a parliamentary revolt by over 100 Labour backbenchers. These included the wholesale scrapping of proposed major changes to personal independence payment (Pip) eligibility that would have seen around 800,000 people no longer qualifying for the benefit by the end of the decade. The government also ditched plans to freeze the value of the incapacity element of universal credit for existing claimants, affecting over 2m people by 2029-30, though it kept in place proposals to half the weekly rate for new claimants. Labour had 'in the end' made the right decision, the committee said in a report. But it reiterated calls for the remaining planned cuts to universal credit to be delayed until their impact on poverty, health and jobs were fully understood. Ministers been left badly bruised by the enforced gutting of its bill, which was intended to save £5bn a year by the end of the decade. Keir Starmer, the prime minister, admitted subsequently that No 10 'didn't get the process right'. Although all existing universal credit claimants and new claimants with severe or terminal conditions will now be protected, from next year other claimants with limited health capacity for work will see monthly awards cut from £423.27 to £217.26. The committee chair, Labour's Debbie Abrahams, said, 'We welcome the concessions that the government made to the niversal Credit bill; but there are still issues with these welfare reforms not least with the cut in financial support that newly sick and disabled people will receive.' Abrahams said that on the government's own analysis approximately 50,000 people who claim universal credit from next April after developing a health condition or becoming disabled will be plunged into poverty by 2030 as a result of cuts. 'We recommend delaying the cuts to the universal credit health premium, especially given that other policies that such as additional NHS capacity, or employment support, or changes in the labour market to support people to stay in work, have yet to materialise,' she said. 'We agree in a reformed and sustainable welfare system, but we must ensure that the wellbeing of those who come into contact with it is protected. The lesson learned from last month should be that the impact of policy changes to health-related benefits must be assessed prior to policy changes being implemented to avoid potential risks to claimants,' added Abrahams The report also urged ministers to drop plans – currently out for consultation – to prevent young people aged 18-22 from claiming incapacity benefit. 'We share the minister's concern about young people being trapped in economic inactivity before their working lives have even begun, but we do not see why this means they should lose entitlement to universal credit health,' the report said. The cross-party committee welcomed the government's plans to review the much-criticised Pip assessment process, which it said was in 'desperate need of reform.' It applauded ministers promise to 'co-produce' the review with disabled people. A government spokesperson said: 'Our welfare reforms will support those who can work into jobs and ensure there is always a safety net for those that need it. The impact assessment shows our reforms will lift 50,000 children out of poverty – and our additional employment support will lift even more families out of poverty. 'The reforms will rebalance Universal Credit rates to reduce the perverse incentives that trap people out of work, alongside genuinely helping disabled people and those with long-term health conditions into good, secure work – backed by £3.8bn in employment support over this parliament.'
