Climate adviser racks up 40,000 air miles – while backing tax on frequent flyers
A government climate adviser who backed a tax on frequent flyers racked up 40,000 air miles in a year by jetting to environmental conferences.
Nigel Topping is one of the six members of Ed Miliband's climate change committee, which in February recommended that ministers consider a new ' frequent flyer levy ' to cut emissions from flights.
The committee also suggested ministers could increase airfares for holidaymakers by raising flight taxes and ban airline reward schemes.
Its members, who report to the Government, have called for policies to 'manage demand' among air passengers to cut carbon emissions.
But Telegraph analysis shows Mr Topping himself accrued 11 times more air miles in the last year than the average Briton, with travel to summits in high-end hotels on three continents.
A former business champion for Glasgow's Cop26 summit, Mr Topping now holds a variety of climate advisory roles.
In the last 12 months, he has attended conferences in Barbados, Azerbaijan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, the Netherlands and the United States.
One summit, the International Mangrove Conservation and Restoration Conference in December, was held in the five-star Bab al-Qasr hotel in Dubai, with a private beach, infinity pool and chauffeur service.
It came days after his trip to the UN's desertification conference in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia – which is 3,000 miles from London.
Last month, Mr Topping attended another summit in Barbados, which involved an 8,400-mile round trip.
Speaking at the event, he revealed he had bought an electric car, and was building a 'zero carbon house' with insulation, solar panels and a heat pump.
But according to modelling by the Department for Transport, which estimates that each kilometre of air travel emits 158g of carbon dioxide per passenger, Mr Topping's carbon footprint from flights alone is around 40 per cent more than the average British person produces in total in a year.
An environmental double standard
Andrew Bowie, the shadow energy secretary, said: 'This is rank hypocrisy. Once again we see those preaching this Mr Miliband driven net zero zealotry are all too happy to impose significant burdens on others, but won't practise what they preach.
'It's one rule for them and another for everyone else. Kemi Badenoch and I have been clear that net zero by 2050 would involve significant cost to the country and to the consumer and it is simply not sustainable. It is a shame this Labour government is still not prepared to do the same.'
Mr Topping's other trips included a visit to New York, for the city's Climate Change Week in September last year, and Washington DC for the Global Inclusive Growth Summit last April.
In August, he travelled to the Future of Food conference in the Netherlands and joined delegates at the Cop29 UN climate change summit in Baku, Azerbaijan, in November.
Mr Miliband has opposed the expansion of Heathrow Airport, which was signed off by Sir Keir Starmer, on the grounds that it would lead to an increase in carbon emissions.
He has also been criticised for his flights, after it was revealed he travelled 44,600 air miles in a year.
Mr Topping and the climate change committee declined to comment. It is understood the committee did not pay for the cost of his travel.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
33 minutes ago
- The National
Owen Jones: The UK media has ignored this hugely revealing scandal
And yet Benjamin Netanyahu – the Israeli prime minister subject to an International Criminal Court arrest warrant – has been accused of forging this alliance by the Israeli political class. And yet – once again – the Westminster media has overwhelmingly failed to cover this latest profoundly revealing scandal. Avigdor Lieberman is a far-right opposition leader who once served as Netanyahu's deputy prime minister, foreign minister and defence minister. This week, he publicly announced: 'The Israeli government is giving weapons to a group of criminals and felons, identified with Islamic State, at the direction of the prime minister.' Did Netanyahu come out swinging, accusing his opponent of antisemitism, as he did when another opposition leader, former Israeli general Yair Golan, declared that Israel was killing babies as a hobby? READ MORE: Patrick Harvie: Increased UK defence spending only makes war more likely He did not. Instead, Netanyahu bragged that 'Israel is working to defeat Hamas in various ways, on the recommendation of all heads of the security establishment'. In a video message, he clarified that Israel had 'activated clans in Gaza that oppose Hamas', shamelessly calling it 'a good thing' which was saving the lives of Israeli soldiers. 'What's wrong with that?' We're talking here about a militia headed by a man named Yasser Abu Shabab. He styles his faction as the 'Anti Terror Service', but it is a criminal gang operating in an area of Rafah firmly under Israeli military control. His own family has not only disowned him, but backed his execution. According to Palestinian analyst Muhammad Shehada, his militia is composed of 300 'drug dealers and criminals.' And here's the important detail. To justify imposing a total siege on Gaza, Israel claimed that Hamas was stealing humanitarian food. Among those pointing out this wasn't true was Cindy McCain, widow of the late hawkish Republican senator John McCain, and now director of the World Food Programme. But we do know that Shabab's Israel-backed gang has been stealing aid. As ever with the Israeli authorities: every accusation is a confession. This is just another plank of Israel's starvation policy. But again, the Western media has overwhelmingly failed to clearly spell out what Israel is actually doing. Having imposed a total siege on Gaza since March 2, Israel set up a US-backed shadow entity named the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation to explicitly supplant the UN. It hasn't just been rejected by every aid agency – even the US marine who heads it resigned on the basis it contradicted the basic principles of humanitarianism. The Foundation set three aid checkpoints in the south in an effort to concentrate Gaza's entire population into a confined area – a concentration camp. Too little aid was delivered, much of it unusable given the siege on cooking materials. But in any case, the Israeli military repeatedly fired on starving Palestinians. In the words of Tory MP Kit Malthouse, the UN system had been replaced with a 'shooting range, an abattoir'. But when the Israeli military massacred dozens of starving Palestinians, they deployed their usual strategy: deceive, deflect, deny, distort. Even though the shootings happened in an Israeli military zone, and despite the overwhelming evidence of Israeli lies, the Western media indulged Israeli claims that Hamas was responsible as if they were credible. CNN belatedly published a clear rebuttal of Israeli lies, but attention had already moved on. As ever, the Western media overall fail to allow Israeli responsibility for atrocities to stick. And yet now, even as Yair Lapid – the main opposition leader – states Netanyahu is 'giving weapons to organisations close to ISIS in Gaza', this latest plank of Israel's starvation strategy barely gets any coverage. This is despite Israel's 'Hamas is ISIS' campaign long being used to justify the genocide. This all fits a classic pattern, of course. Israel encouraged the rise of Hamas in the 1980s in order to undermine its public enemy number one at the time, Yasser Arafat's Fatah. More recently, Netanyahu worked with Qatar to transfer money to prop up Hamas – with the hope of dividing the Palestinian nation and movement so an independent state was impossible. Remember too how the West armed and backed the Mujahideen against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s, playing a crucial role in creating the global Islamist fundamentalist movement. You would think the Western media might take an interest given the precedents. It is true that there is a shift taking place. Israeli spokespeople are suddenly being taken apart on mainstream television. Sky News is demanding the Prime Minister answer if genocide is taking place. But the media narrative still has not clearly shifted to reality – that is, a crime of historic proportions is being facilitated by Western governments, which means questions should be focused on 'how can this crime be stopped, and perpetrators held to justice' rather than 'is Israel doing something very bad here?' The latter is an improvement on where the narrative was stuck for so long – which was essentially 'Israel is waging a war of self-defence', with a side debate about whether the 'response' was 'proportionate'. What is clear is that an understanding is creeping into the political and media elites that a reckoning is coming, where those who facilitated this abomination will be forced to answer for what they did and what they didn't do. Time is running out.
The Herald Scotland
37 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Immigration warning over 'less than welcoming' statements
The tone of Sir Keir's remarks on May 12 was, as observed by Mr Sheerin and many others, surely something of a surprise. And it was unexpected even with an awareness - having covered this key issue closely over months and years - of Labour's developing and lamentable stance on immigration. The Prime Minister declared: 'Nations depend on rules – fair rules. Sometimes they're written down, often they're not, but either way, they give shape to our values. They guide us towards our rights, of course, but also our responsibilities, the obligations we owe to one another. Now, in a diverse nation like ours, and I celebrate that, these rules become even more important. Without them, we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together.' The 'island of strangers' was a striking turn of phrase. Sir Keir went on: 'So when you have an immigration system that seems almost designed to permit abuse, that encourages some businesses to bring in lower-paid workers rather than invest in our young people, or simply one that is sold by politicians to the British people on an entirely false premise, then you're not championing growth, you're not championing justice, or however else people defend the status quo. You're actually contributing to the forces that are slowly pulling our country apart.' Maybe with the benefit of hindsight the Prime Minister's remarks, even though they could have been uttered just as easily by the Tory Brexiters, should not have been quite so much of a shock as they were. After all, Labour has embraced the key elements of the Conservatives' hard Brexit: loss of free movement of people between the UK and European Economic Area nations and the ending of the frictionless trade from which the country previously benefited enormously when it was part of the single market. Nevertheless, Sir Keir's tone was surely surprisingly dismal, even given all of this. Not only did we have the reference to 'an island of strangers' but also this declaration: 'This strategy will finally take back control of our borders and close the book on a squalid chapter for our politics, our economy, and our country.' What seemed clear from Sir Keir's utterings was that populism most certainly did not end with the exit of Boris Johnson or Rishi Sunak from the prime minister post. Sir Keir's tone contrasted so starkly with Mr Sheerin's reasoned appraisal of the Prime Minister's remarks and Labour's plans on immigration. We had this from Sir Keir: 'We do have to ask why parts of our economy seem almost addicted to importing cheap labour rather than investing in the skills of people who are here and want a good job in their community. Sectors like engineering, where visas have rocketed while apprenticeships have plummeted.' You would imagine Mr Sheerin, as a veteran of the engineering sector, knows a lot more about the specifics than Sir Keir. And it is worth observing the Scottish Engineering chief executive is passionate about people in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK being trained as engineers. He would love to see the skills shortages which are posing such a challenge to member companies of Scottish Engineering and others in the sector solved. Mr Sheerin is not a politician - just someone with deep knowledge of the Scottish engineering sector. So what did the Scottish Engineering chief have to say in his quarterly report published on Friday? Read more He declared that he found the UK Government's 'latest pronouncements on immigration disappointing', highlighting the detrimental impact on companies of 'statements that feel less than welcoming'. Mr Sheerin hammered home his view that raising minimum qualification levels from Higher equivalents to degree level would 'leave out the skilled trades and crafts roles where we are already in shortest supply: welders, fabricators, electricians, pipefitters, CNC (computer numerical control) machinists to name a few'. That is surely a crucial point. And it is worth emphasising Mr Sheerin's observation that people skilled in these roles are 'already in shortest supply'. Mr Sheerin also noted: 'The shortening of the graduate visa scheme reducing the right to work from two years to 18 months after graduating will not only hit our education sector but also reduce the attractiveness of the scheme for companies who will have a shorter timeline to decide whether to invest in the process to extend the visa of the employee.' This is another good point. And the Scottish Engineering chief executive declared: 'Whilst I recognise that this [immigration] is a contentious political issue across the UK for a whole range of reasons, in engineering and manufacturing in Scotland the reality is that immigration is a vital source of skills and experience that cannot be replaced overnight. These skills levels take years to build - and we should be building them - but closing off the supply before putting in place the actions to do that is another example of an action that will challenge the stated ambition of growing our economy.' The time horizon with regard to building skills levels is important. It might not chime with that of politicians such as Sir Keir, who seems at pains to bang the drum on immigration as Nigel Farage's Reform UK makes a big noise on this front. However, it is a simple factual point that engineering skills do take years to build. Mr Sheerin declared that a frustration for him in Labour's immigration pronouncements was that 'whereas there is considerable detail on how we plan to restrict and close this supply of skills, on the laudable stated aim that we will replace the loss with trained or upskilled UK-born workers, the detail is missing on how that will be achieved'. He added: 'And there is no detail that recognises that engineering skills take between four and six years to get to a starting level of competency. It does not seem an unreasonable request for the get-well plan to carry at least the same level of detail as the take-it-away plan.' This seems like an absolutely fair summation of the problems with Labour's populist immigration proposals. If you were asked to choose whether you think it is Sir Keir or Mr Sheerin who is on the money in relation to immigration policy and its effect on engineering and the broader economy, it would surely be the easiest of questions to answer, any day of the week.
The Guardian
41 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Conference to recognise Palestinian state to weaken scope of its ambition, diplomats say
A planned conference in Saudi Arabia this month that supporters of Palestine had hoped would push western governments to recognise a Palestinian state has weakened its ambition and will instead hope to agree on steps towards recognition, diplomats have said. The change to the aims of the conference, due to be held between 17 and 20 June, marks a retreat from an earlier vision that it would mark a joint declaration of recognition of Palestine as a state by a large group of countries, including permanent UN security council members France and the UK. Emmanuel Macron, the French president and a co-sponsor of the event, has declared recognition of Palestine as 'a moral duty and political requirement', but French officials briefing their Israeli counterparts this week reassured them the conference will not be the moment for recognition. That is now seen as a prize that will emerge from other measures, including a permanent ceasefire in Gaza, the release of Israeli hostages, reform of the Palestinian Authority, economic reconstruction and a definitive end to Hamas's rule in Gaza. France and Saudi Arabia have set up eight working parties to prepare the necessary ingredients for a two-state solution, and Macron is hosting a conference of civil society under the banner of the Paris Peace Forum immediately before the three-day conference. The UK is overseeing the humanitarian working party and other working groups cover reconstruction, economic viability of a Palestinian state, promoting respect for international law, narratives for peace and 'peace day', an imagining of the benefits to both sides from a peaceful settlement. Israel and the US have attended run-up meetings to the conference but have not spoken, prompting speculation they may boycott the event. Israel has fought hard to prevent stateless Palestinians achieving self-determination. Polls show only a fifth of the Israel electorate favour a two-state solution and 56% of Jewish Israelis supported the 'transfer of Arab citizens of Israel to other countries'. Israel has also approved plans to build a further 22 settlements in the West Bank – the biggest expansion in decades. Israel's defence minister, Israel Katz, said it was 'a strategic move that prevents the establishment of a Palestinian state'. Macron's initiative has been described as 'disastrous' by the Israel's ambassador to France, Joshua Zarka. Recognition of a Palestinian state was previously seen as an outcome of a failed 1990s-era two-state plan. However, governments in Europe increasingly doubt Israel has any intention to ease its control over Palestinians and see recognition as a possible lever to force a change of thinking among Israeli officials. Ireland, Spain and Norway recognised a Palestinian state last year. Macron has insisted he would only recognise a Palestinian state without Hamas – the same stance as the UK. In an open letter to Macron, The Elders, a group of former senior UN diplomats, say recognition is 'an essential transformative step towards peace' that should be taken as a matter of principle, divorced from negotiations over the ultimate form of Palestinian statehood and how and when Hamas should be disarmed. Anne-Claire Legendre, the president's adviser on the Middle East, has said the conference 'must mark a transformative milestone for the effective implementation of the two-state solution. We must move from words to deeds, and we must move from the end of the war in Gaza to the end of the conflict.' She met Israeli officials this week to discuss the conference and Israel's often cloudy long-term vision for the region. She also met the Palestinian prime minister, Mohammad Mustafa. Israeli newspapers reported the travelling French officials as saying: 'The recognition of a Palestinian state remains on the table, but not as a product of the conference. This will remain a bilateral subject between states.' The British foreign secretary, David Lammy, who is expected to attend the conference, is under massive backbench pressure to do more to punish Israel and is, at minimum, being asked flesh out the conditions for the UK recognition of a Palestinian state. Hamish Falconer, the Middle East minister, told MPs this week the UK thinking was evolving. 'One reason that the traditional position of the UK government has been that the recognition of a Palestinian state should come at the end, or during, a two-state solution process was the hope that we would move towards a two-state solution,' he said. 'Many minds have been changed because of the rhetoric of the Israeli government – the clear statements by so many that they are no longer committed to a two-state solution.' But the British are looking for firm undertakings at the conference on the future government of Palestine, including the exclusion of Hamas from any future governance of Gaza, which is something Hamas itself has appeared to accept in the various plans drawn up by Arab states. A growing number of Conservative MPs have broken with their frontbench on the issue and now back recognition, including the former attorney general Sir Jeremy Wright. France hopes that a group of western states recognising a Palestinian state could be counter-balanced by Muslim states normalising relations with Israel. However, Saudi recognition of Israel seems impossible. The Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, the other co-host, has asserted repeatedly that Israel is committing a genocide, a view that is shared widely by Saudi public opinion.
