CHRIS Packham has sent a legal challenge to the Prime Minister over his decision to delay the phase-out of new gas boilers and petrol and diesel cars.
If Rishi Sunak does not reverse the changes he announced last month, Packham said he will apply to the High Court to challenge this in a judicial review - arguing that such a delay is unlawful given the Government is required to follow a series of carbon budget plans on the way to becoming net zero by 2050.
The Prime Minister said the sale of new fossil fuel cars will not be phased out in 2030 but in 2035 and that only 80% of gas boilers will need to be phased out by that date, instead of 100%.
He said that because the UK has so far decarbonised faster than other developed countries, it can afford to relax its net-zero policies, telling the country that the approach to net zero is imposing “unacceptable costs on hard-pressed British families” that “no one was ever told about”.
READ MORE: Scottish and Welsh ministers call for climate summit
Packham said this change of direction was made without any public consultation, without informing parliament or the Climate Change Committee (CCC) – which advises the Government on how to meet its carbon budgets.
He said the Prime Minister is “playing populist politics with the future of life on Earth”, adding: “Even before this spontaneous, ill-judged and – we contend – unlawful announcement, the UK Government’s plans to meet its legal net-zero commitments were shambolic and destined to failure.
Today I can share I'm challenging the PM on the legality of abandoning key Net Zero commitments
— Chris Packham (@ChrisGPackham) October 4, 2023
I believe the timeline for the UK to meet Net Zero cannot be changed at will by the PM – I contend that he does not have the legal right
The ball is in your court , Prime Minister pic.twitter.com/sRmFYGFt6X
“Its own Climate Change Committee’s last report said that continued delays in policy development and implementation meant reaching those targets was increasingly challenging.
“It also highlighted a lack of urgency across government, a worrying hesitancy and lack of political leadership on the climate issue.”
The CCC said they are reviewing the impacts of Sunak’s decision but its chief executive, Chris Stark, has previously said the Government was already going slow on rolling out electric cars.
Any changes to carbon budgets have to be made according to a process in the Climate Change Act, which also requires the Government to set out how it will meet the upcoming sixth carbon budget, which Sunak has not explained.
Packham also said that when Sunak complained that the last carbon budget was voted through without any proper consideration, he failed to mention that he was Chancellor when the sixth carbon budget was set – with the Treasury playing a key role.
READ MORE: We don't need to give in to the reactionary 'culture war'
He said: “Reneging on clear-cut, measurable and guaranteed means of reduction without offering real alternatives to balance the targets is reckless and irresponsible.
“And claiming this is about protecting the poorest in society. It’s worth noting that when the policies were enshrined in law they were signed off by the Chancellor of the Exchequer – and that was Mr Sunak.”
The Prime Minister has 14 days to reply to Packham’s letter or reverse his decision before the naturalist and TV presenter goes to the High Court.
A UK Government spokesperson said: “We are on track to deliver our net-zero commitments set out in law, and are taking a fairer and more pragmatic approach to meeting them, easing the burden on hard-working businesses and families.
“Households will have more time and flexibility to make the transition, ensuring they can switch to electric vehicles when it suits them, and easing the boiler phase out will save some families thousands of pounds at a time when the cost of living is high.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel