‘We’re up for this fight’: UK Labour plans to make climate key focus of election | Leadership now sees environment as core issue for voters and strong dividing line against the Tories

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Sunak appears to have invited such a response, using his speech to attack “environmental dogma” he implied was to blame for high energy prices, a remark green campaigners condemned as “divisive” and “dangerous rhetoric”, as well as a potential vote loser.

After the Uxbridge byelection last summer, when the London mayor, Sadiq Khan’s plan to widen the capital’s ultra-low emissions zone (Ulez) was seen by some as a factor in Labour’s narrow failure to win the seat, senior figures also worried that net zero policies could be soft targets for the Conservatives and a turnoff for some voters.

Labour has long sought to show that pursuing net zero is a source of economic growth and will bring down the cost of living, especially for poorer families, through cheaper renewable energy and home insulation.

“Labour’s rhetoric on the climate emergency is strong but they have to back it up with firm plans and commitments,” said Mike Childs, the head of science, policy and research at Friends of the Earth.

“After scrapping their £28bn investment there are serious questions about how they will insulate our heat-leaking homes, boost our depleted bus network, and ensure that our homegrown wind and solar resources are developed at the speed and scale we so urgently require.”

“If Labour forms the next government, they will have to produce a comprehensive and lawful climate plan that meets our domestic carbon budgets and our international commitment to reduce emissions by two-thirds by 2030 – or face possible legal action if it falls short,” he said.

The original article contains 1,023 words, the summary contains 256 words. Saved 75%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

2 comments

I'm somewhat cynical about their actual commitment to this issue after they scrapped the investment fund.... It's an investment can we not spend money on some more risky schemes and give them legislative/planning assistance to help them succeed and generate the government money back?
Or was it all meant to be subsidies for things that wouldn't give money back to the govt?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Sunak appears to have invited such a response, using his speech to attack “environmental dogma” he implied was to blame for high energy prices, a remark green campaigners condemned as “divisive” and “dangerous rhetoric”, as well as a potential vote loser.
After the Uxbridge byelection last summer, when the London mayor, Sadiq Khan’s plan to widen the capital’s ultra-low emissions zone (Ulez) was seen by some as a factor in Labour’s narrow failure to win the seat, senior figures also worried that net zero policies could be soft targets for the Conservatives and a turnoff for some voters.
Labour has long sought to show that pursuing net zero is a source of economic growth and will bring down the cost of living, especially for poorer families, through cheaper renewable energy and home insulation.
“Labour’s rhetoric on the climate emergency is strong but they have to back it up with firm plans and commitments,” said Mike Childs, the head of science, policy and research at Friends of the Earth.
“After scrapping their £28bn investment there are serious questions about how they will insulate our heat-leaking homes, boost our depleted bus network, and ensure that our homegrown wind and solar resources are developed at the speed and scale we so urgently require.”
“If Labour forms the next government, they will have to produce a comprehensive and lawful climate plan that meets our domestic carbon budgets and our international commitment to reduce emissions by two-thirds by 2030 – or face possible legal action if it falls short,” he said.
The original article contains 1,023 words, the summary contains 256 words. Saved 75%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!