Search

A Six-Episode Journey into Defence Sustainability The Defence Infrastructure Organisation has launched an enlightening six-episode podcast series that takes listeners behind the scenes of sustainability efforts across the UK's vast Defence Estate. This engaging audio series features conversations with senior military figures, project leaders and industrial partners who are tackling environmental challenges head-on. From strategic planning to on-the-ground implementation, each episode offers unique insights into how Defence is integrating sustainability into its core mission. Listeners will discover not just the challenges faced, but the innovative solutions being deployed across this immense portfolio. Why This Podcast Matters The first episode is available now, with subsequent instalments being added to the playlist upon release. This podcast series breaks through traditional communication barriers, ensuring that vital sustainability messages reach beyond formal channels to inform and inspire action across the Defence community and beyond. The Scale of the Challenge The Defence Estate is vast—occupying over 1% of the United Kingdom's landmass. This enormous scale presents unique sustainability challenges that require equally ambitious solutions. While many might assume environmental considerations would be secondary to Defence operations, today's reality shows a fundamental shift in priorities. Sustainability has become essential to maintaining operational capability in a changing climate. Consider a practical example: water scarcity could severely restrict military training capacity at key sites, directly impacting readiness. This isn't a distant concern—it's a present challenge requiring immediate attention. Sustainability in Action The Ministry of Defence is responding with remarkable innovation. The award-winning Net-Zero Carbon Accommodation Programme is revolutionising living quarters while reducing carbon emissions. Simultaneously, infrastructure initiatives such as standardised electric vehicle charging points being deployed across Defence facilities. These initiatives demonstrate how the MOD has elevated sustainability to stand alongside security and health & safety as strategic priorities—without compromising its primary mission of protecting national security. A Resource for Civil Servants For members of the Civil Service Climate Change + Environment Network (CSCCEN), this podcast offers valuable perspectives even if you rarely encounter Defence property. The series showcases how Defence personnel—both service members and civil servants — are applying their expertise to sustainability challenges that mirror those faced across government. Their innovative approaches provide potential models for environmental initiatives in other departments, making this podcast series a valuable resource for all civil servants interested in sustainability. Tune in to discover how one of Britain's largest landowners is pioneering sustainable practices while maintaining its critical mission of national security. The first episode is available here: Episode 1: The big picture with Major General Andy Sturrock To stay updated on new episodes, follow the Defence Infrastructure Organisation on social media: Instagram X (Twitter) LinkedIn

Given this month’s focus on “weather vs. climate”, CSCEN's Emilio Risoli and Rebecca Sawyer (CSCEN committee member and Met Office climate scientist) take us through how the Met Office provide both weather and climate information to inform policy and decision making across government and beyond. The Met Office, Exeter - © Crown Copyright The Met Office is probably best known for its weather forecasts. You might have seen its name alongside weather warnings, and perhaps you assumed that weather  was the extent of its brief. However, as the UK’s national meteorological service, the Met Office has another significant strand of work: the climate . The weather and climate are different terms used to describe different things. Put simply, the climate " describes the average weather conditions over a long period of time " usually over 20-30 years. While the weather tells you what you should wear on a particular day, the climate determines the clothes you have in your wardrobe. But modelling the climate is a different pursuit to weather forecasting, and it serves a range of very different purposes. The weather The Met Office is the UK’s national weather service. It is primarily funded by UK Government and at the core of its operation is the Public Weather Service (PWS). The PWS provides a reliable public forecast for all UK citizens, and includes the issuing of severe weather warnings. Alongside this, the Met Office delivers specialist forecasts and advice to the UK defence sector, weather information for the aviation sector, and a range of global weather services to clients across industry, academia, the media and more. The “Unified Model” – which has been used by the Met Office since 1990 – is used to predict the weather in a certain area across a range of timescales. This model is therefore used for both weather forecasting (a few days) and climate modelling (up to hundreds of years). The supercomputer currently used to do this, the Cray XC40 , is one of the most powerful of its kind in the world, and is capable of (an inconceivable) 14,000 trillion arithmetic operations each second. This allows the Met Office to obtain 215 billion weather observations from all over the world every day. If you assumed that this was all done by computers, however, you’d be wrong. Central to the provision of weather forecasts are the Met Office’s meteorologists. While computer models provide an initial indication of forecasted weather patterns and conditions, it is the meteorologists who assess and compare this information with real-world observations, including the scale and progress of weather systems,  to ensure that the forecast provided to end-users is as accurate as possible. For example, a huge part of a meteorologist’s role is around predicting how people respond and behave before and during a severe weather event. This informs the timing, scale and level of the weather warnings that are issued. Meteorologists work closely with civil contingency advisors, emergency responders and local authorities to coordinate warnings to ensure they keep people as safe as possible. Weather forecasting: more than just daily wardrobe decisions The Met Office provides weather services to a broad range of customers. In transport alone, its forecasts and insights support pilots, airlines and airports, train and freight operators, the Marine and Coastguard Agency and National Highways, to name just a few. As a more specific example, its specialist forecasts are used by rail operators to run their services safely and on time. If you’ve ever wondered why your train is delayed on a windy day, there’s a good chance that it’s to do with leaf-fall on the track. When trains pass over these leaves, they form a slippery layer on the track, equivalent to black ice on the roads. To combat this, the Met Office provide rail operators with specialist forecasts that include estimates of leaf-fall and highlight locations needing more attention. Alongside this data, the Met Office provide a team of experienced rail consultants, who advise operators with solutions for specific weather hazard vulnerabilities. And this goes beyond leaves: these consultants help operators address a range of weather-related challenges to improve network efficiency. Source: Network Rail Climate in the Met Office Scientists in the Met Office use a combination of observations and climate models to look at overall weather trends over ‘climatological’ periods of 10-30 years. As Carbon Brief explain, “ in many ways, climate modelling is just an extension of weather forecasting, but focusing on changes over decades rather than hours ”. The climate models provide us with the opportunity to test assumptions and scenarios which would not be possible to observe in the ‘real world’. By varying the starting conditions of these models (i.e. the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the temperature, land use and cover) we can see how the climate responds in different situations. This helps inform the speed and scale of policy interventions needed to reduce average global temperate rise. The Met Office Hadley Centre Climate Programme (MOHCCP) undertakes scientifically excellent climate research and provides policy-relevant scientific evidence and advice to Government. The programme helps to ensure that both environment and energy policies are grounded in the latest scientific evidence. The MOHCCP supports policy work across DESNZ, Defra, the FCDO and many other government departments. Case study: Using climate data to assess the risk posed by wind-driven rain to British buildings A good way to display how the Met Office’s climate data can be interpreted, and used to inform policy, is through a case study of a project funded by the MOHCCP. Last year, the Met Office worked with DESNZ to understand the risk of damage to cavity wall insulation from wind-driven rain , and how climate change might impact this. Cavity wall insulation is a common retrofit measure, and plays a key role in both decarbonising buildings and reducing energy bills for consumers. When rain drops vertically, this fabric remains largely sheltered. However, wind-driven rain can lead to water entering the cavity (via roofs, walls, windows, doors etc.) and damaging the building fabric. This not only leads to losses in thermal insulation (making the house colder), but it also causes damp and mould, creating unhealthy conditions for occupants. For this reason, the Building Regulations state that this type of insulation should be avoided in locations with high exposure to wind driven rain. However, the dataset used to identify at-risk locations is based on evidence recorded between 1959 and 1991. This created a significant knowledge gap: an understanding of the buildings which were not currently exposed to wind driven rain, but might be in the future as the climate changes. This DESNZ-Met Office project created an updated wind-driven rain dataset using high-resolution climate modelling. The study used the latest UK Climate Projections (UKCP18) to model changes in projected wind-driven rain for 2°C and 4°C warming scenarios (relative to the pre-industrial period). It found that while on average wind-driven rain is not expected to change significantly, it will become more concentrated in southerly and westerly parts of the UK. Moreover, it is projected to become more concentrated in winter months. © Crown Copyright Conclusion The work on wind-driven rain is now being used to inform updates to retrofit guidance and building regulations. It is just one example of how the Met Office uses climate modelling to inform policy and decision making, and its specificity illustrates just how varied the uses of climate modelling can be. A recent evaluation concluded that for every £1 of public money invested, the Met Office returns £18.80 in value . Its value to the taxpayer in supporting decision-making with high-level weather and climate data and expertise, especially in a world grappling with climate change, is clear. Next time your train is on time, or your retrofitted home doesn’t have damp on the walls, thank the Met Office. Contribute to the CSCEN Blog If you're interested in contributing to the CSCEN Blog, get in touch with us at environment.network@energysecurity.gov.uk . We'd love to hear your ideas!

In 2021, the Environment Act enshrined 13 legally binding environmental targets into law. Defra is revising the Environmental Improvement Plan (EIP) to deliver these targets. CSCEN's Cara Burke, formerly of Defra’s EIP team, unpacks what a revised EIP for England would tackle, and how the Environment Act 2021 directs environmental action on a national level. Source: Environmental Improvement Plan 2023 What is the Environment Act 2021? The Environment Act responded to a clear case, and growing public demand, for action to address environmental challenges. It set a new domestic framework for environmental governance after the UK left the EU and set a path to achieving long-term action necessary for nature to recover through legally binding targets, an environmental watchdog and by placing environmental principles in domestic law in a consistent and transparent way. What is an Environmental Improvement Plan? On 30 July 2024, the Government announced a rapid review of the Environmental Improvement Plan (EIP). The rapid review has now been undertaken , and forms a vital stage of information collection as part of a wider, statutory review which will be completed when the revised EIP is published in 2025. The plan will focus on delivering the Environment Act’s legally binding environmental targets to save nature. It will be a statutory plan to protect and restore the natural environment. The Environment Act 2021 requires that Defra’s Secretary of State prepares an EIP for significantly improving the natural environment in England. An EIP must have a minimum duration of 15 years to ensure that governments consider the needs of the natural environment over the longer term. The government must review its EIP at least every five years and the review will consider what has been done to implement the current EIP since publication, whether the natural environment has improved during that period, and whether further steps are needed to improve the natural environment. The 25 Year Environment Plan (25YEP) was published in 2018 and was designated as the first EIP. It set out a comprehensive and long-term approach to protecting and enhancing the natural environment for the next generation through 10 goals. The latest EIP was published in January 2023 (EIP23). Under the Act, the Secretary of State must also prepare annual progress reports  to report on implementation of the EIP and report progress towards the EIP. Alongside the annual progress report, the  Outcome Indicator Framework data dashboard  shows how the environment is changing in relation to the 10 goals of the 25 Year Environment Plan. What are Environment Act targets? The Environment Act 2021 required government to set legally binding environmental targets. Following public consultation, all 13 environmental targets were in force by 31 January 2023 . The 13 targets cover air quality, water, biodiversity, resource efficiency and waste reduction, tree and woodland cover, and Marine Protected Areas. The revised EIP will focus on delivering these targets. Interim targets set the trajectory towards long-term targets and allow for an ongoing assessment of whether government is on track to meet them. When reviewing the EIP, the government must set new interim targets, and consider, given the progress made to date, what further measures are needed to achieve the interim and long-term targets. Environmental Principles and other Government Departments The environment is not solely Defra’s remit, and every government department has a role to play in protecting and restoring the natural environment. The Environment Act 2021 places a legal duty on Ministers of the Crown to have “due regard” to the environmental principles policy statement when making policy. The environmental principles policy statement  was published on 31 January 2023 and explains how Ministers of the Crown should interpret and proportionately apply the five environmental principles, as required by the Environment Act 2021. The five principles set out in the Act are: integration, prevention, rectification at source, polluter pays, and the precautionary principle. The Office for Environmental Protection’s latest progress report (see below) recommends that implementation of the environment principles duty is directly linked to statutory targets and delivery plans. The Office for Environmental Protection The Environment Act established the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) to protect and improve the environment by holding government and other public authorities to account. Its work covers England, Northern Ireland and UK reserved matters. The Act sets out the OEP’s powers and duties, which can be split into four functions. These are: monitoring progress in delivering environmental improvement plans and targets monitoring implementation of environmental law advising Ministers on changes to environmental law; and enforcing against failures to comply with environmental law through investigations and, only where strictly necessary, legal proceedings (Environmental Review or, in exceptional cases, Judicial Review). The OEP publish their own EIP annual progress report 6 months after Defra’s. Future of the EIP When the EIP rapid review completed, Defra’s Secretary of State provided an Interim statement on the EIP rapid review - GOV.UK  . This indicated that the the revised EIP will be published in 2025, and will aim to: be clear on the role of cross cutting enablers for environmental delivery across government and wider society and how actions interface as part of a system to improve the natural environment highlight how protecting and enhancing our natural capital is not just for its own sake but supports wider societal outcomes including the Government’s missions for clean energy and growth clarify Environment Act target delivery plans and update their corresponding interim targets to cover the 5-year period from completion of the review, in line with statutory requirements clarify how the EIP will be delivered, including the role of government departments and bodies, environmental NGOs, businesses, farmers, landowners/managers, local government and the public streamline and prioritise non statutory commitments to make sure that the EIP focuses on key actions that result in meaningful delivery towards environmental improvement, contributing to statutory targets and priority outcomes. Contribute to the CSCEN Blog If you're interested in contributing to the CSCEN Blog, get in touch with us at environment.network@energysecurity.gov.uk . We'd love to hear your ideas!

In our latest guest article, the Delivering Greener Transport team in the Department for Transport outline their priorities, recent steps that they've taken, and how the team approach the decarbonisation challenge. The intertwined crises of climate change and nature loss are the greatest long-term global challenges we face, and all of us in government have a role in mitigating and adapting to their impacts. Without doing so, we will not effectively deliver our missions to ‘make Britain a clean energy superpower’ (clean energy), to ‘build an NHS fit for the future’ (health), and to ‘kickstart economic growth’. Delivering Greener Transport 'Delivering Greener Transport' is a priority for the Department for Transport, and encompasses the following sub-priorities: Decarbonisation: ‘ Accelerating to net zero’ is a key pillar of the clean energy mission. Under the Climate Change Act 2008, HMG must achieve cross-economy net zero by 2050. The technologies needed to green our transport systems present strong opportunities for catalysing private investment across the UK, helping to kickstart economic growth. DfT is accountable across government for reducing carbon emissions from in-use transport (exhaust emissions). Decarbonising transport will improve the UK’s energy security by running on domestically produced clean energy. DfT also supports the delivery of cross-economy net zero by aiming to reduce the carbon emitted to construct, maintain and operate our transport infrastructure. Adapt the transport system to climate change: Our transport network must adapt to be resilient to more frequent and extreme weather events. A resilient transport system underpins strong business and consumer confidence, both of which are essential to kickstart economic growth. Reduce air pollution from transport: Reducing air pollution from transport is a key pillar of the health mission. Costs of air pollution to the economy could reach £5.3bn per year by 2035 without cross-government action. Reduce wider environmental impacts from transport and support nature recovery: DfT is implementing a range of environmental legal requirements, including the Environmental Principles Policy Statement duty, the Biodiversity Duty and Biodiversity Net Gain. The Department also participates in wider cross-government work to implement the Environmental Improvement Plan.   Recent steps In the past few months, the Department has taken further steps to Deliver Greener Transport, by: Encouraging greener travel by improving the quality and availability of public transport to all by: Bringing franchises back into public ownership through the Rail Passenger Bill. Giving power to local authorities to run their own bus services and launching a consultation for new draft guidance to provide advice and support for local leaders looking to bring services into public control. Driving forward with the Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF) Mandate and a revenue certainty mechanism to spur investment. Embedding Environmental Principles into policy, project design and investment appraisal.  Setting clear requirements around carbon management and whole life carbon assessments for infrastructure investments. Resuming our global climate leadership role in negotiations at the 29th United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of Parties – UNFCCC COP29. Please leave the 'contribute to the CSCEN Blog' section below - this encourages members to get involved. Joined-up working The DGT Team   synthesises progress across these outcomes and organise senior departmental boards focused on Delivering Greener Transport, rotating agendas as required. A key challenge for us has been to drive joined up working across our sub-priorities for teams across the Department. We have identified significant value-add from linking decarbonisation and air quality workstreams, as most policy interventions tend to reinforce these objectives. Where possible, we use the governments’ missions to communicate the importance of Delivering Greener Transport, as this gives everyone a common language and will aid Departmental staff in using the missions when engaging externally. This article has been drafted by the Delivering Greener Transport team in the Department for Transport. If you would like to get in touch, please contact the DGT Team at dgtsecretariat@dft.gov.uk . Contribute to the CSCEN Blog If you're interested in contributing to the CSCEN Blog, get in touch with us at environment.network@energysecurity.gov.uk . We'd love to hear your ideas!

We were amazed by the large turn out and engagement for our November CSCEN Talk on Climate Misinformation and Disinformation . We sent outstanding audience questions to our speakers after the talk who have kindly responded with some further thoughts and reflections. A full recording of the talk is available on the CSCEN Website . As a reminder, our speakers for this talk were David Shukman (independent speaker, writer and consultant and former BBC Science Editor) and Zaneta Sedilekova (Qualified lawyer and director of climate and nature risk expert consultancy firm Planet Law Lab).    General reflections from David Shukman I found it very heartening to see such a big turnout of civil servants for this discussion. I think that’s quite new. Over the years I’ve engaged with officials of all levels who’ve tended to have a narrow focus on their roles, perhaps understandably. So physical climate impacts were something to do with Defra, anything low carbon was the job of the business department, urban planning was another ministry entirely. The reality is that all these problems – and the solutions – are intertwined and it’s hard to think of a government body that shouldn’t be involved in planning for extreme heat, for example. They all need to be at the table: Treasury, Defence, Transport plus the obvious one of Health. So a starting-point is to think beyond silos, and it’s great to see any sign of that.    However none of this takes place in a vacuum. There’s a constant barrage of pro-oil propaganda whose scale and potency are always underestimated. The oil companies and petrostates are fighting to preserve their interests. This can mean promoting all kinds of ideas and content that can be distorting or false, and these easily ether the political bloodstream. Their tactics are often described as deny, delay and distract, in other words undermine the science, slow down any response and shout ‘look over here’ at some shiny but ineffectual project. I would add a fourth ‘D’ for ‘disarm’. Some of the industry’s leading figures turn up at climate COPs, give media interviews, big up their contributions to the transition, give an impression of willing engagement. A lot of it is snake-oil: schemes that depend on public funding that’s yet to be secured; promises of delivering Net Zero while actually expanding production; making bold claims for cutting emissions that aren’t justified when one reads the caveats tucked away in tiny font sizes.   Critical to countering all of this is employing the clearest possible language. The marketing expert John Marshall says, rightly, that “no one gets out of bed saying ‘it’s a great day for decarbonisation’.  There are ways of talking about climate change accurately but intelligibly, and it couldn’t be more important. I like to picture myself trying to explain some point to my mother or a friend who may be an artist or musician. It takes real effort and thinking but it’s worth it. The world of climate policy is in a spiral of ever more complex concepts and acronyms, many of which are the result of compromises that require words that obscure reality rather than illuminate it. So here’s a challenge: can you talk or write about some aspect of climate change without using words ending ‘-tion’? Not easy, but crack it and you’ll find it makes a difference to the level of engagement and understanding, and what could more useful than that?    Zaneta Sedilekova’s reflections on outstanding audience questions   Do we have the right to make climate mis/disinformation illegal?    I would approach this through the lens of a balance between rights and power, not only a right as such. Legality and illegality of any act in the UK is within the power of the UK government to control. This power is not unfettered – it is restricted by human rights and freedoms of the UK citizens and residents (e.g. the freedom of expression). In making climate mis/disinformation illegal, the UK government therefore has to strike a balance between its power and people’s rights and freedoms.   Precedents exist – hate speech, for example, is illegal under Public Order Act 1986 and Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. The focal point of making climate mis/disinformation illegal is likely to be the definition of both terms – it needs to be specific enough to capture the acts of mis/disinformation, while broad enough to accommodate ever evolving climate science.     Are we moving towards a US-style media ecosystem (including threats to the future of the BBC) and what is the impact on climate dis/misinformation? As such how do we restore trust and integrity in mainstream news media as truth-seeking, especially when criticism is fair as pro-fossil communications are sometimes adopted?    There are signs of it. Media’s function is first and foremost to keep society informed. Facts and news presented objectively are the pinnacle of informed society, followed by opinions and interpretations. The main threats to this purpose of media are:   corporate capture of media, where media present themselves as objective while the content they publish is heavily influenced by their corporate sponsors;    persona journalism, where enterprising and inquiring journalists are replaced by media personalities, who may seem competent and knowledgeable, but in fact have large teams working behind them;    disappearance of local media, where international journalists report on events half the world away, relying on accounts of local people but not verifying these stories themselves;     rise of anti-intellectualism, where art, literature and science are dismissed as impractical or politically motivated – people seek bite-size information, which narrows down complexity of a situation;     AI, which works with words and languages, but lacks intellectual cognition and moral code to determine which words are true and which are not – we have already seen algorithm incite violence; and    surveillance capitalism, where peoples’ behaviour, including exposure to news, is predetermined by private companies and government gathering data on their regular behaviour and influencing their future behaviour.   All these factors interplay with climate dis/misinformation – it is science-based and complex, but needs to be communicated in a simple way to the public. Personas and corporations are not suitable to communicate climate information – this is where my point about the need for fully informed civil service in the UK comes in. It is the government that needs to uphold independent media in relation to climate science (and not only).    Noam Chomsky makes some salient points about the history and the evolution of media in the US in his Masterclass  (no promotion here, just an honest recommendation).     Tobacco companies engaged in the same strategies (as Exxon mentioned previously and the “4Ds”). None of the directors faced any consequences. Do we need to change the way corporations are configured?   Corporate governance indeed needs to change for responsible business to work. However, the changes may not be as radical as some may envisaged. We already have directors at board level representing particular business divisions – e.g. a Finance Director, an HR Director. There is a scope to innovate within existing frameworks – for instance, Faith in Nature appointed  a Nature Director to its board in 2022 and is reportedly undergoing a huge mindset change across the entire business as a result (see the company’s Year 2 report ). I have recently finished a chapter called Corporate Governance for Nature that will be published in The Palgrave Handbook of Environmental Policy and Law in September 2025 , which discusses various approaches to bringing nature into corporate governance. All of them can be replicated for climate. I am happy to share that chapter with you once the editorial revision is completed (early 2025).   As for directors’ liability, the law is changing rapidly in this area. In the UK, we have an authoritative opinion  which states that under the law of England and Wales, directors should consider nature-related risks – in this context nature includes climate too. The opinion states that ‘Directors who fail to give consideration to relevant non-trivial nature-related risks, and take appropriate steps to mitigate them, may be exposed to claims that they have acted in breach of duty .’ The issues with such litigation is its procedural complexity – it is hard to successfully bring a claim against directors personally. This is the area of law, where litigation is not the answer, which is why I recommend looking at corporate governance.      How will the successful appeal by Shell to overturn an obligation to reduce its emissions in Holland (brought by Friends of the Earth) impact similar cases? Is it a good thing (fossil fuels worried action is being taken) or a bad thing (trying to water down transition) when so many fossil fuel folks attend COP29?   The Shell’s victory was multifaceted. First the appeal court actually confirmed that Shell has a ’special responsibility’ and ‘major obligations’ to reduce its emissions. The issues at stake was the extent of this obligation.    The most relevant point that the appeal court made was to say that the 45% reduction target imposed on Shell by the court of first instance was not valid. In essence, there was not enough science, according to the court, to impose such specific target.   This then impacted particular findings through the judgment:    In relation to its Scope 1 and 2 emissions, Shell has adopted 50% reduction target, even more ambitious than the one originally imposed (45%) and thus there was no case to answer;    In relation to Scope 3 emission, the court said there ‘may’ be an obligation to reduce these. May rather than must for two reasons:    There is, as of now, no guidance specific to oil and gas industry about how this sector must reduce its emissions (that is by how much and by when). – now this is where government regulation comes in. When such guidance becomes available, this argument will no longer stand.   There are, as of now, not enough substitutes (e.g. wind and solar) for oil and gas. This means that even if Shell reduced its Scope 3 emissions, another company would step n and supply the fossil fuels with net reduction being effectively zero. There is still demand for fossil fuels that Shell is merely supplying that demand. – this is where a) investments into renewable energy can make a real difference (on the supply side) and government incentive scheme (e.g. on the purchase of electric vehicles) on the demand side.    Court also said that new oil and gas fields may be incompatible with the energy transition.   This was a test case – first of its kind – and it gave climate litigants a clear blueprint for choosing defendants in future. We can therefore expect increase in:   Litigation against sectors with specific reduction pathways is more likely now as and when these are adopted;    Litigation against planning permissions of specific new fossil fuel projects is likely to increase too;   In relation to Scope 3 emissions, under CSRD, many companies will have a duty to prepare a Paris-aligned transition which. This includes their Scope 3 emissions and is likely to require alignment with the EU’s emission reduction goal, which sits at 55% by 2030 relative to 1990 levels.    Litigation is not a silver-bullet solution – having heard all of the above, a responsible company would start transitioning now as the liability risk for not doing so sits very high after this case and upcoming regulatory developments.      Do you believe that civil disobedience is an essential component in tackling climate change and does the harsh sentencing applied to climate activists risk discrediting the movement to tackle climate change?   Civil disobedience is one lever of change, indeed. When you imagine climate action as a continuum, with one end being climate denial and the other climate boycott, many actions sit in between the two extremes, including civil disobedience. All these actions are a form of communication – if we feel out government cannot hear us when we use language, we start screaming and then using other means – our actions – to communicate. This could include non-violent protests, but also violent protest (which we have not seen yet).    Sentencing on its own cannot discredit the movement – it is how such judgments are reported in media, which impacts public perception (we circle all the way back here). If sentencing is perceived as too hash for what the public sees as a legitimate movement, it can alienate judges from the public.       Do you think there would be an issue in promoting more simplified language in climate discussions whilst still maintaining scientific accuracy/complexity?   Not at all – if such language is agreed with scientists and then promoted more widely in media (also social media), it can lead to a powerful climate action. Scientists themselves are already doing this – in this video , for example – Johan Rockstrom, the scientist who developed the planetary boundary framework, uses a simple term ‘the corridor of life’ to describe variability in average temperatures in relation to the flourishing of modern human civilisation, and the presence of our species on this planet. He does so to show that we have no evidence whatsoever as to how ou r t species will come beyond 2 degrees Celsius – as we never had to in the history of our planet.    Contribute to the CSCEN Blog If you're interested in contributing to the CSCEN Blog, get in touch with us at environment.network@energysecurity.gov.uk . We'd love to hear your ideas!

Following the conclusion of COP29, CSCEN's Emilio Risoli looks at what the final NCQG deal means for international climate finance. Activists protest for climate finance at COP29. Credit: Reuters COP29 was billed as the “finance COP”, and “ the most important for climate finance since…COP15 in 2009 ”. This is because, at COP15, countries established a climate financing target of $100 billion annually for 15 years, and that pledge expires at the end of this year. The general consensus among negotiators in Baku was that a more ambitious goal was needed, to help poorer countries adopt low-carbon solutions and build resilience to worsening climate impacts. In his opening remarks to the ministerial-level World Leaders Climate Action Summit at COP29, UN Secretary-General Antonio Gutierres declared that “ COP29 must tear down the walls of climate finance ”. He outlined the obstacles facing poorer countries – scant public finance, high levels of debt, the increased cost of borrowing – and stressed that they “must not leave Baku empty-handed…or humanity will pay the price”. By the time a deal was finally agreed at 3am local time on Sunday, richer countries pledged to pay $300 billion (£238 billion) each year, by 2035, to help vulnerable nations tackle climate change. New Collective Quantified Goals on Climate Finance A relatively new acronym has taken centre stage at COP29: NCQG. This stands for New Collective Quantified Goal – which simply means the new annual target for climate finance, which countries have spent the conference trying to agree on. At this point, it’s probably worth clarifying what is meant by “climate finance”. According to the UNFCCC , “climate finance refers to local, national or transnational financing – drawn from public, private and alternative sources of financing – that seeks to support mitigation and adaptation actions that will address climate change”. That is, government or private money spent on clean energy, low-carbon technologies, or adaptation measures. It’s also worth noting at this point that this is different to the Loss and Damage Fund, which is effectively a form of compensation  paid by richer countries to low-income ones, to help them pay for the damage caused by climate-related natural disasters. You might have noticed that the UNFCCC definition is not very precise when it comes to the type of financing being referred to: are we talking about grants or loans, for example? Is this about aid or investment? In fact, this has been a source of contention during negotiations and the subsequent agreement. Negotiations in Baku Negotiations in Baku over the NCQG were widely reported as tense. According to the New York Times : “just days into the talks, there were pointed comments from the leaders and squabbling in the negotiating rooms about the details, including exactly how much money should be raised, who should pay, where it should come from and how it should be spent.” On the question of “how much”, developing countries, environmental activists and climate economists seemed generally in agreement: over $1 trillion a year was required to ensure alignment with the Paris Agreement. Where those funds would come from was a further point of dispute, with the US and EU reportedly indicating that they want countries like China and Saudi Arabia to provide a growing share of the funds. There was further disagreement on how much of the money should come from the private sector and, as referenced above, how much should be provided as aid. In a letter to governments, a coalition of activists and scientific organisations argued that all the money should be provided in the form of grants, and warned that the provision of loans would only compound the debt woes of poorer countries . Agreeing the Deal It was this fraught context which prompted Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, in the aftermath of the agreed $300 billion deal, to declare: “This is a critical eleventh hour deal at the eleventh hour for the climate. It is not everything we or others wanted but is a step forward for us all”. However, not everyone agreed with this assessment. Jasper Inventor, head of Greenpeace’s delegation, called the proposal “inadequate”, and “ divorced from the reality of climate impacts ” . Mohammed Adow, from the environmental group Power Shift Africa, described the deal as “ a slap in the face ”. So, what does the final agreement actually say? The key paragraph reads as follows: The Conference of the Parties “decides to set a goal…with developed country Parties taking the lead, of at least USD 300 billion per year by 2035 for developing country Parties for climate action: (a) From a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources; (b) In the context of meaningful and ambitious mitigation and adaptation action, and transparency in implementation; (c) Recognizing the voluntary intention of Parties to count all climate-related outflows from and climate-related finance mobilized by multilateral development banks towards achievement of the goal set forth in this paragraph”. Find the full text here . Notice that it specifies that the money must come from developed countries (i.e. not the likes of China or Saudi Arabia), but also that it does not specify the source of the money. Public, private and “alternative” sources are all included. What Next Key challenges lie ahead, not least in ensuring that action follows ambition (even if the ambition is not quite as high as many hoped). Many point to the fact that in the 15 years since COP15, the $100 billion annual target was met in full only once, in 2022. Making sure that this target is met will require further global cooperation. Remember that debate, referenced earlier, around what kind of money constitutes climate finance? That is sure to continue, and it will probably focus on the role of taxation. President Macron of France joined Barbadian Prime Minister Mia Mottley and Kenyan President William Ruto in calling for a 0.1% levy on stock and bond trades, along with a a tax levied on oil and gas producers. Meanwhile, Brazil’s president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, has proposed a 2% billionaire tax that could raise $250 billion while affecting only 100 families across the world. A frequent flyer levy is another sure way to raise funds in wealthy countries, and a recent Oxfam study found that fair taxes on private jets and superyachts in the UK could have raised up to £2 billion last year alone . Furthermore, they find that 4 in 5 Brits support higher taxes on luxury travel . However, these types of interventions often face powerful opposition, and richer countries often see climate finance as more of an investment opportunity than a direct cash transfer. One mooted solution has been that of wiping the debt of poor countries in exchange for climate investment . A further unknown is the impending Trump presidency: it is expected that the US will withdraw from the Paris agreement , and this prospect would undoubtedly have loomed over the negotiations. Indeed, commentators have suggested that this is a reason the final number was less than developing countries were hoping for. According to Professor Joanna Depledge, an expert on international climate negotiations at Cambridge University, " the other developed country donors are acutely aware that Trump will not pay a penny and they will have to make up the shortfall ". As the crowds dispersed in Baku, Mike Childs, head of policy at Friends of the Earth, perhaps summed up what many were feeling. He credited the UK delegation for playing a productive role during the talks, but also acknowledged that COP29 "kicked the can down the road", and " failed to solve the question of climate finance ". What is for sure is that global efforts in raising climate finance will need to continue to be ramped up from here on in. With or without the US, the UK must continue to play a productive and cooperative role. Contribute to the CSCEN Blog If you're interested in contributing to the CSCEN Blog, get in touch with us at environment.network@energysecurity.gov.uk . We'd love to hear your ideas!

This month, Cara Burke takes a look at AI's potential to both spread dangerous climate misinformation , and play an active role in tackling the spread of climate misinformation . Last month, we had a look at AI’s capability to tackle climate and emissions challenges in The Artificial Intelligence for Decarbonisation Innovation Programme . But for all of AI’s potential in tackling the climate crisis, there is concern over its negative impacts: it requires a huge amount of energy to run, and it has the ability to spread dangerous climate misinformation further and faster. What is climate misinformation? The World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2024  identified misinformation and disinformation as the biggest global short-term risk, and extreme weather events as the most severe long-term risk. The landscape of climate misinformation is changing. Where it used to be dominated by an outright denial of global warming, “New Denial” is more nuanced , and focusses on suggesting climate change is the sole responsibility of individuals rather than governments, industry, companies or society; pushing for ineffective solutions for reducing GHG emissions rather than addressing root causes; highlighting solely short-term costs of climate policies; and suggesting we are “doomed” already and it is too late to take meaningful action. According to analysis from the Center for Countering Digital Hate, New Denial now constitutes 70% of climate denialist claims on YouTube . This more nuanced misinformation is much harder to identify and tackle and could be impactful in a society where most people believe the science of human-driven climate change. Climate misinformation can also influence the perception of public attitudes to climate change, which has dangerous implications if world leaders perceive the public as being unsupportive of climate policies. The People’s Climate Vote 2024 survey  found that globally, 72% of people want their country to move away from fossil fuels to clean energy quickly, and 80% of people want their country to do more. One study by the University of Leeds found that in the UK, most people are supportive of even the most stringent climate policies . The assistant secretary general of the UN, Selwin Hart, has warned that the idea of increasing “backlash” against climate action is being perpetuated by the fossil fuel industry to persuade world leaders to delay emissions-cutting policies . What are the risks of AI use in spreading climate misinformation? The World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2024  warns of the major societal risks of advanced AI and identifies misinformation and disinformation as the most severe short-term risk. It warns that AI models have already enabled an “explosion in falsified information and so-called “synthetic” content”, and have enhanced the volume, reach and efficacy of falsified information.  Newsguard have identified 1,110 websites that publish unreliable AI-generated articles with little to no human oversight , and on Twitter, false news has been found to spread further, faster, deeper, and more broadly than real news . Climate action against disinformation (CAAD), a coalition of 50 climate and anti-disinformation organisations, have released a report warning of the AI threats to climate change , including its potential to spread disinformation campaigns. Charlie Cray, Senior Strategist at Greenpeace USA, said “Governments and companies must stop pretending that increasing equipment efficiencies and directing AI tools towards weather disaster responses are enough to mitigate AI’s contribution to the climate emergency.” AI models are clearly a risk to the climate emergency, but there is some evidence that, when used well, they could be an active agent in combatting climate misinformation. What are the risks of AI use in spreading climate misinformation? The CAAD report had 3 major policy recommendations for tech companies and regulators to adopt and implement, under the headlines of transparency, safety and accountability. The CAAD coalition called on governments to develop common standards on AI safety reporting and work with the IPCC to develop coordinated global oversight. It emphasised that regulation will be very important in tackling climate misinformation perpetuated by AI models, but that identifying AI-generated content and tracking down the origin and flows of misinformation is becoming more difficult. AI models could offer a way to detect AI-generated climate misinformation and tackle its spread. A team of Australian and British researchers have developed the AI model CARDS . “[We’re] ultimately trying to solve what misinformation researchers call ‘the Holy Grail of fact-checking, which is detecting and debunking misinformation in real time,” said John Cook, a senior research fellow at the University of Melbourne who co-developed the AI model. CARDS was originally trained on material such as climate denial blogs but has now been updated using a database of millions of climate-related tweets. It currently detects climate misinformation roughly 90% of the time. Though it would still require more work before being deployed on digital platforms, it is a promising step, and highlights the potential for AI to be used to effectively combat its own problem in tackling climate misinformation online. Contribute to the CSCEN Blog If you're interested in contributing to the CSCEN Blog, get in touch with us at environment.network@energysecurity.gov.uk . We'd love to hear your ideas!

It rains all the time, so we must have ample water. Or do we? Gavyn Cooper , Senior Policy Adviser in Defra's Water Efficiency and Demand Management team, outlines why we should be aware of water scarcity, and provides some suggestions on how we can all address it. The United Kingdom recorded an average of 1,290ml of rainfall in 2023. Precipitation peaked at the turn of century, with an annual average of 1,373ml of rainfall . Despite the UK being known for its rainy weather, much of the country in reality faces water scarcity. You might be surprised to hear that London gets around half of the annual average rainfall of Sydney, Australia. The public, businesses (such as those in the farming and energy sectors) and wildlife all rely on a steady supply of clean water. The average water use per person per day is 142 litres in England and Wales, 165 litres in Scotland, and 145 litres in Northern Ireland. Water is what makes life possible on our planet. It is essential for human health and wellbeing, for wildlife, and for our economy – including the production of food. The UK is blessed by our range of rivers, lakes, wetlands and coastlines. We host migratory ducks, geese, and waders, as well as 85% of the world’s rare chalk streams. Climate change is already impacting our water resources through more intense drought and flooding, so we need to go further to deliver clean and plentiful water. Growing demand for water (due to population increase) and more extensive periods of drought due to climate change are projected to create a supply-demand gap in the future if we do not cut waste and improve water efficiency. Many parts of our country will face significant ‘water deficits’ by 2050, particularly in the south-east where the majority of the population resides. The map below indicates the varying levels of rainfall over the last 30 years. This means it is vital that we increase water efficiency by using what we have more carefully, minimising the water removed from our rivers and aquifers. We currently use about 14 billion litres of water per day and will need a further 5 billion by 2050 . Saving water also saves money, especially for households on a water meter. So, installing simple devices such as water-efficient taps and showerheads will save both water and energy. Research by the Energy Saving trust indicates that shower and toilet water usage amounts to around 50% of total domestic use. How we can all save water As set out by the environmental NGO Waterwise, we can all save water in a number of ways: Switch your shower head to a water efficient aerated shower head, which reduces the flow without compromising on pressure, reducing litres per minute from 12 to 6. Upgrade your toilet to a water efficient dual flush toilet, reducing cistern flush volume from around 13 litres in older toilets to 6 (or lower) litres per flush. Don’t worry – this is more than enough water to complete the flush! Identify and fix a ‘leaky loo’: speak to your water company to arrange a free home visit. Always make sure your dishwasher and washing machine are full before running them, and use the most water-efficient cycles. Stop watering your lawn: it’s ok to let your grass go brown during dry spells. If you have to use a sprinkler, try to use it in the early morning or late afternoon, when evaporation rates are lowest. See Waterwise for many other water saving tips. You can also visit your water company website for advice and free water efficient products. Contribute to the CSCEN Blog This was a guest blog from one of our CSCEN members. If you're interested in contributing to the CSCEN Blog, get in touch with us at environment.network@energysecurity.gov.uk . We'd love to hear your ideas!

In the latest article of our Spotlight on Policy series, Emilio Risoli looks at the The Artificial Intelligence for Decarbonisation Innovation Programme , and what it can tell us about the future role of AI in efforts to green our economy. Image credit: NextEnergy Group Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly coming to dominate conversations around the future of our society. Consulting firm McKinsey, for example, proclaim that " generative AI’s impact on productivity could add trillions of dollars in value to the global economy ". The IMF, meanwhile, predict that as many as 60% of jobs in rich countries may be impacted by AI. AI's role in addressing climate change is more contested, however. Google, who are developing their own AI programme called Gemini, argue that it has the ability to mitigate 5-10% of global greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 . In response, a coalition of environmental groups have warned of AI's potential to "massively increase energy use" , pointing to the huge electricity demand that it places on data centres. With this in mind, the challenge for policymakers becomes one of finding the right interventions. In the right places and at the right times, AI can make a positive difference - especially if the resultant energy demand is manageable and serviced largely by renewable energy. The AI for Decarbonisation Innovation Programme The UK government have started to develop policies to support the use of AI in decarbonisation efforts, and the AI for Decarbonisation Innovation Programme is one such example. Part of the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero's £1 billion Net Zero Innovation Portfolio (NZIP) fund, the programme has committed over £3 million worth of funding across 17 artificial intelligence projects. While the amounts awarded are relatively small compared to other technologies - for example, £385 million is set aside for the nuclear arm of the NZIP fund - looking at where the money has gone is a good early indicator of the potentials of AI when it comes to decarbonisation. Stream 1: enabling cross-sector collaboration Stream 1 of the programme has awarded £500,000 to a project led by Digital Catapult, in partnership with Energy Systems Catapult and the Alan Turing Institute. The funding will go towards the creation of the AI for Decarbonisation's Virtual Centre for Excellence (ADViCE), designed to promote the UK's AI knowledge base and drive collaboration across the energy, agriculture, manufacturing, building and AI sectors. The project acts a starting point in coordinating the use of AI, and has the potential to direct the technology towards green projects that can benefit from its solutions. It aims to do this by (1) identifying strategic and priority decarbonisation challenges which are tractable to AI solutions, (2) facilitating the subsequent dissemination of knowledge on these challenges, and then (3) signposting relevant stakeholders (such as AI developers or investors) towards the identified innovation opportunities. This is all mediated through ADViCE, which acts as the enabling hub. In their report highlighting some of the decarbonisation challenges that AI could help to address , reading effectively as a mission statement, ADViCE offer some suggestions for how AI can help in areas that are difficult to decarbonise. They split this up according to sector, with some of their suggestions outlined below: Agriculture : AI can help to accurately and quickly understand the amount of fertiliser required for a particular patch of soil, thus limiting emissions resulting from the overuse of fertiliser. Buildings : at the planning stage, AI can be used to identify optimal retrofit pathways for different properties, according to their needs. For consumers, this can be combined with personalised information and guidance, which can help to reduce costs and maximise retrofit uptake. Energy infrastructure : AI can help to accurately identify the best location for new grid and renewable infrastructure through evaluating millions of different potential routes. This has the potential to minimise the costs of renewable energy for consumers. Manufacturing : AI can expedite the design of new low-carbon feedstock alternatives by performing simulation-based testing of millions of options to produce designer molecules and chemicals. The basic idea is that the virtual centre will accelerate the deployment of AI to green ends, perhaps in some of the ways outlined above, through the sharing of knowledge and by connecting relevant stakeholders. Streams 2 and 3: AI decarbonisation solutions Streams 2 and 3 of The AI for Decarbonisation Innovation Programme commit funding to specific projects that are putting AI to use in this kind of way. Solar forecasting Stream 2 includes two projects that use AI for solar forecasting - the process of predicting a photovoltaic (PV) system's future electricity generation. An Open Climate Fix project has received £121,500 for their AI model which will forecast hyper-local solar PV generation by combining real-time electricity grid data with satellite imagery and weather data. Meanwhile, a University of Nottingham project has been awarded £134,000 to create a similar model designed to improve the prediction accuracy of short- to medium-term solar PV production. These projects will allow for improved grid management and a reduction in emissions. This is because the power output from solar PV fluctuates according to cloud cover, which necessitate readily available gas reserves (known as the spinning reserve) that can generate power on cloudy days. Through improved forecast modelling, National Grid could reduce the amount of spinning reserve required, and hence reduce emissions. Concrete manufacturing Funding has also been allocated to two AI projects designed to reduce waste in concrete manufacturing, a notoriously hard-to-decarbonise sector. Carbon Re  have been awarded £135,000 for their AI platform designed to reduce emissions in the manufacturing of cement through the use of alternative fuels. The funding will go towards upgrades to the platform that will help identify an optimum fuel mix, in order to improve emission reductions from 8% to 20%. In a similar vein, concrete manufacturer FP McCann  have also received £110,600 of project funding. This will be put towards the development of AI decision making systems that can finely tune the ingredients of the concrete aggregate (the raw materials that are mixed with cement to make concrete) to reduce waste and consume less carbon-intensive materials. Image credit: Futurity Microgeneration In stream 3, Open Power have been awarded £313,700 for their platform that allows individuals who generate their own energy on-site (microgenerators) to export any surplus energy to the grid. In other words, if you own rooftop solar panels that are creating more energy than you are using, you are able to sell that surplus energy to the market, and Open Power facilitate this process. They use AI-powered algorithmic trading to ensure that microgenerators get good returns for their energy at any given time, thus incentivising renewable microgeneration by increasing its profitability. Electrifying commercial vehicle fleets Flexible Power Systems - who use AI to simplify the electrification of commercial vehicle fleets - have received £209,360 for their automated vehicle fleet management platform. Their clients include Sainsbury's, Waitrose and Argos, and although electric vehicles (EVs) represent a still very small proportion of delivery fleets, there is slow movement in that direction: Sainsbury's, for example, have now electrified the entirety of its fleet at its Nine Elms store in London . Flexible Power Systems offer a service that schedules an EV fleet's operations in order to enable the smart allocation of vehicles to routes, thus ensuring efficient energy usage and reduced costs. The platform also takes into account charging windows, indicating when and where to charge the EVs to avoid peak prices. In terms of wider impacts, the use of AI in simplifying EV fleet management is a good example of its potential to accelerate the green transition. By ensuring efficiencies and reducing the cost of the transition, AI solutions might therefore boost the uptake of green technologies: in this case, by ensuring cost savings through more efficient energy usage, Flexible Power Systems might encourage commercial companies with a fleet of transport vehicles to switch from petrol to EVs. It is worth considering these knock-on effects when assessing the green potentials of AI. Conclusion ADViCE explain how "AI is one tool  which can help tackle challenges (or elements of challenges) which are difficult to address with other approaches". In this sense, they provide a different answer to the debate referenced at the start of the article: AI may not cut 10% of global emissions as Google suggest and may not be a barrier to climate progress as some environmental groups argue but, used correctly, it can act as a facilitator in attempts to tackle complex decarbonisation challenges. This is because, they affirm, "the techniques and methods of AI, applied to increasing amounts of collected data, can provide insights and models of complex phenomenon and relationships which previously had been intractable". The as of yet unresolved element is, as referenced initially, the vast amounts of energy needed to sustain the data centres that power AI systems. More than anything, this points to the need to use AI in moderation and in full awareness of its energy implications. And the Artificial Intelligence for Decarbonisation Innovation Programme, by first identifying the key priority challenges that AI can help address and by then allocating funding accordingly, is a good example of how UK government policymakers are doing just this. Contribute to the CSCEN Blog If you're interested in contributing to the CSCEN Blog, get in touch with us at environment.network@energysecurity.gov.uk . We'd love to hear your ideas!

Following Labour's general election victory last month, CSCEN's Emilio Risoli looks at the policy and delivery implications of their clean energy mission. To do so, he draws on recently published reports from think tanks Regen and Nesta. Source: Getty Images One of the five core missions that Labour have set themselves, and which their success will be judged upon, is that of making Britain a "clean energy superpower". Central to this mission are two energy-related commitments: 1) delivering clean power by 2030, and 2) getting Britain back on track in decarbonising home heating. To understand a bit more about what this means for policymakers, it is worth looking at two recently published reports from clean energy think tanks, Regen and Nesta. They give an idea of some of the options available to new Energy Secretary, Ed Miliband, and provide some suggestions for policy priorities in the upcoming parliament. Labour's manifesto pledges In their manifesto, Labour committed to taking "decisive action" to "make Britain a clean energy superpower". Labour says that its clean energy by 2030 mission "represents a huge opportunity to generate growth, tackle the cost-of-living crisis and make Britain energy independent once again". They go on to explain how they will do this: First and foremost, they will deliver clean power by "work[ing] with the private sector to double onshore wind, triple solar power and quadruple offshore wind". They will also reform the energy system. This will be done through "a much tougher system of regulation", as well as "work[ing] with industry to upgrade our national transmission infrastructure and rewire Britain". Additionally, an extra £6.6 billion of investment over the next parliament will go towards making buildings more energy efficient through the Warm Homes Plan. This funding will go towards "grants and low interest loans to support investment in insulation and other improvements such as solar panels, batteries and low carbon heating", and the plan will be rolled out through partnerships with local authorities, devolved governments, and the private sector. Regen and Nesta With Ed Miliband and his junior ministers now in post at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ), civil servants in the department are working through exactly what the policy substance of the mission will look like. Think tanks Regen and Nesta have provided recommendations for how the Government could deliver against some of these Labour manifesto pledges. In their report on Accelerating clean British Power, Regen offer suggestions for the priority actions that Labour can take to accelerate energy market reform and kick start their ambition for clean power by 2030. Meanwhile, Nesta's Delivering clean heat report zooms in on Labour's Warm Homes Plan and offers a policy plan to transform home heating. Accelerating clean power Regen lay out 5 policy priorities which they argue could set Labour on track to successfully deliver clean power by 2030: Set out a plan with clear remits for delivery bodies Ofgem and the National Energy System Operator (NESO) Take action on the grid to tackle the gridlock and upgrade electricity networks Accelerate a progressive reform programme for energy markets, to support a renewables-based power system Reform the planning system to prioritise clean energy and maximise local benefits Ensure a just transition to clean power, where the benefits are felt across society. They outline a few of the immediate actions required to deliver each priority. The table below summarises some of these key recommendations. Delivering clean heat Similarly, Nesta outline their 6 recommended priorities for policymakers in the clean heat space: Make strategic choices on heating, providing a clear and consistent approach to reduce uncertainty and manage trade offs in the heat transition Make low-carbon heating more affordable, aiming for, at least, cost parity with boilers Deliver the transition at scale through a new and improved delivery architecture Phase out fossil fuel heating Support consumers through the transition Grow the heating workforce, through both supporting existing heating engineers to switch to low-carbon heating and attracting new entrants to the sector. The table below summarises their specific policy recommendations. Going even further While Regen and Nesta provide a wide-ranging list of recommendations to kick-start Labour's clean energy mission - from cutting waiting times for energy grid connections to enforcing a boiler ban - it is by no means exhaustive. In his first address to staff at DESNZ, Ed Miliband encouraged civil servants to "speak truth to power", emphasising the importance of critical thinking. Nesta urge policymakers to "explore the case for more radical reforms". They suggest "there may also be a case for considering more radical funding options, such as financing low-carbon heating as part of the energy sector’s Regulated Asset Base, or socialising some of the cost of transition through energy bills". At this critical juncture, policymakers should not shy away from reimagining what the energy system should look like. As we get closer to 2050, surely the need for such creative policy thinking will only grow. To explore these recommendations in more detail, find Regen's paper on "Accelerating clean British power" here, and Nesta's full policy plan for "Delivering clean heat" here. Contribute to the CSCEN Blog If you're interested in contributing to the CSCEN Blog, get in touch with us at environment.network@energysecurity.gov.uk. We'd love to hear your ideas!

For CSCEN's June Careers talk, we hosted Pamela Swaby. From the private sector to National Crime Agency to Head of Portfolio (Net Zero) Management in SICE, Pamela Swaby provides some interesting insights into coping with challenges, stress, perceptions and confidence in the workplace. Event recording Upcoming events Browse our Events Calendar to watch more events like this and to register for future ones.

As part of May's focus on Enabling Green Choices, CSCEN's Emilio Risoli unpacks a study commissioned by the CCC on The Implications of Behavioural Science for Effective Climate Policy. Find the full report here. A recent report published by the UK Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformations (CAST), and commissioned by the Climate Change Committee (CCC), concludes that government intervention is required to achieve the scale of behaviour change necessary to deliver the UK’s climate mitigation and adaptation goals. The authors, academics at the University of Bath, use insights from behavioural science to draw out policy recommendations. They start their analysis with wider cross-sectoral recommendations – i.e. upstream interventions, communicating with the public clearly, and getting the timing right – before offering specific policy recommendations across 7 key areas, ranging from aviation demand to land use. Moving Upstream The review finds that, to achieve large-scale behavioural shifts, interventions should apply “midstream” and “upstream” approaches that remove barriers to behaviour change. This means that, rather than simply trying to change individuals’ decision-making through “downstream” interventions (e.g. by providing information), policymakers should focus on interventions that create an enabling environment (midstream) and shift norms through targeting the mechanics of the system (upstream). In other words, rather than simply encouraging individuals to make greener choices, policy should be geared towards removing the barriers to behaviour change and creating enabling environments for low-carbon, climate resilient behaviour. And this is a necessary interjection. Recent policy reviews suggest a preference amongst policymakers for downstream approaches. And while “this may partly be due to political reluctance to intervene in lifestyles”, this approach has “limited efficacy”. Instead, the report concludes, making the greener choice the cheapest and easiest option is the best way to encourage behaviour change. Honest Conversations The report emphasises that this won’t all be plain sailing. They warn that this form of intervention will “restrict some behaviours and incentivise others”. For example, managing the demand for flights and engendering diet change will undoubtedly come up against opposition from jet-setters and meat-eaters. The government should, therefore, send “clear, consistent signals that climate change is a priority across the whole economy”, and have “an honest conversation with the public” about what this means. Communication and engagement is a key aspect of this. The report finds that “there remains a lack of public understanding of the transformations required to reach net zero and adapt to climate change”. How should policymakers go about filling in these knowledge gaps? One suggestion the report makes is a coordinated cross-government communication campaign: “More broadly, there is a need for a cross-sectoral public engagement strategy as a framework to tie together the various behavioural interventions into a compelling climate transition narrative…A public engagement strategy would set out processes for more active involvement of the public in shaping a Net Zero, climate resilient future and communicate the scale of lifestyle changes needed to deliver on climate targets.” Timing Matters The report also finds that habits are most malleable during key moments of change. Therefore, policy interventions work better during key decision-points for individuals, such as moving house or graduating from university. The same applies to exogenous moments of change. For instance, farmers might be more willing to implement climate adaptation strategies following extreme weather events, and energy crises might trigger energy efficiency measures by householders and businesses. In short, well-timed policies can help shift the dial towards net zero. Recommendations across 7 key sectors The report then proceeds to make some more specific recommendations for a few key sectors in which behaviour change is required. These recommendations come from a detailed literature review, a call for evidence, and a workshop with expert stakeholders from academia, policy and business. Below I summarise some of the recommendations that they classify as “very important”. These examples are not merely prescriptive, but rather provide an idea of what sort of interventions might lead to better outcomes. Diet Change – reducing the consumption of high-carbon foods. Advertisement regulations for (red) meat Making plant-based food more available (e.g. through public provisioning) Introducing a carbon version of the sugar levy - which might lead to a switch to more sustainable diets by way of producers reformulating recipes or production processes to reduce emissions. Reducing end-user consumption – encouraging consumers to consume less, repair, reuse and recycle. Policymakers could introduce improved rules for selling food with less packaging, and when packaging is required, this should be done under the Extended Producer Responsibility regulation intended to incentivise business to use less/better packaging. Legislation should mandate a ‘reasonable price for repair’, i.e. all common repairs must be substantially cheaper than buying a replacement. Aviation demand – reducing demand for flights, which account for 7% of the UK’s total emissions. A progressive and fair tax on flying – such as a Frequent Flyer Levy or Frequent Airmiles Tax. A ban on short-haul flights, accompanied by policies that make alternative transport cheaper. This has already been implemented in France. Restrictions on advertising of flying, along with clear communication about why reducing demand is necessary to meet climate goals. Adaptation – encouraging behaviour that increases preparedness to climate-related risks (such as heatwaves, floods etc.). Upstream approaches that: 1) remove financial barriers, and/or 2) target landowners and homeowners – e.g. policies that incentivise homeowners to make homes energy efficient, such as through the provision of interest-free loans. Consistent and targeted behavioural advice, with messages framed to the needs and values of the target population. E.g. advice to the agricultural sector might focus on co-benefits of climate adaptation for productivity. Net zero skills and careers – helping workers develop green skills, to facilitate the transition to a green economy. Policies that encourage employers to provide training opportunities for staff – e.g. training on how to install heat pumps. Policies aimed at upskilling young people, such as those that mandate companies to invest in green apprenticeships. Business – transition of businesses to sustainability via ‘eco-innovation’. Market-based regulations, such as tax breaks and command-and-control measures – this is because, they find, behavioural change in business is driven by a focus on productivity growth. Differentiating between small and large businesses, and tailoring regulations to each. Redefining the role of local government, so that they can provide local solutions – e.g. repurposing one business’s waste to be the source material for another. Policies aimed at educating managers and CEOs about climate change and the need for behaviour change. Land use and farming – facilitating the switch from carbon-intensive farming practices (e.g. livestock rearing) towards low-carbon ones (e.g. afforestation). The academics find that the best way to encourage green behaviour is through the use of financial incentives and grant schemes. However, the current application process for grants is seen as too complex and involving too much bureaucracy by those working in agriculture, so these schemes need to be simple and provide assurances to allay fears about losing control of land. Transparent consultations with members of the agricultural community, to ensure farmers’ opinions are considered during policy design. Conclusion This study finds that, in order to achieve the scale of behaviour change required to deliver the UK’s climate mitigation and adaptation goals, policymakers need to intervene at both the individual and system level. These interventions should focus on communicating clearly, regulating carbon-intensive activity, and providing financial incentives for the greener option. However, there remains the obvious challenge of getting the public to accept the scale of policy intervention required. For this, they offer two final insights: Firstly, policies need to be “perceived to be effective in reaching their goals”, in order to be accepted. As such, policymakers should strive to clearly communicate the policy’s ability to reduce risks and achieve its desired consequences. Second, policy acceptability is increased if the policy is perceived as fair for all, and does not disproportionately impact marginalised groups. Consequently, they recommend drawing on the ‘polluter-pays’ principle, in which those most responsible for emissions are most impacted. One further way to get the public on board, they conclude, would be reinvesting policy-generated revenue into environmental initiatives that benefit the public, such as low-carbon, accessible public transport. Contribute to the CSCEN Blog If you're interested in contributing to the CSCEN Blog, get in touch with us at environment.network@energysecurity.gov.uk. We'd love to hear your ideas!

For the latest article in our 'Spotlight on Policy' series, CSCEN's Emilio Risoli looks at a Coal Authority-led initiative exploring the potential for mine water to heat our homes and buildings. According to a recently published National Audit Office report, decarbonising building heating is one of the biggest challenges facing the government in its attempt to achieve net zero. The report outlines that while “most buildings use natural gas for heating, with 86% of homes in Great Britain connected to the gas grid”, we must now replace this with “low-carbon heating systems such as heat pumps, heat networks and potentially hydrogen”. The size of the challenge is huge. The Energy Systems Catapult say that “converting [buildings] to low carbon heating over the next 30 years to 2050 is a similar sized task as the switch to central heating” – which took 30 years to increase from 30% of homes (in 1970) to 90% (in 2000). Policymakers are rising to this challenge, and one potentially transformative innovation is the use of naturally-heated water that sits in decommissioned mines to heat homes and buildings across the UK. The Coal Authority lead on this policy, and assert that this localised, secure, low carbon heat has the potential to replace the function of traditional boiler systems. Heat networks and geothermal energy At the moment, 3% of the UK’s current heating provision comes from heat networks. However, teams in DESNZ are working towards increasing this to 20%, which is its predicted market share in the Climate Change Committee’s net zero scenario. A heat network is a network of pipes that distribute heat from a central source to multiple buildings. In urban areas, they are often the lowest cost, low-carbon heating solution. Heat networks are uniquely able to use sources of heat that would otherwise go to waste: this includes literal waste materials, the waste heat from computer data centres, and geothermal energy – that is, all the energy stored in the form of heat beneath the earth’s surface. Harnessing geothermal energy involves extracting naturally-heated subsurface water up to the surface, and using it to heat up the water in pipes across a particular heat network. This technology is not particularly new, either. Indeed, Greater Paris has been using geothermal energy for heating since 1969, and today around 50 heating networks supply geothermal heat to 250,000 Parisian households. How mine water heating works The high volume of shallow subsurface water stored in disused mines can act as a source of this kind of geothermal energy through the following steps: The warm water is brought to the surface Heat exchangers and heat pumps on the surface recover heat from the water, and boost the temperature further This is used to heat up a separate, clean loop of water, which is carried into buildings via pipes After heat recovery, the now cooler mine water is returned back underground, and the water slowly filters back through the flooded mine system and warms back up ready to be used again. What is the potential of mine water heat? Significantly, many of our nation’s largest towns and cities grew around coal reserves. As such there is a good match between densely populated areas with high heat demand, and areas of disused mines: the Coal Authority estimate that 25% of homes and businesses in the UK are located above former coal mines. Moreover, mine water temperatures are not affected by seasonal variations, making it a secure source of energy. I spoke to Gareth Farr (Head of Heat and By-product Innovation at the Coal Authority) about this, and he reiterated that the geology of the UK combined with its strong industrial heritage provides the country with a unique opportunity to harness the potential of this energy source. And it is certainly an innovative solution. A lot of the work that the Coal Authority does, Gareth explained, is attempting to mitigate the risks associated with the presence of mine water. For example, when this water leaks out and flows into rivers, it can pollute water supplies, and so work is needed to treat this water and render it harmless. The prospect of using this reservoir of dirty water to provide low carbon heating and, in doing so, turning a liability into an asset, is a prime example of how the net zero transition can have wide-ranging benefits: renewable energy that renews our towns and communities. A proven success: Gateshead mine water heat network This is not just in concept form; in fact, mine water heat networks are already operational in the UK.[1] The largest such network was delivered by Gateshead council, and went live around one year ago on publication. The numbers make for good reading: The network supplies heat to 350 council-owned homes, Gateshead College, the Baltic Arts Centre, the Glasshouse International Centre for Music, a lubricants manufacturer and several offices. It has future plans to connect to 270 private homes, a new conference centre and a hotel. The scheme cost a total of £15 million, and was in part funded by the government’s Heat Network Investment Project (which provided close to £6m in funding). Significantly, it has an expected pay back within the predicted 40-year lifespan of the network, and the project ensures that customer bills will remain at least 5% below the market rate for gas. Furthermore, the mine water heat pump is powered by a solar farm that has been developed next to the abstraction wells – truly a prototype for renewable home heating. Looking ahead It is clear that, in the future, mine water can form an important part of the renewable energy mix. Gareth Farr is upbeat about its potential, and he believes that the UK is well placed to become a world leader in the sector. Equally as important is the fact that it can bring former coal communities along with the net zero transition: it keeps alive the significant effort made by these communities, and creates a sense of inter-generational continuity. There is also something significant about the cyclicality of this, as what was once a site of carbon-intensive energy production is repurposed to produce a greener form of energy. In this sense, using mine water for heating has the potential to address two distinct political challenges: decarbonising our energy system, but also reducing regional inequality (or “levelling up”). Clearly, this is the kind of joined-up policy thinking that we need to make the net zero transition a success. Gareth Farr has kindly offered to field any questions on the topic. Feel free to contact him at garethfarr@coal.gov.uk or on X, @garethfarr1. [1] Other significant heat networks are operational across Europe; the most notable of these are schemes in Heerlen, the Netherlands, and Asturias, Spain. All images used are property of the Coal Authority. Contribute to the CSCEN Blog If you're interested in contributing to the CSCEN Blog, get in touch with us at environment.network@energysecurity.gov.uk. We'd love to hear your ideas!

New research on a project aiming to restore 100 hectares of land in 34 countries in Africa (AFR100), shows that restoration programmes delivered by planting trees in non-forest ecosystems are threatening the conservation of local habitats. Research conducted by Catherine L.Parr, Mariska te Beest, and Nicola Stevens analysed the AFR100 initiative by using tools such as RESOLVE and the World Resources Institute Atlas and found that almost all restoration programmes under this initiative are posing risks to the conservation of local ecosystems. By mapping areas classed as forests (or otherwise), and by applying a Landscape Integrity Index to establish the integrity level forests would need to undergo restoration, the study concluded that a total of 70.1 million hectares in Africa, an area about the size of France, have been committed to being restored through reforestation or tree planting and are in non-forest ecosystems (effectively grassland, or savannah). But how can afforestation threaten ecosystems? When it comes to ecosystem restoration projects, there are three main challenges that emerge: 1. Restoration based on reforestation and tree-planting At an international level, many restoration programmes are based on reforestation and tree-planting. The Forest Landscape Restoration (FLR) Framework is an international pledge supported by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and other organisations to support the 'process of regaining ecological functionality and enhancing human well-being across deforested or degraded forest landscapes'. To achieve this, the framework pledges to support agro-forestry, managed restoration, and tree planting. Tree planting, however, is not always the best suited action in restoration activities. When trees are planted in inappropriate ecosystems, they can create side-effects. For example, planting trees in grasslands (savannahs) increases the canopy, which has an immediate effect on the amount of light (or lack thereof), with a subsequent effect on species and food systems. In substance, the premise that restoration consists in increasing the tree cover as a main way to solve environmental degradation does not account for the specific and different needs each ecosystem has. 2. Misclassification of ecosystems Why would any conservation organisation want to plant trees in non-forest ecosystems? Ongoing criticism on the definition of some ecosystems continues to generate problems when it comes to restoration. The Food and Agriculture Organisation, WRI, IUCN and others define forests as those natural habitats with more than 10% canopy cover. Given the structure of savannahs, under this definition, savannahs fall under the forest category (rather than the grasslands category) and can undergo afforestation processes. However, the differences between tropical savannahs and tropical forests are many, including fundamental ones like opposite tolerance to fire and shade. Misclassification causes inappropriate restoration interventions, resulting in not only waste of resources, but also harm and potential loss of natural habitats. 3. Introduction of non-native species Finally, another big issue when it comes to ecosystems preservation is the introduction of non-native species, which are often invasive. In AFR100, the introduction of an invasive species called Grevillea Robusta has been observed to decrease biodiversity and influence the uptake of water, causing a detrimental effect on local populations and animals. This has also been the case in New Zealand, where planting an invasive species from North America called Pinus Contorta, has caused the displacement of birds and wildlife, and has affected local availability of land for agriculture and sustenance of communities. Contribute to the CSCEN Blog If you're interested in contributing to the CSCEN Blog, get in touch with us at environment.network@energysecurity.gov.uk. We'd love to hear your ideas!

Welcome to this 'Take a leaf out of my book' blog, where we explore the career journeys of some key movers in the environmental sector. David Hill has been Director-General Environment Rural and Marine in Defra since December 2019. Responsible for delivering the Government’s 25 Year Environment Plan, David leads on all aspects of domestic environment policy on land and at sea, including air, water, biodiversity, resource efficiency and climate adaptation. David’s team is currently taking the Environment Bill through Parliament, and he is a senior sponsor of the Civil Service Environment Network. Over the last 18 months, I’ve spent a lot of time (too much!) at my desk at home. But the easing of COVID restrictions meant this summer I have been able to get out and about a lot more – reconnecting with nature and reminding myself first-hand of why I do the job I do. From seeing tree-planting and peatland restoration in County Durham in one of our Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, to fantastic work in Dartmoor National Park opening access to nature for disadvantaged children, improving the environment and enhancing opportunities for people to enjoy it has been one of the most fulfilling roles in my career. I don’t personally have a deep professional expertise in environmental science, although I am fortunate to work with some world-class scientists and experts, and many people in our arms-length bodies and partner organisations with significant knowledge and understanding of our natural environment. But I do still draw on my experience in lots of different roles over the years in ways which I hope will help us deliver environmental policies in ways which are both good for nature, good for the economy, and work for places. For example – over a decade ago I led on UK preparations for the Climate Change COP in Copenhagen. In many ways that COP fell short of expectations: we didn’t get the global deal we were aiming for (the next big step forward had to wait until Paris 2015), but it did show how closely much of what the UK was doing was followed around the world, with the recently passed Climate Change Act providing a template for governments on how to enshrine long term climate objectives in law. In many ways we are building on that experience today in wider environmental policy – with the 25 Year Environment Plan setting long term goals for environmental improvement and the Environment Bill currently going through Parliament creating a new framework for legally binding environmental targets. Before joining Defra I spent some time in local government, working for a county council on their plans to create new sustainable communities - with space for new homes and businesses designed and built to high environmental standards, with low carbon footprints. What this brought home to me is that too often the policies we pursue in central government are treated as separate – to be announced, funded, implemented and accounted for as distinct initiatives, whereas in local government we tend to think more holistically about what a place needs to succeed, to be healthy, green and thriving. We can learn a lot from local government about taking that joined up view. I see the environment as integral to lots of Government agendas – inextricably part of delivering good transport, economic or infrastructure policy. That’s why the work of the CSEN is so important in building a community of interest right across Government, as improving and enhancing the environment for the next generation is a job for all of us. Contribute to the CSEN Blog If you're interested in contributing to the CSEN Blog, get in touch with us at environment.network@faststream.civilservice.gov.uk. We'd love to hear your ideas!

Olivia Rutherford explores how COP26 promises to be a key political moment for climate action. As ‘incoming presidency’ of the 26th Conference of the Parties (COP26) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) held in Glasgow this November, it is the UK’s task to facilitate consensus agreement between 196 countries and the European Union on an ambitious, comprehensive and balanced outcome that helps accelerate the transition to a net zero, climate-resilient future. COP26 will also bring together sub-national actors, business, investors, civil society, youth and other key actors to enhance collaboration in support of that transition. In a ‘behind the scenes’ session delivered by the Civil Service Environment Network (CSEN), Stuart West (Head of Strategy, UN Climate Change Negotiations), Fiona Clouder (Regional Ambassador for Latin America and the Caribbean) and Matt Toombs (COP26 Director of Campaigns and Engagement) shared how the government and its diplomatic network are approaching the event. This year’s negotiations are framed by the legacy of past conferences held over the last 30 years, notably the universally binding international treaty signed in Paris in 2015. The Paris Agreement aims to ensure global temperature rise stays well below two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels whilst aiming for 1.5 degrees, boost countries’ ability to adapt to the impacts of climate change, and facilitate support for climate action in developing countries whilst promoting the alignment of broader financial flows with net zero, climate resilient development. “COP26 is a key political moment in the cycle of COPs” says West. “It’s the first COP since Paris where countries are expected to raise their game and show how they are taking enhanced action in line with the goals agreed in Paris.” Closing the “substantive gap” between the action that countries have collectively promised to take on curbing their emissions in the Paris Agreement and what they are actually doing is a priority for the Presidency of this year’s conference, Toombs explains. With the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic meaning preparation for the conference has been advanced remotely and masterminded across time zones, mobilising the global diplomatic network has been crucial in ensuring a range of diverse views has been included in the discussion on climate progress. Reflecting on the diplomatic network’s outreach ahead of COP26, Clouder commented: “It’s about listening and understanding the country, their perspective and the pressures that government and other sectors of the economy are facing. We are neutral hosts and are trying to broker international perspectives to collectively move forward on the agenda of net zero.” “Building dialogue with countries, understanding their perspectives, finding opportunities for collaboration, and articulating the COP priorities in terms that resonate for a country is very important”. For Latin America, the region under Clouder’s remit, there has been a disproportionate impact of the coronavirus, with eight per cent of the global population but thirty percent of global deaths. “This tragedy is not only about the health impacts but the longer term social and economic impacts”, Clouder explained. This is why it is important countries seize the opportunity to bounce back in a way that can deliver green growth. Despite the coronavirus pandemic, COP26 will be held in person later this year in a manner that is inclusive, in particular for developing countries, and safe, in line with COVID-19 guidelines. CSEN will be running subsequent events in the run up to COP26, available to civil servants across all departments. More details of these, and how to join CSEN, can be found on its website. Contribute to the CSEN Blog If you're interested in contributing to the CSEN Blog, get in touch with us at environment.network@faststream.civilservice.gov.uk. We'd love to hear your ideas!

In the run up to COP26, held in Glasgow in November 2021, UK Government representatives have been developing Net Zero (NZ) transformation initiatives for two of the worlds’ most polluting sectors: Transport and Energy. The representatives have been lobbying the international community to sign up to their campaigns. For the campaigns to acquire the momentum needed to sufficiently decarbonise the Transport and Energy sectors, multi-lateral engagement with Governments, Non-Government Organisations and the private sector is required. In a ‘Behind the scenes’ session delivered by the Civil Service Environment Network (CSEN), the panel included: Deputy Director, Head of Transport for COP26, Jenny Raynor, Head of COP26 Transport Policy, Department of Transport, Joanna Wooles and Head of Energy Transition at COP26 Unit, Cabinet Office Hana Chambers, who discussed their department’s ambitions and preparations for COP26. For the Transport sector, ambitions include the kick starting of the mass market for Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEVs), decarbonising maritime shipping corridors, the implementation of an International Civil Aviation Organizations (ICAO) process and the development of a World Economic Forum policy for NZ Aviation. For the Energy sector, campaigns are focused around 4 pillars: a transition away from fossil fuel (FF) energy, ending financing for coal power, scaling up clean energy and a just transformation away from FFs. The UK must take a leadership role to ensure that there are fair transitions into clean energy, with a focused priority on countries in the global South. Departments have been encouraging dialogue within their sectors, influencing policy decisions and empowering non-state actors e.g. local government and citizens, to take action, the progress of which will be presented at the COP26 Transport, Energy and Built Environment days in November. The Department of Transport are also working to facilitate sustainable transport solutions for delegates travelling to and from Glasgow. Raynor explains COP26 will need to overcome difficult challenges, such as consideration of sustainable alternatives to the different modes of transport used in the global south, and a future workplan to displace the threat of global job losses as nations move away from FF. Cross government and multi-lateral agreements are required for COP26 to succeed in pledges such as “Consign Coal power to history”. China and India are yet to step up to the table. Th COP26 presidency will prove to be an opportunity for the UK to take up the reins of global sustainable leadership. The UK’s overseas investment policy will be heavily scrutinised as it is considered the “Gold Standard” for other developed nations to follow suit. Domestically the UK will lead by example by striving to “be a hub for NZ technology” (including ZEV), their long term strategy to transition away from FF financial dependencies and preparing for the exportation of their green technologies e.g. wind energy. When asked ‘What will success look like [for COP26]?’ Wooles explained it would be “prioritising the maximization of commitments to campaigns.” In the run up to COP26 the panellists will be lobbying diplomats and non-state actors to sign up to the multitude of campaigns, preparing for a successful G20 meeting in October, assessing the effectiveness of policy measures and making logistical preparations for the two week conference. CSEN will be running subsequent events in the run up to COP26, available to civil servants across all departments. More details of these, and how to join CSEN, can be found on our website.

The passion and desire to get involved in environmental issues isn’t confined to one department or one location - civil servants from across the UK are coming together to help make a difference by planning and delivering activities that are aimed at supporting this important agenda in their region. Part of the remit of Civil Service Local, which sits within Cabinet Office, is to encourage the creation of networks across the Civil Service in order to address the themes that people feel strongly about. They have helped bring together and support civil servants across the regions of the UK to create new cross-departmental environmental networks. There are currently 5 environmental networks around the UK, read on to find out about each network and how you can get involved in your local region. Scotland Jenny Dee (jenny.dee@dwp.gov.uk) leads the Civil Service Local Scotland Environment Network. “Our group formed last year with 5 people who wanted to help educate about climate change and live our lives a bit greener. We now have over 50 members. Our short, sharp monthly newsletter is focused on small actions people can take, it has lots of pictures to appeal to those with not much time to read and to the families of readers with younger children. We run monthly ‘lunch and learn’ sessions featuring subjects from ‘honey bees’ to ‘saving our oceans’, with a focus on ‘what you can do’. Our next conference will be a fun way for people to see how they can reduce their Christmas carbon footprint.” North West The North West Environmental Network has a new lead in Jenny Hagan jenny.hagan@hse.gov.uk. The group has been busy, and in July held an online ‘Reduce, Reuse, Recycle’ event aimed at giving our unwanted plastics, make-up, clothes and electrical goods an extra life. This was followed up by an organised litter clean-up in the region. In addition, the network also produces a newsletter to update civil servants on their activities and to engage them on contemporary environmental issues. North East, Yorkshire & the Humber The network in the North East, Yorkshire and Humber is relatively new but already has a passionate lead in Natalia Tochenykh (Natalia.Tochenykh@dwp.gov.uk). She launched the network in July where she was joined by Olivia Herford from the Civil Service Environment Network to talk about exchanging ideas, shifting attitudes and taking tangible actions towards a better future. Natalia adds “As an individual and as a civil servant, I feel that there is an opportunity for all of us to do more to support our government in reaching its commitment to significantly reduce carbon emissions by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050”. South West and Wales Laura-Jane Harris (Laura-Jane.Harris@hmpo.gov.uk) and Sue Roach (Sue.Roach@dwp.gov.uk) are the co-leads for the South West and Wales Environmental Network. The group has been relaunched in 2021 following a hiatus. They have already worked with the Environment Agency to set up events to promote Plastic-Free July, and have been working with Paint360 to encourage the re-engineering of waste paint into brand new paint. With many miles of coastline in their region, another activity they are supporting is voluntary beach clean-ups. East, South East and London The lead for the East, South East and London network is Matt Dalton from the Food Standards Agency (matt.dalton@food.gov.uk). Like the Scotland network, it formed last year and has grown in numbers. The group has already held events aimed at helping to reduce your carbon footprint when working from home. The next piece of work they are looking at is related to the upcoming COP26 event, helping ordinary civil servants understand its importance through an open online session. What next? So, if this has inspired you to get involved yourself, and contribute to the network in your region, please email your listed lead. Or if you want to keep up to date with news from these networks, please sign up to receive email alerts from https://civilservicelocal.blog.gov.uk/. Contribute to the CSEN Blog If you're interested in contributing to the CSEN Blog, get in touch with us at environment.network@faststream.civilservice.gov.uk. We'd love to hear your ideas!

Alastair Johnson, from Defra's Environment Analysis Unit, introduces the world of natural capital and in the newly updated 'Enabling a Natural Capital Approach'. This blog was originally published by Defra, and CSEN is republishing with kind permission of the author. As the Natural Capital Committee said, our society, economy and individual wellbeing depends upon a healthy natural environment and yet it is often omitted from our analysis and policy. Natural capital provides us space to spend our leisure and exercise, the energy, food and water we consume, the air we breathe. It helps mitigate natural risks (flooding), air pollution and supports the health of the workforce. Did you know that: $44 trillion of economic value generation (half of global GDP) is moderately or highly dependent on nature (World Economic Forum, 2020)? Or that: “Biodiversity is declining faster than at any time in human history. Current extinction rates, for example, are around 100 to 1,000 times higher than the baseline rate, and they are increasing.” (Dasgupta Review, February 2021)? In policy making, a natural capital approach helps us to consider, quantify and in some cases put a monetary value on ecosystem services so that they can be more easily included in our decision making and policy appraisals. It also helps identify more innovative policy solutions as well as 'de-risk' our policies by helping to identify potential negative impacts. Many industries – chemicals, materials, aviation, travel, tourism, mining, metals, transport, retail and consumer goods – have ‘hidden dependencies’ on nature. So what exactly is ENCA and why should we use it? ENCA supports us to use a natural capital approach in decision making. It was first published in January 2020 and has just been updated. It’s an on-line resource developed by Defra’s Environment Analysis Unit to help consider the value of natural capital in decision making. It provides guidance and information to help users consider how the environment can support you in achieving your policy goals, as well as how your options impact on our natural capital and the ecosystem services it provides. We developed it so that everyone can use it including other government departments, NGOs, academics, as well as the private sector such as consultancies. We also developed it to remove the excuse that it’s all too difficult! Plus it is now official supplementary guidance to The Green Book: appraisal and evaluation in central government. ENCA resources will help us to adhere to official government guidance and contribute to Governmental commitments such as; achieving the Government’s 25 Year Environment Plan commitments, and 10-point plan for Green Industrial Revolution’. Read the ENCA here What ENCA can offer A Guidance document provides an easy to read introduction to the approach and signposts other resources. There’s an Assets Databook that gives an overview of the relevant ecosystem services provided by eight broad habitats and collates and summarises selected studies, tools, data and evidence. Then we have the Services Databook which collates the most relevant and cited sources, studies and key estimates for 24 categories of ecosystem services and environmental effects (e.g. provisioning, regulating, cultural) and has over 170 monetary estimate references. There is a Featured Tools section that provides detail on other tools which can be used such as maps and the biodiversity metric. Finally ENCA has over 70 case studies containing real world examples of natural capital approaches at a range of spatial scale as well as including nature based solutions, environmental valuations, natural capital accounts. So I do encourage you to have a rummage around in ENCA and to tell others about it. In the meantime, if you have any questions drop us a line at EnvironmentAnalysis@defra.gov.uk.

A group of cross-departmental Civil Servants have come together to make the Civil Service greener by reducing office wastage. Anika-Adel Barnes shares how her group have devised a Toolkit to educate and enable Civil Servants to increase paperless working, lessen their impact on the environment and make savings to the organisations they work for. Who are we? We are the Sustainable Civil Service team, a group we have established as part of the Civil Service Future Leaders Academy. Our team is made up of cross government Civil Servants from departments including HMRC, the National Crime Agency, the Department of Education, the Rural Payments Agency and the Probation Service. We came together with the common goal to support our colleagues within the Civil Service to think about how we can each do our individual bit in our workplaces to become efficient, lean and sustainable. Why does it matter? We are all aware of the massive impact that plastic and paper waste is having on the environment. It harmfully impacts our wildlife, contributes to deforestation, and not to mention paper accounts for approximately 26% of all waste that occupies land fill sites (The World Counts, 2021). The adverse consequences of our consumerist culture are visible on our planet when you look at the effects of global warming. There have been landslides in South America, forest fires in California, floods in China and closer to home in Germany. In the UK, we have seen increasing temperatures cause unprecedented heat waves and more extreme weather. How can we help? Considering this issue, as a team we consulted staff across our departments and using their feedback, we developed a toolkit to provide tips, tricks and ideas to colleagues on waste reduction, primarily looking at reducing paper use. The toolkit includes ‘how to guides’ on using tools within Microsoft Office and Google applications in a manner that supports sustainable working such as creating virtual to-do lists, using sticky notes or Google Keep rather than creating a hard copy on paper. The toolkit is user friendly and comes in a PDF format with active hyperlinks that allow the user to easily navigate through the content (see the toolkit here). What difference will it make? The Department of National Statistics records that there were 5.6 million people employed within the Civil Service in December 2020. If we all act within our individual organisations to decrease waste, just imagine what a major impact we could collectively make in reducing our negative influence upon the environment. As Civil Servants we have a responsibility to ensure that we conduct our work dutifully and with integrity this is a call to action; let’s all lean to be green!!! Where can you find more information? If you would like more information on environmental networks across the Civil Service, our team also developed a Directory of Environmental & Sustainability Networks (see the directory here). Contribute to the CSEN Blog If you're interested in contributing to the CSEN Blog, get in touch with us at environment.network@faststream.civilservice.gov.uk. We'd love to hear your ideas!