As UK carbon budgets go, the seventh one was always going to be a significant test. It allocates the amount of greenhouse emissions for the UK for the period 2038-2042, when - to meet its targets and avoid catastrophic climate change - the country should be in a steep trajectory towards net zero. This means there are far fewer places and sectors where significant greenhouse emissions can still be allowed to occur. The Climate Change Committee’s (CCC) advice on that budget is published today - against a backdrop of unprecedented geopolitical instability and unprecedented rates of global warming.  

I opened today’s report with a mix of trepidation and optimism; we need high quality, objective evidence more than ever. Did the advice deliver? 

Well, there is a lot to welcome.

Prior to the report, the CCC held a public engagement exercise - and as a result it's great to see a focus on people's views and how different groups feel about the recommendations incorporated. We’ve created our own advice to support individuals in their net zero journey. Of course, as The Wildlife Trusts, our main areas of interest are in the land and agriculture sectors; to that end here are three important messages coming from the report¹. 

Nature-based solutions remain strongly supported but we are running out of time to get moving on woodland creation 

Progress on the two main nature levers in the net zero pathway, peatland restoration and woodland creation, remain critical components in this carbon budget. The CCC recommends that 55% of peatlands are put back to natural or re-wetted status by 2040, up from 23% in 2023. Future targets for upland peat restoration for 2050 are lower than previous advice, 79% rather than 100%, but the total emissions reduction from peatland restoration in 2050 looks similar to previous advice. We’ll take a closer look at these numbers in due course, particularly on the assumptions about emissions from the unrestored peat, which becomes very vulnerable to loss in a changing climate. 

Woodland creation is more sobering. We know all too well at The Wildlife Trusts how hard it can be to get new trees in the ground due to regulatory and financial barriers, when it should be one of the most incentivised activities possible given the enormous benefits for climate and nature. The CCC has dealt with recent lack of progress on woodland creation by ramping up future short-term ambition even more, with a target of 37,000 hectares of new planting each year by 2030, more than double the current rate. It then jumps again to 56,000 hectares by 2035. We need that short-term jump to happen very soon to ensure that trees are sequestering at a galloping rate by 2050. Because of the slowness on trees to date, the CCC is now only projecting the land use sector to switch back to being a net sink by 2038; this feels very late.  

The agriculture sector keeps its focus on better efficiency and freeing up land from livestock farming for carbon sequestration – with more advice on economic benefits 

The agricuture sector pathway feels familiar to previous advice, with few big alterations from the sixth carbon budget. There remains a key focus on reducing livestock numbers and with them the land needed for livestock, in order to free up 19% of agricultural land by 2050 for land-based mitigation measures. This is done alongside reductions in meat consumption (35% by 2050 compared to 2019) and in dairy (20%) to avoid importing meat and associated emissions from overseas to meet demand. The recommended rate of reduction in meat consumption in the seventh carbon budget advice is slower than the actual reduction in meat consumption seen between 2020 and 2022, though faster than the long-term trend. There is an opportunity to build on trends to drive a ‘less and better’ meat agenda which would help nature, farmers and health as well as cut emissions.  

The really interesting bit is the new information about costs and benefits, both from a social perspective and for farmers, created from a ‘land use archetypes’ project delivered for the CCC over the past year. It shows that farm incomes can increase over and above earnings for livestock alone, through payments for delivering nature benefits as well as direct income from renewables for example. The detail here will be of interest to many in the sector. 

Reliance on bioenergy with carbon capture and storage reduces significantly; and the aviation sector should pay for it 

We have voiced concerns for many years of the degree of reliance on engineered removals in current UK policies to meet net zero, specifically bioenergy using imported wood as fuel that at present creates very high emissions from burning, as well as significant sustainability and nature-related risks. We are very pleased to see a reduced reliance on bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) in this carbon budget advice. The total level is 50% lower in 2050, and the CCC also recommends halting the use of imported biomass to meet demand from the BECCS sector by 2050. The CCC is allocating these removals to balance residual emissions in sectors that are hard to decarbonise completely, particularly aviation, and also recommending the aviation industry pays for the removals.   

What is missing, and next steps 

The CCC mooted 18 months ago that the seventh carbon budget advice would have a ‘nature positive pathway’. It claimed that it would go much further in analysing how far natural carbon removals and emissions reductions could go, as well as how to minimise negative trade-offs for nature from other measures in the net zero pathway. We haven’t seen that materialise; there is plenty to applaud in today’s advice, but I’m left with a feeling that the nature lever in net zero could be pulled harder. We wanted to see more emphasis on some speculative modelling of other types of natural removal including saltmarsh, other blue (marine-based) habitats, and urban greenspace, alongside the equally speculative modelling the CCC has done for other sectors including engineered removals. We’ll see over the next five years if developments in green finance, nature-friendly farming and better understanding of carbon removals across whole ecosystems can shift viewpoints on this. 

There is also still only passing references to adaptation; despite the horrifying section of the report that indicates that the world will almost certainly pass through the 1.5C warming threshold very soon. Every part of the UK’s net zero pathway needs adaptation in order to work. In particular, if our dependence on electricity is projected to double in 2040 compared to today, the UK Government needs to be very sure of the resilience of the system to shocks of all kinds, including climate change impacts. Nature can help to buffer against extremes like heat and flooding. We know for example that farmland that is more diverse and better protected against climate shocks is also more productive and will store more carbon. Adaptation needs the same level of analytical rigour and resource as the carbon budget analysis itself.  

My takeaway is that there is plenty to get excited about in this carbon budget advice; but also lots of scope to do more. The UK Government’s task is to now take this advice and set the legal budget level by June next year after a period of debate. We’ll be waiting. 

Notes

1. All values are based on the CCC’s ‘balanced pathway’.