 Hello everyone welcome to this webinar we're just taking a couple of minutes to let people join and we'll be with you shortly. All right, I think we will begin with apologies to those who are still coming in. Hello, welcome to the 2023 progress report reducing emissions webinar live Q&A. My name is Sophie Vaipont and the head of communications and engagement at the CCC. We're really grateful that you've all joined us today. So based on some feedback we've had we're actually taking a different approach to events around the progress report this year. As many of you will have seen, we published a video featuring Lord Diben, Chris Stark and Emily Nurse on the day that we published the progress report. This was designed to go over key messages, charts, graphs and themes. So today's event is being held two weeks after publication, with the idea being that you've had the chance to engage the report, read it, watch the video, and the questions we've received and that we will receive today will be based on that. To enable this, I'm joined by several members of the committee and secretariat. So if you could join me in welcoming Professor Piers Forster, who has taken over as interim chair following the end of Lord Diben's term. Our job is as director of the Priestly International Centre for Climate and Professor of Physical Climate Change at the University of Leeds. Professor Colin Leclerc, Professor of Climate Change Science at the University of East Anglia, and Professor Keith Bell, holder of the Scottish Power Chair in Future Power Systems at the University of Strathclyde and co-director of the UK Energy Research Centre. The committee members are joined by Emily Nurse, our team leader for carbon budgets, who some of you will recognise from the video I mentioned earlier. So we'll be bringing in some pre-submitted questions that we've had, and we'll also be encouraging you to contribute your questions live using Slido. A link should have just been posted in the chat, so do follow that to take part. But before we get into questions, we've got a couple of polls that are actually from us to you, and we'd love you to get involved with those. You'll need to click on the link in the chat or go to slido.com and use the code 318-0899 to take part. The first poll should now be appearing on your screens, so please do add your votes. We'd like to get your views on how you find out about what's in our assessment. You can click more than one option, and please do if you use multiple options. Particularly important to me as head of comms, we intentionally produce our content in multiple ways, aware that it has different uses to different types of stakeholders. So please do select those and we'll be doing a brief reflection on this between Emily and myself, who are the people that kind of decide what we prioritise to use as outputs around the report. We see those kind of go up and down live, and I think we are overwhelmingly seeing the importance of the role of the executive summary, which is great news to our team who do slave over it. Emily, I don't know if you have anything you wanted to reflect on on that. Yeah, I just, I'm looking now as a change. I agree it's actually quite reassuring actually that people are reading these activities and we put a lot of effort into getting the key messages from the report in there. So really happy about that. Brilliant, and that will definitely inform what kind of outputs we use as we go forward in our planning. If we can move on to the second poll, which is about the kind of content of the report so the next poll is which sectors decarbonisation plans are you most concerned about. And so this could be following our report, you've kind of been informed by it and this is, this is your output or following our report feeling that we haven't quite got it right and we should be more concerned about that kind of both approaches. We're very happy to kind of hear about but interesting to see which ones go up, not hugely surprised by the first couple, although I am slightly surprised by surface transport so maybe we will give it a minute and then I will invite the committee members to jump in and see if they've got any immediate reflections, please do feel free, any of the three of you to jump in on this. Harry and I didn't know if you wanted to comment on agriculture and land use coming out top. Yeah, absolutely I mean if I were to answer this question that's what I would have chosen myself I mean the sector is not moving is difficult is diffuse. There's the part that is the agriculture but there's also the restoration of peatland and there's also the enhancement of common things from planting trees, which is processes that take really a long time. So I think the audience is very well informed in identifying those as being really rather difficult blocking at many places in terms of policy progress I'm sure we'll have the chance to go into this in the discussion later on. Thank you. And if any thoughts on surface transport coming out above aviation. Perhaps, perhaps I'll be coming on that. Yeah, yeah, yeah that is interesting because if you look at the report you see actually we are on back in fact currently in terms of the number of electric car living. But perhaps it points more towards really what we have kind of coming up to do in terms of growing up because of course but but also in terms of trying to prevent further. So building these unnecessary and trying to get able to get back on public transport and other things. So I think that's quite interesting. I guess it's also worth reflecting that it is the highest emitting sector so this is probably why it's really in people's minds. Yes, and also potentially concerns about recent coverage in the British press, which has not been hugely positive in favor of the transition to electric vehicles so a few things that could be kind of influencing that. And thank you, we will definitely take this away and reflect on it and it's going to inform a lot of the work that we're doing over the coming year. But we are going to move on to questions as this has been billed as a Q&A, and it can't be questions from us to you. So please do submit your live questions. What we've done is take the pre submitted questions and group them into kind of key themes, which I'm going to pose to each of the panel members here. And then we will pivot to some, some side questions. So, I will take this public opportunity to remind our panelists that we are trying to keep questions and answers short so that we get through as many as possible, but also appreciate that some of these questions that we've got, we kind of have thoughts on them. So please do bear with us as we go through these. Emily, if we could start with you. We've had questions relating to the report findings and the data used. Climate specialist at a mid Devon District Council asked us what changes in pace were observed in this report, which progress indicators and sectors have skyrocketed and which have stagnated. I'm happy to take this. I guess I probably wouldn't use the word skyrocketed for anything, to be honest. But in terms of sort of positive stories, we have actually found that in the short term, we are confident in the surface transport sector has gone up this year. So we're continuing to see an increase in the sales of electric vehicles of electric cars, particularly not vans actually, but of cars. This is continuing to go up and it's ahead of our pathway so there was 17% of new car sales in 2022. In addition to that, there's actually less traffic now following the pandemic. So the rebound from the pandemic traffic came up, but it's reached what appears to be a kind of steady state and it's 5% less than pre pandemic levels. So these two things combined are actually increasing, have increased our confidence in the short term so over the fourth carbon budget period, which is this year, up to 2027. We are, we are more concerned in the in the sort of longer term in this sector and was interested, we were very interested to see that this was yet coming third in the poll there. But we are there are some concerns of enablers like charging infrastructure and things like this and also delays in this sector so there is some concern in the longer term but in the short term our confidence has gone up. So in terms of stagnation. I'll start with a set to the actually I was interested to see didn't seem to make it in the top few in that poll which is industry. So this is something where we really are assessment has gone down this year and it's actually the one that we identified to have the largest gaps, and when we're looking at in the 2030s, the gaps in policies, so largest risk. It requires real deep decarbonization 70% reduction by 2035 compared to 2022 levels in emissions so requires a lot of action there and what we're seeing in particular we've noticed policies in industry, industrial electrification are really lacking. And the carbon budget delivery plan that came out in March and the government that gave the detail of how the emissions reductions will be coming from the government. I know that steel industry is really relying on this but there's no policies backing it up and there's a lot of emissions reduction that's projected from that, but we don't see the policies there so our risk in this sector has gone up so this is a worry to us. And I also wanted to say in terms of indicators, we're really quite concerned with the land use indicators so this is obviously a sector that was really high up there in the poll. In particular tree planting rates are low they need to double in the next couple of years and this has a long, this is a knock on effects they can affect emissions in the in the future it's really quite a worry. And also people in restoration, restoration rates are still far too low. So I think they were the ones I wanted to draw out. Thanks Emily, that's really helpful. And Piers I'm going to come to you next. We've had a question from planning specialist at a leading NGO, which asked how much of a net zero test for all new planning and policy decisions would help the UK reach its targets. Yeah, I think that's a really interesting question. Yeah, one thing we point to in the report is that we really have to reform the whole way the planning process of work. And part of that is to really make it compatible with the pace of the net. The information the government want to achieve. We're particularly seeing currently quite bad proxies to the infrastructure. We have to build a kind of decline in the energy supply and building the necessary grid, because we only have about a decade to deliver a decarbonite electricity supply and we have to get on with this huge infrastructure build a couple more to do. But the planning process is very important too. But God, it is a key area of public engagement. And we can see if we look at the press and media today, we're sort of getting a bit of the population back cash. And this is a key, the is a key play to really bring the public into the distance. And there are We think there are ways to make it into a more whole systems type of quote range of the system, and you can actually provide the way the plan to work consistent and robust evidence on the reasons behind why we need to have the net zero transformation and why we need to have it or something. And so if you look at recommendations one key thing we we set this net zero test idea is it just one example of the sort of amount we want to want to want to do to try and make sure or for the decision point in the same direction but to make that work effectively, you need to have a good education campaign around that and the information campaign. So the local office of the local planning officers that work for the different council of things to have the necessary expertise to be able to make effective choices. And the other thing that you can do it well we don't we don't necessarily think the national test is the only answer. A good example of what worked is the wealth of government can load view and that would be where they did a comprehensive review of the building. So there's a lot of intersectionals and they consider the necessity. There's also one being rolled out on time gas extraction and we think that could be made more go past. So, so the thing you can do, but we think something that the net zero test is a very important exercise. I'm coming to Karen next with the line in our report about the UK losing its clear global leadership position on climate action has generated a lot of interest from the audience and stakeholders and also kind of was responsible for a lot of media coverage that we got on the report on the day. Can you tell the audience here a bit about what this means and how the committee reach that and and what how leadership can be regained for the UK. Yeah, thank you so much for this. Indeed. I also tweeted about this and there was some mention on Twitter that people hadn't realized the UK was a leader up to now so I do want to start there to say why we thought the UK was a leader up to now. And ultimately, the UK was leading the cup 26 and Glasgow which achieve quite a lot of things in terms of the nice commitments in the wording, the overall letter for that. And also the UK, it has the climate change act of 2008 which has been replicated in many countries. It was one of the first ones to have an at zero by 2050 target certainly one, the first economy of its size and it almost decreased its emissions by 50%. So it's pretty clear that it had at least a clear global leadership position. Now the situation has shifted this year. For one thing, practically, the UK is no longer a cup and no longer has the cup presidency. So the design leadership is is gone from a technical level. It's also no longer part of the EU negotiating block which was a very, it is a very influential block internationally. Of course the test of true leadership is really on delivery of action. And there, there's been some really tangible backslides. For example, the response to the fossil fuel and energy price crisis of last year did not in the UK embrace rapid steps to reduce the demand for energy and save energy. It did not may use this to make a push for a more deployment of renewable energy. And we've also seen backtracks on fossil fuel consent of a new coal mine, their support for new oil and gas despite the strong words led by the UK in the cup 26 cover letter. So these are really clear evidence that the UK does not hold this leadership position at the moment. So to, to take it back, the UK would have to put back climate change at the front of its priority at the front of its international diplomacy. It would have in the UK to broaden the national efforts to tackle climate change across the economy. The UK has been quite successful at decarbonizing the electricity sector, but it's not been nearly as successful across the economy decarbonizing building industry and agriculture and land use and to some extent transport although it's starting to move in that sector here. So we have to set key net zero dates or at least zero emissions for the building sector so determine the dates for when we'll have zero emissions in the building sector in the transport sector, and it would have to support much more aggressively I won't say tree planting targets and other targets in the agricultural sector that are slipping. And finally, unambiguous commitment to phasing out fossil fuels, particularly ahead of cup 28 where clear leadership is really needed to move the international scene back on the climate agenda. Thanks, Karen. Before we go any further, Keith, I'm aware that we've got a kind of opening question for you as well. There's a lot of conversation on this in the Slido chat already so I wondered if we should just open it open up to the panel now. The UK's leadership responsibility but also any debates around the UK taking responsibility for historic emissions decarbonizing faster than countries in the global south and whether that's something that the UK should should be responsible for. I know that we've talked about leadership and many different guys is so pairs Keith if you wanted to add anything on on UK leadership now could be a time. Yeah, perhaps, perhaps, perhaps I will find given up to be up to optimistic mystics mystics mystics mystics spin on this. Yeah, we have got stuck clear leadership position, but, but I think there is opportunity for the UK to get that leadership position pack and not necessarily a country out there that has that leadership position position currently. And I think one good thing about the country that we had, we had very good. We had a lot of cross party support on net zero policies and that sets us apart from other countries and I think that is, that is, that is something that the, the, the, the, we've, we've really asked all our politicians to to really can get behind for the next time to try and keep that position there and to get back to work. We still have the chance to really, really make the big investment industry and to say exactly where and what we've been taking the big moment investment from the government and we have to get on and spend international aid that we have really committed to as well. Thanks. And so we've got another very chunky topic that's that's been getting a lot of attention and we had a lot of questions about this, pre submitted, so I'm going to direct this to you Keith and energy decarbonization and affordability. The report says government has been too slow to embrace cleaner cheaper alternatives. Why do you think this is the case and what does the CCC is recommended comprehensive long term strategy for power decarbonization look like so not a big question at all. Yeah, I mean good good issues and good good morning. I think I think we can start from the energy trilemma, which kind of went out of fashion as a framing for some of this discussion but I think it's useful. As an understanding of the kind of tension between affordability decarbonization and security supplies all of these issues are come back to the for in the last sort of 18 months in particular. Now, we see affordability and decarbonization pulling in the same direction as the lowest cost of energy production is now via renewables and security of supply means among other things, significantly reducing our dependency on the gas markets and renewables achieve that as well. So we do need to address the variability of renewables and the hour by hour sort of reliability supply which adds to the system costs are the kind of cost in total is not quite the same it's a bit more, not much more actually when you look at the numbers than the simple kind of levelized cost of energy from renewables. So we saw as the question implied we've got this opportunity. And, but we need to be pursuing this kind of coherent strategy because to utilize it I mean your peers and Karina touched on this already you know the kind of we've failed to really push the development of renewables in a way that we could have done that we can still can we still we know the government policy still is in that direction the British energy security strategy points to a lot of capacity to be built in a very short space of time. So that promotion of investment still needs to be there in this new generation capacity but we also need market reform to ensure that the low cost of that gets through to end users in terms of the prices that they see. And as peers was just saying, we need to make sure that the network infrastructure is developed in a timely way. And then we need to ensure that there are complementary developments across the whole energy system. Now to be fair market reform is an extremely difficult set of issues to resolve. But as we argue in the progress report that does not mean waiting for resolution of every uncertainty. For example, we don't need to wait until 2026 to answer every question about hydrogen for every location. Because we are very unlikely to have access to low carbon hydrogen, and we should get on with electrification, wherever it's clear that that's that's the right answer and normally it will be crucially a strategy, I think means being clear also about who is responsible and empowering those parties. So a major part of the energy bill which has been slow to arrive and slow to progress is about the role of the future system operator in respect to strategic energy system planning but from what I can see there's still quite a lot to be decided about what that means in practice, and how that future system operators remit interacts with those of the regulator off gen and of the network owners. So National Grid ESO the electricity system operator is being tasked with becoming that FSO, and that has a lot of work to do to build up its capability to take on that role. And because the other big things about planning which we touched on already so I won't repeat all of that. On the positive side work is being done but this is the frustration I think many of the issues and the opportunities have been known about for quite a long time, and we do need to greatly increase the pace in delivery. Looking at the slider questions that are coming through. Thank you all for submitting these and for voting on them. Our most popular question by some by some way is from Caroline Lucas and Green Party MP, and let's take an opportunity to thank her for all the work she's done in this area over recent years, many years. So she asks, the report is critical of over reliance on technologies that aren't yet scalable, which technologies in particular and is it time for demand reduction strategy. Jenny, who on the committee wants to jump in first? Well, let me let me talk about about demand demand for energy specifically and then as we can also talk about you know demand for travel mobility questions and how you meet that demand demand for different food stuffs and how you use land and all that all that sort of stuff that in respect to demand for energy I mean the kind of obvious thing which which is part of part of the kind of government strategy and so far as it goes is about electrification. So, naturally, when you electrify use of heat in buildings and you electrify transport you deliver energy efficiency. The total primary energy that you need to meet that. What you need needs is much reduced, you know by about a by about a third. And then there's all sorts of measures also that we could and should have been implementing in respect of, you know, how much heat do you need so you know electricity is really efficient and a heat pumping converting electricity into heat. And how much heat do you need that of course that that depends on the, you know the energy efficiency of the building the insulation. So we could ensure to be been getting on with that. So, yeah, kind of some demand reduction in that sense does not need to imply anything about constraining economic activity at all you know it's still meeting any user need but doing it in a much more efficient way. So I think there's no reason. No reason why not to yeah okay this low hanging fruit and kind of more difficult stuff but let's at least you know it's get on with the easiest stuff. We can developing means of addressing the hardest stuff as we go along. I think both other other committee members want to come in here so, Karin, can I come to you on demand and then pay us over to you after that. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, regardless of whether technologies work or risky or not. I mean we really should also use the levers of demand reduction for many reasons to one of them. In our report is contingency plans, some of the of the things that the government's plan will not work others will might overwork but really when it comes to the health stuff. Some things might underperform form, and the government needs to have in place contingency plans. Now in the government's trajectory, they have demand reductions that are there but they haven't been quantified compared to the previous plan that was published previous to the one that was just published this year. And so this is in a sense a backslide that the government has done on the wish to use demand reduction levers. So we have encouraged in our report to quantify these levers so that we know what the intention is and that the government puts some policy in place for those. And there are many different demand beyond the energy and electricity that Keith just talked about. There is in transport there is in food are two obvious one and also in the other sectors. And one of the elements of the demand reduction is that the right choice so to speak for the man really needs to be accessible so there are questions that about the existence of the options the low carbon options, the choices people and the prices that they are at so that people can access lower demand options. One of the options that we have a little bit flag is is really the car because the emissions in the existing so fossil based cars have not decreased because the cars are becoming heavier, and therefore having the option for and encouraging the production and the availability of smaller cars either through regulation or through other means of support is in fact a demand reduction measure that would control the choice to the consumer and encourage the consumer to make the right choices. So there's, there's that kind of option. There are also options to better link diets and health and environmental benefits of better eating, which haven't really been embraced by the government and we encourage those in our report. So I will stop here. Thanks, Karen. I'm going to come to pay us now and then I've got a question, one of the pre-semitic questions for Emily that I actually think should follow immediately after this so pairs first and then I'll come to Emily. And the other thing I want to say is I want to, to, to thank our life for a main job at all her time again. And it's really good, you know, survived our text committee chairs. So, so I do think you're going to win the competition. Okay, to talk about demand in a more, in a more general sense that, that if you do talk to psychologists in fact, and really trying to trying to change people behavior is one of the most challenging things to do. And we do see the pushback in the papers currently. And it's also been to bring down government like the, like the Dutch government has just resigned in the Netherlands. So I think the government is probably service about really trying to push consumer behavior, but, but I think it has to stand that a lot of a lot of a lot of demand reduction can be achieved by really empowering consumer choices. And it has good co-benefit for air quality for our health and our diets, and that you can really sell it on the optimistic positive and the jobs. And I think we do need a much better and much stronger, really effective communication campaign to really try and sell the opportunities. And there are also technologies involved in demand, you can reduce, you can improve the apprenticeship industry. And I think have called cats and e-scooters to scoot around your town and things and support with their businesses that way. So it's not all about a politician that tried to change some behavior, you can really, you can really power technology to also improve energy demand. Thanks, Piers. So we had a question pre-submitted that I wanted to come to, which is specifically about the transport sector that Emily, maybe you could then broaden it out a little bit from there. Which is how much the committee anticipates a modal shift to contribute to transport emissions, because it's not something that's been included in the carbon budget delivery plan quantifiable pathway. Yeah, thanks. This is, yeah, this is a really interesting question because what one of the, just for a bit of context for everyone, one of the things that we noticed in the carbon budget delivery plan that came out in March this year, which was, as I said before, a much more detailed breakdown of emissions reductions expected in the government's plans compared to the net zero strategy that came out in 2021. It did not include a quantified estimate of most of the emissions reduction we'd expect from reducing car traffic, so Corinne already mentioned this. That was included in the net zero strategy, but it was not included in the quantified plans in the carbon budget delivery plan, which we found to be quite interesting and we looked into this. So the net zero strategy estimated about eight megatons by 2030 could be saved so emissions reduction of about eight megatons by reducing car traffic. For context that's I think about 20% of the total reduction in surface transport sector so it's sizable. And this is similar to our pathway so we had similar levels of reduction by 2030. So this was not included the plans that were in the net zero strategy to support this policies and so on which were quite minimal in the first place were there but they were listed in the unquantified plans, which sort of for us was implied a bit of I guess I guess a lack of real commitment in this area so lack of really committing to what what government wants to achieve here. So being able to track progress against plans and really understand what plans are trying to achieve. So for us this was this was interesting and really not good news that this happened. And while we're on transport I guess the other thing to maybe come to is aviation so government is actually really committed to aviation growth, and in fact, the trajectory sees a 60% growth in passenger passenger demand by 2030 compared to 2022 numbers which themselves are quite below pre pandemic numbers still. And there's no plans to limit this growth our pathway does have plans to limit growth in demand and aviation and limit growth I'm not saying reduce numbers here so just to make that clear it's limiting growth. If we followed our trajectory, which allows less growth than this, then we by 2030 there'd be an extra five megatons of mission saving. So you can see we're sort of by not committing to these with as I mentioned before putting things really at risk because these extra bits of emissions reduction that could be achieved as the co benefits that go with them. And these are not happening and we can't really discuss or track progress if we can't see a clear plan and trajectory from government. Thanks Emily, I think that's really important and glad we got an opportunity to touch on that issue. One of the most highly rated is that the correct terminology questions in the chat is from Isabel Morris RSPB who asks what role does the new department for energy security and that zero have and are you concerned that the department only sees itself as an energy department. Erin, I think you were going to come in on this. Yeah, thanks. Maybe not on the first part of the question but I will not do want to come in on on the broader elements of the question. I mean we do have recommendations in our code that are across departments. And this is really critical I mean the question really implies is this just this department championing and nothing else is happening. I mean the concern is really fundamental. I mean, all the departments really need to have ownership of the actions that concern their department it needs to be cut across department. And of course the deathness so the department for energy and net zero has a bigger share of our recommendations just because there are more aspect of the transitions that relate to it and energy is such an important part of it. There is a flag that we have a lot of recommendations and a lot of priority recommendations for Deffra, who takes care of the agriculture and non sector, and unfortunately a lot of those recommendations, see progress but insufficient progress. So, and so we are able at the CCC to follow about 300 recommendations if I may say across department and the way that the government structures itself then becomes a choice for them so I don't know if the other members of the panel want to add on the specifics of the of the of the choices there. Yes, I will continue. Maybe I'll just compliment while just to let people other people on the panel the chance to think, but this question is in a sense linked to another question on the current and future road building strategy so we made a recommendation on this in our report and we recommended that the government does look at this road building strategy to make sure that it is coherent with the net zero trajectory towards net zero and targets, and this aspect is related in the sense because the coherence across government decisions, even those that are seemingly unrelated to climate are not insignificant. In the case of the road building strategy of course is really quite central. If you build more roads you will have more cars you will potentially have more emissions from current emission cars and also emissions from the road building, all the new infrastructure that is related to this. So it's really important that this moment of coherence is done very early in the design of incredible new infrastructure strategy such as the road building strategy to make sure that the government doesn't make any decisions over decades that will then lead to more effort or more cost or just look in infrastructure and and assets in the future. So the planning permissions and the development of the economy in general needs to completely be aligned with the common targets. Just looking at time I think it would be good to get a couple more kind of sector specific questions in on the app it says that buildings is the one that's kind of most questions. So picking up on one of those. What would the top three key asks from the government to encourage growth in the heat pump market in the UK, whilst comparing the UK to other EU countries. Keith, do you want to come in on this heat pumps. There's loads more than three that we could that we could talk about. But I mean, one of the issues long standing which we've been arguing for to be addressed for quite a long time is about quite where in particular the legacy costs of promoting renewables are sitting where they're recovered from. From from electricity bills are various levies that have been there in effect. So there's a general principle of taxation that says you kind of penalize the bad things and reward the good things so you know electricity is a low carbon form of an increasingly low carbon it's not completely there yet as we know. So, you know we should be a rebalancing of the costs of electricity versus gas is a big a big thing. You know it can't be more than a ratio of three, if we're going to kind of get the benefit of that ratio of three in terms of the coefficient of performance of a heat pump. I think we need clarity as well on what kind of the solidified policy if you like so that the supply chains can build up so there's still difficulty in finding an installer supplier of heat pumps and getting the whole thing working. So the supply chain is only going to invest in developing the skills and the competence and offering the services if they're confident that the market is there so we have to kind of, you know, seed the market, if you like and support the reskilling as well. And another thing we've been talking about again for quite a long time is, you know, giving clear signals on the future of fossil fueled eating. This should not be acceptable, you know, in in homes new homes. Certainly shouldn't be homes that are currently off the gas grid we should not be talking about really about putting them on the gas grid. So we shouldn't be turning doing these things overnight but there must be clarity and these things should be coming in soon because we haven't got long to wait to decarbonize you know, eating. And there's still debate going on. I mean, certainly there's various lobbies around about electricity up five heat versus, let's say he based on on hydrogen there are places where hydrogen is never really going to be an option. The round trip efficiency of hydrogen as an, you know, as a just a simple use of it for heating in homes is not good in person with electrification. So where electrification is clearly viable. Basically, let's let's get on and do it. Thanks Keith. And we've had a question on land use which I think is particularly important considering the output of our poll earlier. So, nature based solutions are important for mitigation and adaptation. How are you factoring in the vulnerability of nature based solutions to a changing climate in your mitigation work. And it's a fairly chunky piece that are reminded to keep it relatively brief as we enter the last 14 minutes of our session and Karen did you want to come in on this. Yeah, maybe initially so we are increasingly at the CCC merging, so to speak, the mitigation and adaptation element of our analysis and the land use sector is the one where we have completely an integrated team at the moment. So, this is recognized in terms of issue, and we're looking into it maybe Emily, you can add if we have done specific action or recommendation on this, but more importantly, I think, in terms of land use, the very basic fundamental kind of I almost want to say easy things, which is planting trees and restoring what people and is not exactly easy to restore but it is known and we need to do it at scale. They're just not there. So even before we think about what is going to be the climate change impact on the land use. We're not doing what it takes to reach the minimum level of action in those sector. So, what you're highlighting here is extremely important and not to forget it. But really, the sector needs almost an electroshock really to go and reach the level of action that is needed recognizing as Emily said that it takes time. If you plant a tree for it to start really taking the storage of carbon. True time. Thank you. Thanks, Karen. And one of the questions we've got which is particularly after my own heart is about kind of public communication and engagement. And so question from us on what more can be done to prepare the public for the scale of changes needed. I don't know if Piers wanted to come in on that first. Yeah, I think it's such an important question that there isn't really a comprehensive PR campaign from the government around next year where everybody can offer and particularly to give that right. There's good citizens, families and things to have a really good comprehensive public discussions. So what we would like to see is some really good two way engagement and really good examples of this within local government all around the country. So I just think the government should be exploiting those government connections to try and get the communication on going. But what I would say that the one of the key messages to get across is the change of the technology that we're going to be outlining reports that are necessary. They aren't enormous. They aren't fundamentally going to change our lifestyle. Yes, we want to get a bit out of their cars and that's possible, but we are still going to have cars and yes we want to reduce the consumption in people diet, but that doesn't mean we all have to become citizens. So I just think we have to also tell people there aren't going to be changes, but we are going to change. So I think it's really important debate. I just kind of chip in there, Sophie. I totally agree with everything that Piers has said. I found it very interesting hearing the launch of the Future Energy Scenarios the other day from National Grid ESO and they reported some polling that had been commissioned. But for example, one of the outcomes was that so many people hadn't realized that actually in the UK we have made progress in reducing emissions. You know, a lot of progress and picking up to Piers' point about lifestyle change. I mean that hasn't adversely impacted our lifestyles. Now there's a lot further to go, of course, but I agree with Piers that it's not kind of completely radical changes to how we do things in order to achieve that. That message wasn't realized and it's not being communicated. Another kind of simple message was about heat pumps and how people respond to them. When they were told it would reduce dependency on gas, they got a much more favourable response. So there are relatively simple messages and I think there's a lot comes back to leadership and I think political leadership. I think again, Piers earlier mentioned the political consensus that we've mostly had since the climate change came into being in 2008. And political leaders do so much in setting the news agenda. So what sort of things do we hear about? What sort of things get talked about? I think there could be a lot more active engagement from all sides, politically, in raising awareness. So these are relatively simple messages about climate change and the action that we can take to just to improve understanding. Because all the opinion polls suggest that when the understanding is improved, support is already strong and gets stronger. Yeah, I think that's a really good point, Keith. Karen, I think you wanted to come in here as well. Yeah, just very briefly on really the broader aspect of the question. One way is to articulate, so make it obvious what it means to people. And there's two angles here. The first one is on workforce. There's going to be sectors that will grow, sectors that will need to shrink, and sectors that will need to adapt to the new economy around tackling climate change. And the government really needs to set out in details how it will work with the whole administration to really clarify how what the evolution is going to be, who's going to be affected, who not affected and how they will be accompanied. And same thing. We've not talked about funding fairness, but that's really an affordability. This is really, really critical for engaging a broad range of people in making action. And the government really needs into looking at how current policies on climate change, but also outside affect the capacity to pay of people. And what are the implications of taxes and actions are going to be for people of different revenue to make it accessible and fair. Thanks, Corinne. I think we're going to do one last question. And we've got a lot to choose from, but one thing that we haven't had an opportunity to discuss much much yet is kind of local power. So our last question that I'll pick from the side. The next question is from Caitlyn Rolundsen from the Center for Cities, which is is centralization and lack of powers for cities and local authorities hindering progress on net zero targets, particularly for areas with more ambitious targets. Who wants to take that from the committee. Perhaps I go to begin with. Yes, you're absolutely correct. It is his. It is hindering delivery when local authorities are competing with each other, but we do see sign going in the right direction. This is the local government connects, you know, forum and they said now make four times. And an opportunity to really put some political weight and some capital behind that and to really make that work and to make that deliver. We see this as a key role for the UK infrastructure. Hank. And this is where some government and we really need to be. The next question that I'm going to give to his cream about the workforce, the same coming to have to decide in what part of the country and what section of the economy are they going to support and change. So, so if they're going to. It will be in what they're going to do to support us. So we have to have some key. Key decision that being paid that as well. But, but yeah, so I only kind of local authorities to get involved with the token as a forum as possible. And to really begin to come together to to to get the infrastructure bank to support that absolutely fantastic work. We had a great to set apart the country last last year and we were so, so impressed by all you were doing without much support from some government. Thanks. Keith, I think you want to come in as well. Well, I think I think Piers has said a lot of it, actually, and I would commend, you know, the reports that came out of that that series of visits that they have mentioned that we took under to it last year. Yeah, I mean the kind of emissions reduction and adaptation plans for that matter, which we shouldn't forget about have to be a properly adapted to the local conditions, as well as links back to the point about engagement with with the public. So that kind of democratic mandate that local authorities would have an ability to kind of pull together different stakeholders and make judgments about what's right for that area. It's so important provided they've got the capacity and the know how to do it and that was a message we did we did here. A lot of local authorities are trying to do with limited resources and limited kind of ability to access expertise so absolutely they have to be supported and this kind of stop start through some of the funding mechanisms is not it's not very helpful. Thank you, Keith. I'm got an anxious eye on the time so I'm actually going to take this opportunity to wrap up. But I've got some some thank yous to do before you log off so my first is to thank our panelists today for their contributions. I just want to take an opportunity to thank the committee on behalf of the Secretary for their guidance and support on this project in past months. Thank you to Emily and her team for leading on the report process and creating a fantastically well evidenced and thorough document. We couldn't have done it without any of the people on the call today so thank you. Thank you to the audience for your questions and for reading our report for watching our video for engaging with our content for coming today. It is so important that we have you and we talk to you. I know that we didn't get everyone's questions I'm sorry if we didn't get to yours, we are going to go away and think about how to come back to people as much as possible over the summer to kind of engage on some of these key issues, potentially via LinkedIn today so please do stay tuned on that. If you have any further comments concerns about our report please get in touch with the private office we do have that email address on our website, and we are available on social media as well. We look forward to kind of continuing to work with you will send a feedback form round so let's know what you thought of this let's know what you thought of the report let's know anything you want to share. And we look forward to kind of continuing to work with you in the coming months and be engaging in the autumn. So thank you for joining today. Thank you to our panelists and have a lovely day.