✖
Zero Hour and the CAN Bills: Climate urgency denial
Zero Hour is a UK climate campaigning group which, through poor campaigning, is adding to climate complacency and denial.
Since 2020, it has promoted a series of UK parliamentary bills to put UK climate and nature targets into law.
The five bills have varied in climate targets and accounting details.
The earlier bills had much merit in including provisions
However, the latest two bills, the Climate and Nature (CAN) Bills, have been watered down in their climate provisions. The second (most recent) CAN Bill has been so waterd down that its climate provisions are worthless - it has dropped the target of 1.5°C, and merely endorses the UK Government's Net Zero 2050 strategy and its voluntary Nationally Determined Contributions. These are regarded by climate scientists as grossly indequate.
Despite this, Zero Hour is promoting the second CAN Bill as the answer to the Climate Emergency.
This is dangerous misinformation, which is adding to the widespread climate complacency and denial. It needs to end. Instead, Zero Hour should support the climate scientists who reject Net Zero 2050 as climate colonialism, and who are calling for a fundamental rethink of the UK's climate policy.
- to keep global warming within the temperature target of 1.5°C
- to include the principle of international equity so that the UK would keep within its per capita share of the global carbon budget for 1.5°C
- to count all the emissions that the UK is responsible for, including those generated in the production of imports.
Zero Hour
Zero Hour [1] is a climate campaigning group. Its main focus is on new UK legislation via a series of parliamentary Bills: the three Climate and Ecology (CE) Bills, and the two Climate and Nature (CAN) Bills. These are Private Members' bills [2] introduced into the UK Parliament via the House of Commons with the aim of putting climate and nature targets into law. The five bills have varied in climate targets and accounting details (see Appendix 1).Recent misinformation from Zero Hour
"The CAN Bill is the answer to the climate crisis/emergency"
This is seriously misleading because, while the first CAN Bill had some good points, the second (current) CAN Bill has been so watered down that its climate provisions are worthless. Excerpt from the first CAN Bill
The second CAN Bill [4] was published in October 2024 and was presented by Roz Savage MP. It replaced the first CAN Bill.
Excerpt from the second CAN Bill
- dropped the commitment to the 1.5°C Paris target (or any other temperature target),
- dropped the commitment to the UK staying within its per-capita share of the global carbon budget
The scientific consensus on the UK Government's Net Zero 2050 strategy is that it is grossly inadequate (the speed of cuts is far too slow), e.g.:
- Prof Kevin Anderson pointed out in his contribution at the National Emergency Briefing [7] that the Net Zero 2050 strategy would mean the UK would get three times its equal per capita share of the global carbon budget.
- Prof Tim Jackson's report [8] shows the UK's fair carbon budget for 1.5°C will run out before 2027.
- Carbon budget calculations on this website [9] show the UK's fair carbon budget for 1.5°C will run out in 2027.
- The IPCC pointed out in 2021 that "immediate, rapid and large-scale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions" were necessary for the 1.5°C target [10].
- Zero Hour briefing documents have in the past argued for an emergency strategy, e.g. the 2022 Zero Hour Ambition Gap document [11].
So it is bizarre that Zero Hour is now promoting the second CAN Bill with its endorsement of the UK Government's Net Zero 2050 strategy and a policy of gradual decarbonisation as if it is an adequate response to the climate emergency. At a time when accurate information is vital, this is dangerous misinformation.
"The CAN Bill has a lot of support from scientists "
This is seriously misleading because- While the first CAN Bill had some merit, the change to the second CAN Bill is a radical change, with the dropping of the commitments to 1.5°C and to equity between nations (as noted above).
- The change from the first to the second CAN Bill has not been properly publicised - the reasons have not been given; the implications have not been explained; most of the information on the Zero Hour website [1] and in its emails refer to "the CAN Bill" as if there is only one; and much of the material on the Zero Hour website is relevant to the first CAN Bill but not to the second.
- So previous expressions of support for the first CAN Bill or for its predecessors cannot be taken to still apply to the second CAN Bill
- When challenged, Zero Hour did not respond with a single scientist who supports the second CAN Bill.
What should climate activists do instead of backing the CAN Bills?
Climate activists should support the climate scientists at the Tyndall Climate Centre who are saying the UK Government's timescale of emission cuts should be rejected as carbon colonialism, and are calling for a fundamental rethink of the UK's climate policy [12].Comment
The Zero Hour campaign was promising in its early stages, but recently seems to have lost its way.Zero Hour's policy making has fallen below a proper standard in several areas:
- Lack of transparency: Zero Hour is misleading politicians and its supporters in making radical changes to the first CAN Bill without appropriate publicity, without explaining the reasons, and without explaining the implications.
- Honesty/accuracy: Zero Hour has much out-of-date and incorrect information on its website relating to the first CAN Bill, that is no longer appropriate now that the Bill has been radically changed.
- Not evidence-based: Zero Hour's appeal for support for "the CAN Bill" is largely on the basis that "the CAN Bill" is supported by experts, rather than explaining exactly how the CAN Bill relates to the climate science.
- Lack of accountablility: Zero Hour is in receipt of large sums of money from public and charitable sources, and it is attempting to influence decision makers on vitally important questions. So it should be accountable, it should welcome scrutiny, and it should answer genuine concerns. People should be able to ask questions and expect answers. But there has been a brick wall of non-engagement to these concerns set out on this website.
Zero Hour is part of the shambles of much of UK climate campaigning.
There is a desperate need for improvement - and a code of practice for policy making should be adopted to improve standards - see document 196.
.
References
| [1] | https://www.zerohour.uk |
| [2] | https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/bills/private-members/ |
| [3] | The first Climate and Nature Bill (March 2024) https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-04/0192/230192.pdf |
| [4] | The second Climate and Nature Bill (October 2024) https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0014/240014.pdf |
| [5] | UK Nationally Determined Contributions https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uks-2035-nationally-determined-contribution-ndc-emissions-reduction-target-under-the-paris-agreement |
| [6] | Net Zero Strategy: Build Back Greener (2021) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6194dfa4d3bf7f0555071b1b/net-zero-strategy-beis.pdf |
| [7] | Kevin Anderson (Nov 2025) National Emergency Briefing https://www.nebriefing.org/ |
| [8] | https://cusp.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/WP-29-Zero-Carbon-Sooner-update.pdf |
| [9] | Carbon budget calculations for the UK https://www.carbonindependent.org/195.html |
| [10] | IPCC Press Release (2021) https://un-spbf.org/event/ipcc-press-release-climate-action-cannot-wait/ |
| [11] | Net Zero: The Ambition Gap (2022) Zero Hour https://zerohour.uk/downloads/ambition-gap.pdf |
| [12] | Kevin Anderson, Chris Jones and Gaurav Gharde (2025) The UK’s year of climate U-turns exposes a deeper failure https://theconversation.com/the-uks-year-of-climate-u-turns-exposes-a-deeper-failure-254499 |
| [13] | https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_CONF.151_26_Vol.I_Declaration.pdf |
| [14] | Wullenkord & Reese (2021) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272494421001365 |
Appendix 1: The history of the CE and CAN Bills
There have been five related Private Members' Bills.| Date published with link | Presented by | Title | Temp. target stated | Including international equity | Including imports/exports | Effective temperature target | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Sep 2020 link | Caroline Lucas | Climate and Ecology Bill | 1.5°C | Yes | ||
| 2 | Jun 2021 link | Caroline Lucas | Climate and Ecology Bill | 1.5°C | - | Yes | |
| 3 | May 2023 link | Olivia Blake | Climate and Ecology (No. 2) Bill | 1.5°C | Yes | - | |
| 4 | Mar 2024 link | Alex Sobel | Climate and Nature Bill | 1.5°C | Yes | - | 1.6°C |
| 5 | Oct 2024 link | Roz Savage | Climate and Nature Bill | - | - | - | 1.8°C |
Appendix 2: Critique of the first CAN Bill
Good points in the first CAN Bill
The Zero Hour briefing documents- make a good case for climate change being an overriding priority
- clearly state a target limit for global warming (1.5°C)
- emphasize the importance of adhering to the UK's per capita share of the global carbon budget for 1.5°C
- emphasize accounting for all the CO2 emissions that the UK is responsible for, including those from imports and aviation
- expose serious flaws in the UK Government's Net Zero 2050 strategy [6], namely the failure to reduce emissions faster than the global average (as specified in the Paris Agreement), and the failure to properly account for emissions embedded in imports.
Serious flaws in the first CAN Bill
Understating the urgency of climate actionIn 2021, the IPCC said [10]:
"unless there are immediate, rapid and large-scale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, limiting warming to close to 1.5°C or even 2°C will be beyond reach"Numerically, the urgency of climate action is given by
- the short time before the UK's per capita carbon budget is exhausted at current emission rates:
- including imports, the UK's carbon budget for 1.5°C runs out in 2027 [9]
- the size of the emission cuts needed to stay within the carbon budget, i.e. of the order of 20% per year [8].
The Zero Hour documents do not mention the 2027 date. There is a mention of the 2028 date for exhaustion of the UK's carbon budget excluding imports, but this is only in the Appendix of the Ambition Gap document [11], and is not in other documents, e.g. in the approaches to MPs. The imminent exhaustion of the UK's carbon budget is such a crucial point that it should be highlighted everywhere.
The size of the emission cuts needed (of the order of 20% per year) is not stated in the Zero Hour documents in numerical terms, just in text such as "a pace unprecedented in peacetime" [11], which is open to wide interpretation. This is a serious omission.
Controversial carbon accounting: omitting emissions from imports in calculating the UK's cumulative CO2 emissions
The Zero Hour briefing documents emphasize the the importance of counting all CO2 emissions including those generated in the production of imported goods (termed "consumption emissions" rather than "territorial emissions"), but the wording of the first CAN Bill specifies that only territorial and aviation emissions would be included in totting up the UK's cumulative emissions in order to keep within a fair carbon budget. This would mean that, including imports, the UK would take about 40% more than its fair share of the global carbon budget for 1.5°C. If other countries followed suit, the total additional global emissions would be an extra 40%. This would lead to global warming of 1.6°C, not 1.5°C.
There are several arguments in favour of including emissions from imports in carbon accounting. A principal one is that this is in line with the UK's international commitments since Principle 2 of the Rio Declaration is "States should ... discourage or prevent the relocation and transfer to other States of any activities and substances that cause severe environmental degradation ..." [13]. So the transfer of much manufacturing from the UK to abroad that has taken place for several decades goes against the Rio Declaration, and should not be ignored.
Lack of transparency over carbon accounting
There is inconsistency in terminology in the Zero Hour initiative e.g. "total carbon footprint" is used in the Ambition Gap report [11] to mean including emissions embedded in imports, but in the first CAN Bill, "total emissions" is used to mean excluding imports. It seems likely that many readers will be unaware that this is what the Bill intends. Whether or not imports are included is such a crucial point that this exclusion from Zero Hour's calculation of the UK's cumulative emissions should be prominently and explicitly stated.
Advocating inadequate action
Zero Hour documents fail to highlight the scale and speed of changes needed throughout society to achieve the emission cuts effectively promised in the Paris Agreement, e.g. an immediate end to leisure flights. It is not good enough to say that changes will be decided in consultation with a citizens' assembly without giving any indication of the radical transformation that is needed.
There is a common misconception that a gradual decarbonisation is all that is needed - even The Guardian is still promoting flights to Japan, India and South America for holidays. Zero Hour is adding to this misconception, leaving an information vacuum where the Government can continue to freeze fuel duty, and invest in unproven technological "solutions".
The proposed Zero Hour procedure was that the first CAN Bill would progress through Parliament during 2025 as a Private Members' Bill, and that once passed the Government would have 12 months to present a plan, i.e. potentially in 2026. This would mean that of the 2 years to when the UK's fair carbon budget including imports runs out in 2027, all of the time would be spent in drawing up a plan. And of the time to when the UK's carbon budget excluding imports runs out in 2028, half the time would be spent passing the Bill and drawing up a plan, after which emissions would have to reduce to zero by 2030, as in the chart. This timescale is nonsensical; the planet needs radical action now, not in 2 years time. Everyone who cares about the climate should be saying this. First CAN Bill: Conclusion
The first CAN Bill understated the urgency of climate change, and advocated an inadequate timescale of action. This made it a part of the spectrum of climate denial of climate advocacy groups (implicatory climate denial [14]).First published: 1 Nov 2024