The evening was chaired by the Rt. Rev. Steven Croft, Bishop of Oxford, and facilitated by Roger Harrabin, BBC Energy and Environmental analyst. St Mary’s church was absolutely packed. Witney is seriously concerned about climate change!

The major focus was the Skidmore Review, a report commissioned by the Conservative government which relates to climate change and the policies necessary to mitigate it. The objective was to facilitate a discussion between voters in our constituency, and our MP, on climate issues and the local or national policies necessary to address them.

The Bishop’s introductory remarks included the observation that there is no more important subject facing us at present: what we decide to do now is absolutely critical for the next decade and beyond. He sits in the House of Lords as a Lord Spiritual and tries to lead the debate on climate change and the environment. There is agreement that the issue is vitally important – while at the same time being complex, as is human behaviour. There’s a need for reasoned dialogue and positive exchange of ideas when trying to come to terms with it.

Robert said many things of general importance: he told us that climate change was epoch-defining; the over-arching issue of our time. It was imperative we hit our net zero 2050 target (which is, anyway, set in law). He said that there was a national, and international, consensus around climate change – that it was real, man-made, caused by fossil fuel emissions and existentially dangerous. He accepted the science in the shape of reports from the Parliamentary Committee on Climate Change (CCC) and the political necessities in the shape of the Skidmore review.

These trenchant views were, though, considerably diluted during the evening’s debate…

Questions were submitted, covering many aspects of the subject. Robert accepted that climate was a political issue but opted always for free market rather than state solutions. He laid heavy emphasis on exclusively technological answers to issues and frequent acceptance of considerable delay. He spoke often of change taking “a generation” to change, with the assumption that we had such time available (in contrast to both the CCC and Skidmore). There was a notable lack of urgency; a sense of complacency.

He seemed to accept that dramatic change was inevitable, and that it was, anyway, happening. He accepted that it was absolutely necessary, too. But there was little sense that actions must be taken, by government, as immediately as possible a) in order to mitigate climate change and b) because early action will be very much cheaper than delay. When it came to particular climate issues, Robert tended to refer to unspecified “plans” or “road maps” among government rather than real actions in the real world.

Robert began with a paeon of praise for his government, larded with the words “world beating”. A few truths were stretched to cover the whole subject area with stardust. We do have important net zero legislation, and we do have important statements and aspirations, plans and laws, but as the facilitator, Roger Harrabin, pointed out, aspirations, plans and even laws do not amount to action.

Robert was happy to spin facts, too, for example when he stated that Britain is responsible for “only 1% of the world’s emissions”. This disinformation was fact-checked by the facilitator who pointed out that if you took into account our exported emissions (as we must) it was double that, around 2%, which is a significant proportion which matters.

Robert spoke about other countries. We performed better than many, he said, naming India and China and implying that we should not act until they did. This was fact-checked in that our per capita emissions remain internationally high and historically very high, that China leads the world in many renewable technologies, notably solar and wind, and that if we were indeed to be “world leaders” as Robert insisted we were, then we needed to lead the world.

The first question related to onshore wind power. It was pointed out that onshore wind is very cheap and easy to install, but there remains a presumption against it in that a single objection may be enough to prevent an installation. Robert said he was passionately committed to onshore wind but that it had to be compatible with local opinion, which may take time to obtain. At no point did he refer to any governmental action to influence public opinion in respect of climate change. The facilitator pointed out that there was no such presumption when it came, for example, to nuclear power stations, using Sizewell as example.

Housing came next – the upgrading of existing stock and zero carbon new-build - both presented as essential in Skidmore’s report. Robert agreed passionately with the report but made no commitment to reinstating the cancelled home insulation schemes or legislating for zero carbon building standards. He talked about the total carbon cost of a building which included that cost of all materials and associated infrastructure and said more time and more research was needed. He claimed the government had a “strong record on decarbonisation”.

The facilitator pointed out that one construction company acting alone – Persimmon – had caused an important, backward-facing dilution of government policy and asked whether that was reasonable. Robert said the whole chain and every company had to go green.

The next question pointed out that the Skidmore review is very clear on the question of housing. We need net-zero carbon to be the main criterion but the government is not taking action to legislate in this sphere. Fewer houses were insulated in 2022 than in 2021, and there has been a 90% drop over the last decade. The EU has reduced its consumption of gas by 90%, the UK by only 1%.

Robert replied that he passionately agreed with the findings of the Skidmore report, not least as it spells out how many opportunities NetZero offers to business. He claimed that we have decarbonised faster than any other G7 country although accepting that more needs to be done on the housing insulation front. He claimed that the government has very good decarbonisation plans in place but that they do not yet know how to implement them.

The next questioner pointed out that climate change will threaten global prosperity, security and peace meaning it might be time for a government of national unity. Robert claimed that this would not produce consensus and would prevent challenge, debate and scrutiny and ruled it out. The Bishop also said he was not in favour.

The loudest and most prolonged applause of the evening came when the facilitator suggested that the Prime Minister was deliberately attacking the national consensus and denigrating climate action to drive an electoral wedge between the Labour and Conservative parties. He was dividing the country over net zero and climate mitigation for partisan purposes. He has appointed senior advisors known to have spread climate disinformation.

Robert asserted that that was not what was intended but that we need to wait until the necessary infrastructure was in place and that the costs associated with climate mitigation had to be spread over time. The facilitator remarked that government should not simply “wait” but should ensure infrastructure is put into place. There is no time.

The bishop said that the Prime Minister’s announcement had winded and moved him as much as did the abandonment of the 0.7% target for overseas development aid. It will affect how Britain’s leadership is perceived globally and was indeed an attempt to politicise a question – the need to move towards NetZero – which requires urgent attention and consensus. It is dangerous. He hoped all parties would keep their eye on the long-term picture. This issue must be set above party politics. We need to set a global lead and example.

Robert replied that there is no danger that consensus will be damaged and no intention to politicise the issue. The PM was simply pointing out that Labour is the party that punishes the voters. The changes the PM is suggesting were right. The government is trying to offer support and make things easier for people who would otherwise suffer.

The facilitator said that we are on track to move to an overall rise in temperature not of 1.5 but of 3 degrees and yet the government is talking of the need to slow things down. Nature is not slowing down. He pointed out that the government’s approach was distinctly linear whereas the climate was changing exponentially. There is no time to spare. Robert replied that time is an urgent factor, but we need to bring the public with us. He personally wanted to move as fast as possible, but one also needs to bring the rest of the world along with you and we need a dynamic economy in order to create the new technology.

A theme of Robert’s answers was unwillingness to constrain individual choice. He categorised many net zero policies as “coercion”. He did this with the next question, on gas boilers. Robert said he preferred to support people by grants rather than require them to remove boilers.

Aviation came up next. Robert rejected any suggestion that it should be curtailed, even in the public interest and even in private jets. He said that domestic aviation was essential for economic and connectivity reasons but also as a test bed for new, sustainable fuels. He claimed that allowing aviation companies to continue flying a plethora of routes and making large profits would incentivise and enable them to invest in zero carbon alternatives.

To the question of schisms in his party, especially on net zero, Robert said that one of its most powerful groupings was the Conservative Environment Network, of which he was a passionate member. He denied that climate sceptics, notably the Net Zero Scrutiny Group, were more influential in parliament, although he agreed they were more vociferous.

Questions from the floor occupied the last 15 minutes. One asked why the principle of “polluter pays” was not implemented, using the example of the aviation and energy industries. Robert would not agree that they should be asked to pay to mitigate the damage they cause, claiming that their profits were essential to their drive towards carbon neutrality.

Another questioner pointed out that we already had access to enough oil and gas to last us to 2050, and take us way beyond 1.5C, so why had we issued 100 new licences to explore for more? Robert gave a politician’s answer without condemning the licensing policy.

The final question of the evening was about the Energy Charter Treaty and the secret courts which could force governments to ‘compensate’ energy companies if they adopted any policy which might reduce company profits, as with the TTIP treaty from a decade ago. Was the government withdrawing from the treaty? Robert would only say that he was, in principle, opposed to secret courts- that justice should be openly administered.