Cleaning Up: Leadership in an Age of Climate Change

Climate Action vs Cost of Living: Can We Do Both? | Ep240: Katie White, UK Climate Minister

Episode Notes

How do we build a clean energy system while bringing UK bills down? Can the UK’s landmark Climate Change Act stand up to a fractured climate politics? And does increasing global instability make home-grown energy more important than ever?

This week’s episode of Cleaning Up comes to you from inside of the UK’s Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, where last week Bryony Worthington sat down with Katie White MP, the UK’s recently appointed Climate Minister, to discuss her new role, what she’s excited about, and current challenges that she’s facing.

Katie and Bryony met more than 20 years ago when they worked together at Friends of the Earth on the campaign for the Climate Change Act. In her new role, Katie is now the minister responsible for carbon budgets and net zero, alongside other climate priorities. It was only 12 months after she was elected as an MP for Leeds North West that Katie was promoted Climate Minister, in what she’s described as her dream job.

From their shared history campaigning for the Climate Change Act to today’s challenges of energy affordability, electrification and public consent, Katie and Bryony unpack what’s working, what isn’t, and how to connect climate action to lower bills, stronger security and a better quality of life.

Leadership Circle:

Cleaning Up is supported by the Leadership Circle, and its founding members: Actis, Alcazar Energy, Cygnum Capital, Davidson Kempner, EcoPragma Capital, EDP, Eurelectric, the Gilardini Foundation, KKR, National Grid, Octopus Energy, Quadrature Climate Foundation, SDCL and Wärtsilä. For more information on the Leadership Circle, please visit https://www.cleaningup.live.

Discover more:

Katie White biography and brief: https://www.gov.uk/government/people/katie-white
Katie White’s constituency website: https://katiewhitemp.org.uk/

Episode Transcription

Bryony Worthington

The lived experience is that bills are quite high, right? The affordability of energy is just not there, and hasn't been.

Katie White

You're absolutely right. Energy bills are too high. They're too high, right? Now we are 100% aware of that. That's why, in the budget, obviously, we did this £150 off energy costs, plus we've done the warm homes discount, so an extra £150 to 6 million people across the UK. So that's short term, but we need to bring those prices down, also for families, but also for businesses. So for most reasons. And actually, I think some of the framing around abundant energy, as you know, fabulous. That's what we all want in the long term, cheap, abundant energy. So how do we do that? And as you say, how do we explain that? A lot of the vast reason is because of the exposure to the fossil fuel market.

Hello, I'm Bryony Worthington, and this is Cleaning Up. My guest this week is Katie White MP, and climate minister in the UK Government. Katie and I met over 20 years ago when we worked at Friends of the Earth on the campaign for the Climate Change Act, and here she is now as the minister responsible for carbon budgets and net zero, alongside other climate priorities. It was only 12 months after she was elected as an MP for Leeds North West that she was made a climate minister, in what she's described as her dream job. So I'm delighted to be joining her here in London to discuss her new role, what she's excited about, and current challenges that she's facing. Please join me in welcoming Katie White to Cleaning Up.

Katie, it's so lovely to be with you today, and thank you for coming on Cleaning Up. I'm going to start in the traditional way, which is to ask you to introduce yourself in your own words, please.

My name is Katie White. I am the Minister for Climate in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, based here in the UK. I'm also the Member of Parliament for Leeds North West.

And how recently were you appointed Minister? It's quite new, isn't it?

It is quite new. You've caught me out a little bit on the days, because if you came and we actually had some balloons, because I had 100 days just before Christmas. So it was in September, so just about one quarter we've done. But yeah, we had our 100 days just before Christmas, so we're just planning our next 100 days at the moment, so relatively new.

But we should obviously explain to our listeners that we know each other and work together at Friends of the Earth on the Climate Change Act, and now here you are as the minister responsible for that act, essentially for the carbon budgets and for the net zero targets. So how does that feel?

Pretty amazing, actually pretty amazing, like, in terms of, obviously, it's not something I imagined at that time. It was a pretty amazing time that we had, which is, obviously was, about 2003 when we started to work together. So we've been working well, it's 22 years we've known each other. Obviously we don't look like that. But in terms of it wasn't something I envisaged at the time. I don't think we even had a climate minister at the time.

Probably not. We had Margaret Beckett, and then David Milliband looking after Defra, right? That was where it was at.

And the energy was in DTI (Department of Trade and Industry). So it was a whole different ball game. So the fact that there is actually even a Minister for Climate, and the fact that carbon budgets, we are heading into setting carbon budget seven, you know, is pretty crazy, because, carbon budget was your idea. I mean, in terms of, I remember you coming in, it was your idea, you came up with it. I think you wrote it one late night. But obviously, I was leading on the lot of the campaign here, and that's actually where I ended up meeting the now Secretary of State, Ed Miliband. So it is a bit of a circle of life. But, yeah, it's fantastic. It's an amazing place to be. I also feel really fortunate to be with the Secretary of State who is second time round, knows exactly what he's doing, hit the ground running with a huge amount of energy.

Yes, well, it's really interesting to think back through. I mean, the fact that we thought that we were trying to build something that had enduring kind of qualities, didn't we? Basically the campaign was based around the fact that there was just no long term plan. Emissions were bouncing around. Government didn't seem to have a whole government approach. So bringing in the carbon budgets was a way of trying to force a little bit more long term thinking. And has that actually worked, do you think? Do you see evidence of that?

Absolutely. I think what really sort of surprised me. And obviously I've been in and around the sector for a long time, but I've come in and out in different ways, with children, etc. But in terms of coming in and looking at what's happened in the last 10-20 years, certainly in the last 10 years, it's quite phenomenal. Like, I don't think, we certainly didn't expect the price of solar to drop like it dropped. We didn't expect the deployment of wind to be as it is. So some things are not going in the right direction, but there's a lot of things that are going in the right direction. And I think one of the key messages I try and convey is actually, Britain's been doing a really good job. Now we've loads more to do, and I'm not in any way complacent, but we should be really proud of what has happened, and I think that is in large part down to the Climate Change Act and to the political consensus that we've had in the UK. But it set the system heading in the right direction, and it set the framework, and then allow the creativity to come forward. As you said, we didn't think what was the short term problem. It was like, what was the underlying problem? And the underlying problem was, as you remember, DEFRA was almost going around the government with a begging bowl going, ‘please sir, throw us some emissions cuts.’ And it was awful, and nobody was going to bother doing that, and it wasn't on their priority list. But flipping it around and going, this is what the science says, and therefore, within that context, this is what we need to do. Actually, we've got an incredible bunch of civil servants who can deliver, but need that strategic direction.

And it feels to me it was really important in the early years to set that because the economics weren't quite on our side, right. Remember, we had these fights with the Treasury about, ‘Well, why would we self sacrifice? Why would we create this harm to ourselves?’ But fast forward to today, and you know, those early actions mean that we are less exposed to some of the vulnerabilities of being exposed to big, high volatility in fossil fuels, because we've managed to exploit that offshore wind resource relatively quickly. And I feel like the Climate Change Act kind of, perhaps people sometimes think it's very prescriptive about what we do, but it wasn't. It was just this is the framework, and within that, do the most sensible things that play to our strengths, right? And as you say, we've done that really well.

Absolutely. And when we were looking 20 years back, I remember, I'm sure you knew that the CBI supported the Climate Change Act, and it was Digby Jones, back then, quite a character, who supported, and I think, for having that breadth of coalition with Friends of the Earth. But Digby Jones wanted nuclear and so for him, because it was technology neutral, because we weren't prescriptive, because we were just saying, ‘Actually, let's base ourselves in science, that's all, we agree.’ And then let's argue about the policy. And as you say, we've had so many benefits, whether it's just around offshore wind, whether it's around green finance in the city, which has been a huge market, and whether it's contributing across the world, it has been really beneficial.

But here we are now kind of facing into, probably, its most turbulent times, right in the sense that I think there's only three MPs who voted against the bill right when it went through, thanks in large part to your work going around the country with all these constituency meetings and getting the Conservatives on board. And there was a solid consensus, but right now, that's not where we are, is it? I mean, we've got that fracturing of people kind of seeming to blame the work we're doing on climate for a lot of other ills. So how is that feeling at the moment, when you're in and about parliament?

So look, obviously the political consensus is not where it was before. And whereas you talked about when we had the 412 MPs that supported us going through the house, it's not there. I don't think it's totally broken. I think it's slightly fractured. I don't feel comfortable with that at all. I'm trying to understand and I'm trying to work with and I'm trying to address concerns, because I don't think being entirely rigid all the time is the right approach anyway. And I want to work with people, so I've very much been trying to work behind the scenes and reaching out to think about how we can build consensus and how we can work together. Because ultimately, for me, we have the privilege of being in government, and I hope for many terms to come, but it's likely that governments will change. This is bigger than all of us, and as we've just said, Britain has benefited from having that cross party consensus. I care more about the country and about our next generations than anything else, and so for me, it's around, how can we make sure Britain has the competitive advantage and we set ourselves up for the challenges ahead? So it feels uncomfortable in terms of, clearly, people are calling it out, but I'm trying to listen to… I think do take comfort from a couple of things. One is the polling is still pretty incredible. Like, in terms of the numbers of people that support tackling action on climate change in the UK is way up. I guess about 69% of people are supporting action, or more action on climate change. Now any political party would bite your hand off for those sort of numbers. You know, in terms of the numbers are incredibly high. The other thing is, business likes the deployment and investment that is going on, the green economy is growing three times as fast in the UK than the rest of the economy. But also, you'll have seen numbers in China, but across the world. Like global deployment figures are incredible. Like the green economy is moving at such a pace. So in a way, I just feel frustrated that this, that in any… sort of frustrated in the sense that I don't want Britain to lose any opportunities.

Yeah, as you say, you're listening to people. I think what's difficult for people is that the lived experience is that bills are quite high, right? The affordability of energy is just not there and hasn't been. And actually, you know, we could track it back. There's lots of reasons, some of which is out of our control. You know, Russia invades Ukraine, gas prices go crazy. We're exposed to gas import prices because of our own gas reserves drawing down. But then there is the reality that we've added a lot of subsidies or price guarantees to get those investments in from the sector. There's been intervention in the market, hasn't there? That's added to costs, and now we've got an aging grid. A lot of our power stations were old because we're quite an old economy, a mature economy. So it's all kind of piling up. It feels like there's a narrative war of, it's easy to weaponize it and say it's all the green stuff, and there's a little bit of truth in that. But it's not the whole picture. And how do we in a world of attention spans shrinking, it feels as if this narrative is actually the crucial thing. Now, how do you bring… People can be, in an abstract sense, supportive of climate, but then when it comes to their own homes, be very resistant.

You're absolutely right, and I guess that the challenge and the opportunity around climate change is that it affects so many bits of our lives, and the answers to it are so many bits of our lives that you might support the headline. But actually, which elements of that does it? And how does it fit with you? Look, you say about energy bills, you're absolutely right. Energy bills are too high. They're too high right now, we are 100% aware of that. That's why, in the budget, obviously, we did this, £150 off energy costs, plus we've done the warm homes discount, so an extra £150 to 6 million people across the UK. So that's short term, but we need to bring those prices down, also for families, but also for businesses. So for most reasons. And actually, I think some of the framing around abundant energy is fabulous. That's what we all want in the long term, cheap, abundant energy. So how do we do that? And as you say, how do we explain that? A lot of the vast reason is because of the exposure to the fossil fuel market. So that exposure to the fossil fuel market has been the biggest problem. We have made some investment. And as you say, we also need more investment, which is something that is easily ignored, often by the opposition. Because they'll say, and I kind of think, well, look, we've got three options here, in terms of, we either leave the energy system as it is, in which case it's decaying, and we won't take advantage of opportunities. We won't keep up to date. We invest in a fossil fuel system, or we upgrade to a clean energy system. Those are the sort of three options we need to do that whilst at the same time bring prices down. So I think we are very conscious, and certainly that, I would say, occupies the vast majority of the Secretary of State's headspace in terms of, how do you do both at once. And in the long term, we know that energy prices will come down because we will, you know, as we've discussed before, we're shifting from a system that was effectively a commodity base, so you're renting. It's almost like we've been renting a house, and now we're buying a house, but we're paying the mortgage, and so it's a different system, but we've got to explain that. But ultimately, you know, the sun will be free and the wind is free, as opposed to being stuck on a commodity based system with gas and oil, etc. So it will be a better system in the long term, but in the short term, we do have to make sure that we can support people in order that they can see that direction of travel. So I think it's, as you say, it's around what is that direction of travel? How do we smooth it out in the short term, which is why we've taken more costs into general taxation. But how do we explain in the long term that this is going to be good for energy bills, for Britain in terms of future industries, and also for jobs?

So I completely agree, and that analogy of renting versus mortgage is a really good one. But where in the government is there an active effort, apart from you telling me on a podcast, to get that out so that you can communicate the big strategy and just building on what you said. I love that three pillars analogy. There are only three options. You're absolutely right. But within those pillars, there's a lot of latitude, right? So under the name of clean energy, you could spend as I say wrongly, that Europe has done, spending all your time talking about hydrogen, because you've got this idea that you can reuse all your gas infrastructure, which you really can't. And in it somehow we keep the fuel economy based system going. Whereas what you described, which is this mortgage versus renting, it’s really a shift to electrification. And yet, I haven't seen a kind of electrification strategy come out of government. Haven't seen a kind of really leaning into that as the obvious most path to net zero goes through electricity now, and it leans into our strengths. We’ve got a great grid. We've got great ways of making clean electrons. So when are we going to see that electrification strategy? Because that is the big thing. You could spend a lot of money pursuing niche, expensive pet projects, and that will add to costs, and I don't think it can be really justified.

So look, I think what you would say, you’d agree with me, I think, but tell me if you don't. Since Secretary State came in, things have changed radically, and we've hit the ground running in terms of pulling back on offshore wind, deploying solar, GB, energy, nuclear, etc.

You mean, bringing onshore wind back?

Yes, bringing onshore wind back. Because there was a ban. So I guess the way you’ve framed it, for sure, we need it to electrify a lot of our economy. It hasn't been deployed in that way, but we have a lot of the inputs that we are doing, whether it's around nuclear, whether it's around our renewables will lead to that, whether it's around electric vehicles, and the amount of money that we've been doing to support electric vehicle take up and will need to do so. I think it's an interesting challenge. It's one I'll take up for sure, but I think you're right in terms of, there is, as I said, right at the start, Ed is a mission in himself, do you know what I mean? And has driven this mission, which has been built. So I think he has really articulated, and there has, excuse the pun, but he has so much energy to do that. But I think we have moved through that. I think right now we need to look again, and we've got Carbon Budget Seven coming up, and how that explains the story better. But, you know, we’re in a pretty crazy and volatile time. Right now, things are changing rapidly.

It's complex, but I think you know, Michael, my co-host, Michael Liebreich, he wrote a really good couple of essays last year about the Pragmatic Reset. And my takeaway from that, I didn't agree with all of it, but I thought the important bit was don't try and do everything all at once. There is a sequence here to how you can get big reductions in the economy through known and affordable options. And I'd be really interested in, you know, how does DEZNZ relate to DFT (Departent for Transport), for example, because the biggest source of emissions now for your net zero targets is transport. And actually, I've been really encouraged that the government's held the line on ‘we are making this shift, we are all moving to electric transport, clearer than has been the case in Europe, and certainly embracing of international trade in a way that the US is definitely not doing. So how robust is that transport policy? How much, as a Climate Minister, can you get that kind of cross departmental collaboration going?

There's a lot there isn't there. So I heard you say cross departmental. I heard you say around focus. But then I guess, on the sort of a whole holistic piece as well. So I think the carbon budgets are really good at looking across and in the detail. And the officials do an incredible job here, working with officials across government, looking at every single policy and what the, you know, carbon tons saved, as is right. At the same time, as a politician, I fundamentally can't hold or argue for 200 different policies at once, so I think you're right. We need to focus on where are the sort of key areas of movement. Obviously, moving towards electrifying the transport sector is a key area. Moving forward, we've got a really good relationship with DFT. We're working really closely with them on that. And at the same time, it comes up in Parliament. I had a question yesterday on it, in terms of, how are we supporting electric vehicle charging? So, it's always these changes we push from here, and then there's friction points, isn't there? The deployment levels of, are you supporting mayors, or are you supporting councils? Or where are the blockages, and how do you make sure you're moving that so it's, it's, it's thinking about it in that whole sense. So, yeah, I mean, look, I'm still relatively new, I'm looking in the next bit of how to work more closely. I was with colleagues yesterday across the road, and I'll be meeting with colleagues, I really want to work across government. I think there's much more opportunities to do things much more holistically. Could government be set up better? Yeah, sure. But, I think as well as that, there’s a lot about drive and opportunity, and seeing those opportunities for how to have win-wins.

And I guess it comes back to this narrative, doesn't it, that the mainstream media, parts of it, at least, would love to tell you that electric vehicles are a fad, or that they don't work, or they're awful. But actually, it's for lived experiences for most people now, they really do, outside of the urban centers, maybe and very rural, you've got a lot of aspirational market towns who can see that this is just a better way of doing things. It's a nicer experience. I hope the cities’ air is clearing out, because we've had this awful kind of diesel blight for decades. So it looks like diesel's out and electric is in, but we've got to tell that story, haven't we, in a way that celebrates that. A lot of I think… we came from Friends of the Earth where it was ‘cars are evil, you’ve got to bicycle everywhere.’ You know, it just doesn't chime with the British public's lived experience. So we can lean in to show that electricity is an enabler of a better life. And I think you've got a lot of great potential there to keep people's hearts engaged, not just their minds.

Totally and you know I'm a bit of a car lover on the side, which is obviously a bit of a weird thing for a climate person, but I do drive electric. As you say, it's much more fun. It is much more fun, as well as being so it's generally a better experience. But I think it's also making sure that in some areas where we haven't got the right EV charging, because you just need one person with a bad experience. It's a bit like customer service, isn't it? The one person who moans gets heard, rather than the other 50 who had a great time, don't bother to say ‘actually it was all fine for me.’ So I think you're right. It's how to genuinely address those concerns, but also raise up the voices of people who are having a good experience.

Before we go on, I'd love to talk a little bit about international, because I know you've got quite a solid brief on international. Before we do that, though, can we talk about methane? It's a super pollutant. Let's talk about that, because it's part of your brief. And again, it's another test of whether government can do cross departmental working well, because the methane emissions, some of it's from energy, for sure, but a bulk of it's coming out of agriculture, right? And land use. So how are you dealing with that? There are some technical questions we could get into around how we used to, we had a subsidy for energy from waste, because obviously, landfill emits methane. We had these great renewable obligation subsidies that were meaning we were capturing the methane. But that could be phasing out, and it's a real kind of technical detail. And as you say, you can't keep all 200 in your head, but it does test, doesn't it, this question of departmental cross collaboration, especially with something like that, methane, which is so cross cutting.

Yeah, and I think, you know, obviously we talked a bit about DFT before, DEFRA is obviously another natural ally and partner in this, because they have so many of the levers. You know, as we talked about before, half of this department came from DEFRA. Half came from DTI. So whether it's around nature restoration, but also methane being one of the key areas so and we've been doing, when we go on to international, we've been doing a lot more on international collaboration. I'm trying to find a better analogy for the short term break of reducing methane. I mean, there is around the gas flaring piece, That is an area where it's, it's an obvious win.

But interestingly, though, it comes from a tension where there was a perception that if you flare the gas, it's bad for birds. Like there's these weird tensions where we've kind of gone too far to the green side. This is coming back to a more pragmatic is, I think about seeing where the trade offs are, and trying to not be so pure that you damage the good.

I think it was probably you who said to me, everything we do has an environmental impact. And therefore, you know, you need to be aware, go in with that, and therefore, where do you minimize your environmental impact?

Yeah, there's no such thing as a perfect energy system.

So you're right. And there's also a lot of energy from waste, and lots of interesting examples overseas where people have done really interesting, creative ways of managing waste into energy systems. Also, as you say, agriculture. Look, agriculture is a tricky sector. It's a tricky sector in terms of generally, agriculture is under a lot of pressure from various different sources. And food security is an issue at the same time. So I think we need to work on where those technical solutions are, and actually, and who's got agency, right?

Yeah, when I looked into this a little bit more, the sort of basic realization was that farmers are kind of a conduit between the agrochemical industry and the seed industry who sell them the inputs, and then the supermarkets, who basically take the outputs, and they get squeezed between these two powerful forces. And in a way, putting all of climate onto farmers is probably not sensible. If you can work with the input providers, and you can work with the supermarkets, or the retailers who are buying the product, create the right incentives there, you can leave the farmers alone a little bit. And I feel like that's possibly what we need to do next, is broaden our perception of it. It can't all sit on a subset of people who are quite isolated and they don't have many of the levers. I'd love to see the supermarkets getting involved in methane, for example, because I suspect they'd work how to do it and create the right incentives.

I like it. I’ll mention that to the supermarkets. But I think you're right to think, how do people feel? I was at the Great Yorkshire Show and talking to farmers about this. And the reason I like talking to farmers is they've also got really good ideas. But at the same time, it doesn't mean to say that just because you're the one with the ideas, you should have all of the burden on delivery. How do other people support that? So I think it's also around how people feel within the system. Do you know what I mean? And sometimes saying ‘we want your solutions’ may have sounded like ‘you are the problem’. And actually, I don't think that is the case here, like we need to work… I mean the role of land is going to be so important, whether we use it for climate, nature, food, energy, house building, it is really important. I'm actually very interested, I think, around we're doing this energy spatial plan. We're doing a land use framework around how we bring all those elements together, and farmers are one of the key custodians. So how we work with farmers to secure food security, which is an issue in a changing climate, whilst at the same time, having the necessary space for nature adaptation, etc, is going to be a challenge. But they need to be at the center of that.

Michael Liebriech

Cleaning Up is supported by its Leadership Circle. The members are Actis, Alcazar Energy, Arup, Cygnum Capital, Davidson Kempner, EcoPragma Capital, EDP, Eurelectric, the Gilardini Foundation, KKR, National Grid, Octopus Energy, Quadrature Climate Foundation, SDCL and Wärtsilä. For more information on the Leadership Circle, please visit cleaningup.live. If you're enjoying this episode, please hit like, leave a comment, and also recommend it to friends, family, colleagues and absolutely everyone. To browse the archive of over 200 past episodes, and also to subscribe to our free newsletter, visit cleaningup.live.

Let's move onto international then, because that is part of your brief. It's a pretty big brief, and didn't you, in the very early days of your ministerial appointment, didn't you meet the energy secretary of the US, Mr. Chris Wright, or, as Michael likes to call him, Chris Wrong.

I did. So I think it was week one, and I took a call from my private secretary saying Patrick Vallance was due to attend the International Energy Agency conference, but had to stay for a Select Committee, and could I attend in his place? It wasn't the call I was expecting, but actually it was a brilliant opportunity to do more of a deep dive into the international energy space. It was a really interesting, thought provoking day. I did meet with Chris, we got on really well. I think it was the same week that we'd announced the nuclear collaboration, and I'm sure you're very pleased. But you know, this government is really doubling down. And what I certainly learned from working with the nuclear civil servants here, we've got some brilliant policy officials here, and across government, not just in DEZNZ, but FCDO (Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office) and across the team. We've got some real expertise, like, genuinely, like, comparative advantage. This is an area where Britain can lead, and that's something I'm really interested in, like I keep trying to figure out exactly where all our leading positions are, because ultimately, this is a bit of a race, and I want us to lead on elements of the low carbon transition. I want Britain to figure out where we can lead and double down on that leadership. And nuclear is clearly an area where we can lead. We have skill set that the Americans don't have. That's why they want to work with us. And yet, of course, clearly there's areas where we probably wouldn't agree. But I took it as an opportunity to just look at where we did we agree, and how could we double down on that? Because actually, that is a really powerful collaboration. And I know you've been a big advocate on nuclear for a long time, but it is frustrating how far behind we are and how it could have helped us in this challenge. And if we can exploit that, if we can bring forward some of the SMRs more quickly, that’s good for climate, good for energy security, and could be good for Britain's economy as well.

With the nuclear kind of semi-renaissance. Let's see. I mean, there's still a lot of unknowns, but that we did just have in the UK, this excellent review, the Fingleton review, how British is that? Which looked at, are we regulating this industry appropriately for this era? And I think there was a period where, understandably, post Chernobyl, post Fukushima, that regulation got so overwhelming that I think it's part of why the cost base is so high for the actual capital build. So is that something that you think that again, if the UK can lead on that kind of pragmatic, let's regulate this safely, but let's not overdo it so that we kill it by 1,000 cuts. Is that something in your bucket of things the UK can lead on?

Absolutely. And we're really lucky that we've got Patrick Vallance. I mean, he's a rock star anyway, you know of COVID fame in the UK, but in terms of he is a very clear-thinking, innovative, thoughtful leader, and so he's working really closely. He's our nuclear minister, but I know that he's going to drive this forward, and is working closely to do that. And he's very pragmatic, and comes with a commercial head as well, which I think is where we need to do that. We shouldn't be afraid of doing that in the same way. I think where you and I have aligned quite a lot is that we're practical greenies. We care about environmentalism, but we're pretty practical, and at the same time I'm very patriotic, and where we can have a competitive advantage for Britain, let's do it.

Yeah, and not to state the obvious, but certain other countries in Europe took a different path, right, and I think, either explicitly or implicitly, led themselves into quite a vulnerable position where they're very reliant on Russian gas, building renewables out, but arguably not in the right bits of Europe. Germany is not famous for its solar potential. Should have started in Spain. But Europe's struggling a little to align itself, where they've had this ideological opposition to nuclear, despite the fact that nuclear is the single biggest source of clean electrons in Europe, still, because France demonstrated you could do that. I think the UK's pragmatism really showed where we were thinking: why would you switch off an asset in the middle of an energy crisis which is producing clean electrons in a secure way. So, yeah, that pragmatism actually is probably a characteristic, isn't it, in the UK. So internationally, then you went to the COP as a minister, having gone through many COPs as not a minister, What was that like? And what were the biggest changes that you experienced?

I mean, every time I go to a COP I usually think, ‘oh, that's the last one ever.’ I did my first COP in 2005, I was at Friends the Earth, and it was in Montreal, and Jennifer Morgan was running CAN (Climate Action Network). Sadly, Jennifer Morgan's not running CAN now, but she was at COP this time, and I met with her.

She's been an environment minister in the meantime. And a minister in the meantime in Germany

Well, people change chairs, don't they? But do you know what? So I went to the COP, and I'll be honest, I went with a bit of skepticism. I was worried about the global mood, you know, it's a long way to get there from the UK. Was it going to be a successful event? I went in with a bit of skepticism. I came away really energized, really energized. And the reason I came away really energized was, I think for a couple of issues. One is, the last couple of COPs have obviously been in… the last one I went to was in Egypt, but I know the last couple they've been very closed spaces where no civil society has been allowed. And you almost felt that in the room. Certainly, I did not enjoy it in Egypt at all. You didn't feel any sense of vibrancy, ideas, creativity. Almost felt like a corporate trade show, whereas actually in the heart of the rainforest, the Brazilians, obviously, with all their vibrancy and life and everything else, full of civil society, but full of a huge range of groups, meant that there was definitely more energy within the space. I also was really excited about British business, which I'd never expected. And actually, we did it. We did a meeting with all the Brits who were there. And the sort of sense I had was they were hungry. They were hungry to invest. So SSE did a massive announcement when they were there, around £33 billion on the grid. You know, huge announcements.

Scottish and Southern Energy? Sorry, klaxon of the acronym there,

Yeah, one of our big energy companies did a big investment announcement in the grid. But we had people from the City of London, we had people from different corporates who were there. And they were, you know, it's a sense of this is happening, whatever goes on. And actually, you know the negotiations are one part of the COP. It has now moved that there are different elements of the COP, and negotiations are important in terms of setting a direction, but they are not what's practically happening in the world, and actually it allows a convening space for other people to get together and move stuff on. So I'm not saying it's where it all happens, but I personally came away and also with the sense that things that we've talked about for a long time, transition away from fossil fuels, yes, it's too slow, yes, we want to go further and faster. But we did get the vast majority of countries to say, yes, we want to do that. We've got this roadmap now, obviously where that goes is going to be important, but there has been that. You know, a lot of countries did come together on forests. For ages, it was like, do not talk about nature. Do not talk about forest. Forests were absolutely front and center of that. And for the people who wanted, and there are some people in the world who wanted that whole process to fail. To fail as an indicator of multilateralism failing. It didn't fail, of course, you know, we can’t say it wasn't gold plated, et cetera, et cetera, but it didn't fail.

Does that not just indicate that our bar is quite low, though, because, because the non-failure was really just nothing really bad happened. But the truth of what the world has experienced at the moment is still mitigating the higher greenhouse gasses every year. And we've been doing this for 30 years, and we haven't really bent the curve yet.

I think if you look at Paris, and where we were at Paris, and before we had the Paris Agreement, we were 4°C. Now we’re at 2.5°C in terms of commitments. Obviously we have to see, but in terms of, I think it is it worth it — multilateralism — would I continue to invest in that? Is it going to deliver everything? No, of course, we've got to make sure that we work across nations, across different localities across different regional groupings across corpus. But it's definitely set some global rules that have been helpful. It provides a space to come together. And for some countries, you know, we've talked about… The deployment, particularly, like we had a presentation from the IAEA, in China is insane. It's just of a level, and I think some of the global agreement has created the framework. Now, there's other reasons why China has invested very well in this, in terms of, you know, their own domestic economy, their own reliance. They saw it as an opportunity. They had domestic health issues, etc, and there are a lot of engineers.

It’s a nation of engineers.

But at the same time, the multilateral system has, I would say, had an impact on them.

It's a kind of double edged sword, isn't it? Because if you think the international system is what's kind of driving this at the moment, you'd be quite pessimistic . Because the US has literally come in and smashed as much as it can of it. And yet that hasn't affected China's strategy or India's strategy, because in the real economy, they may show up at COP and argue about who's responsible and who should pay who, and there's all this stuff about finance, which is really small sums of money, really compared to the real economy. But then they go back home and they carry on decarbonizing because they're interested in not being reliant on foreign oil. And so in a way, it kind of reassures me that the COPs are not the be all and end all, because if they were, the US would have smashed it, but the US cannot smash the fact that China's now got a strategic advantage in electrifying its economy to get off oil. And so whatever happens in COPs, there's a kind of real economy now that's got its own momentum. And perhaps it was Paris, or perhaps it was even previous to Paris, it probably tracks back to Germany saying solar is a really good thing that we could have a strategic advantage in. And then China going, ‘hang on, we can do that better.’ So I guess that's the thing. As you say, they can move the ball along, in terms of people meeting, having bilateral conversations, a general sense of an idea exchange and feeling of momentum, and that creates a good narrative. But in the real economy, I think it's just now kind of irrelevant, almost.

I don't think anything is the be all and end all of everything. This is a hugely complex problem that we need multiple levers to solve. Do I think the international system and the structures are worth investing in multilateralism? Yes. And I would not, you know… I think I've always felt a bit more invested in it than perhaps you have. But I totally get the point that the real economy is thriving, and at what point does it become more impactful than not. Like we could write essays on this, you know, I mean both of us. But I would continue to invest in it, as I say, and actually, because it is evolving into a different space, which is useful for different reasons, and useful for different collaborations, and useful… You know, like it was really interesting this year that there were loads of health people there. I never used to see anything on health, and I had this whole health community show up saying, whether it was about infectious diseases, around lethal heat, around air quality. Actually, health is now on the agenda, and actually really interesting across Whitehall. The Department of Health is showing up at all the international climate meetings, because it's starting to affect, so it definitely creates a forum for the different elements to come forward. We've talked about this before, security is a big angle on this. So you can see some of those areas. I’m probably a little bit more positive, but I hear your reservations, yeah.

I think that I'm quite glad that it's not the only thing. As you said, there's many other factors that drive this.

And on that, just in terms of you saying… some of the bilateral meetings are really inspiring. And one of the bilats, I've done a couple of meetings with the Ukrainians. And what the Ukrainians are doing in their country now, their shift, and obviously for energy security reasons, primarily they are shifting towards renewables, but the pace at which they're shifting is incredible. And the context in which they're operating is obviously horrendous and completely humbling. But also you're like, flipping heck, if they can do this in that context, what the heck is anybody else doing? Yeah, so in that sense, you have interactions like that where you think I don't even know what to say. I'm absolutely blown away when the Ukrainian ministers and the Energy Ministers come and tell the stories of what they have managed to achieve in the midst of a war.

Hopefully, that's an indication that Europe's still got this core strength of resilience, despite being under quite a lot of pressure. That is based on the fact that we've also got a lot of engineers, right? We're not, perhaps, up there in terms of China's ability to direct the economy in certain directions, but a lot of our ingenuity and ideas are the things that then China commercializes. So we've definitely got some strengths we need to play into. And maybe this is the era in which we get our act together. And by force of having to, because we're no longer able to rely on our friends across the Atlantic.

Well, and like on science, I think one of the things I've always been aware of, but being in the last few months and becoming more aware of is the value and how impressive British science is. You know, we talked about Patrick Valence, but we have got some of the best climate scientists in the world in the UK. And then you go in to see them within their settings and the spin offs that are coming out. So I go on visits all the time, and I love it. And I always find a story within the visit that I never thought I was going to find. And it's always like now I set myself a challenge of, who are you going to meet that's got a really good story, and quite often it's a spin off business innovation idea that's come out of a climate, green, clean-transition, whatever you want to call it, lab that's doing something and it spins out something else. So in Leeds, we were at a CCS lab. They were obviously looking at CCS technology. And these guys, these young cool guys, had found a different dye that would reduce the need of dye by 90%, but also so much less inputs, massively less inputs. But also meant that you could pull out the dye so that their products can be recycled much more easily. But the quantities they were talking about could revolutionize the dye industry, but it was nothing to do with CCS. But if you've got that creativity in science and investing in science and innovation, actually through climate, but whatever is really helpful for us in terms of keeping ahead of the curve, I agree.

I think that's right. I think the problem we struggle with, I think generally in Europe, is that ability to have the confidence to then allow an existing incumbent to be disrupted, right? And if you think of it, going back to vehicles, because that's a big segment of the problem. We've got this fight now Europe deciding, ‘oh, maybe we should slow down on the EV targets or pull back.’ Just at the same time where China's moving even faster ahead. January the first this year, they introduced new efficiency standards for electric vehicles. Now they're moving so far ahead. So they're going to make electric vehicles more efficient and get more out for their electrons going in, whereas we're like, ‘oh, well, are we really, not quite sure, are we ready?’ And it feels like the incumbency, the kind of drag down of… You know, you saw it. We see it all the time, that sort of protectionism that we sometimes can create around existing jobs. I feel like there's got to be more bravery. Don't just settle for the strategy in the middle. You've got to sometimes commit, if you think the physics lines up, the economic lines up, and you align incentives. Don't do it in by half measures. We haven't got time for half measures. I think you've got a lovely phrase for this, you know, don't just do the acceptable.

Don't want liveable… Yeah, I think you get into the look, change is hard for people, and that change is even harder from a comfortable position, isn't it? So I think that does require leadership, and it does require listening. So I think there's a bit around saying, you get people, and we started off with this conversation shouting up, saying, is this a problem? Is this a problem? And I think, to be honest, first of all, I do think we need to listen and figure out, because some of these problems will be real, and actually there'll be the friction points that we need to solve. Some of them are just fears, and I think it's listening to those fears, but also guiding people through it. So I agree with you, there is a risk that we don't take advantage of those opportunities, but that's down to us to lead and to explain what those benefits are, and to try and make sure we're managing any challenges along the way. But change is hard, and it's different for different personalities, isn't it. I like change, but a lot of people don't like change, and it's how we do that. We've got a big change in terms of the North Sea. Obviously we're shifting towards a green economy. And so we introduced a thing in the budget, which was passporting around skills, which is a bit like what we do with the military. So when you come out of the military, you get a bespoke service. So it's end to end. It's how to work with people, because actually, a lot of the skills from the North Sea are things we're going to need geologically.

Well they’ve already transitioned, a lot of them. The offshore industry wouldn't exist without the oil and gas industry underpinning it? Y

Exactly, exactly. So how do we make sure, as well, a lot of things have happened that we haven't told the story very well. So as I said Britain has done a really good job, and actually, we're getting a huge amount of electricity from clean energy sources. Do people know that? Do people know that Britain's a leader and all of these things, I don't think they know enough. And I think we should feel pride in that, and that should give us the confidence to do more.

It is a success story. And the the reduction in our reliance on fossil fuels that, you know, we have got to get through this hump. Because, as you say, we've taken out a big mortgage, we've had to put in a lot of capital to get to that, but it will pay dividends. And actually, I think we talk about the North Sea there, we're still producing a fair amount of our own energy, but we are going to have to plan for that diminishing reserve that we can't really magic back. No matter what people might like to think that we could start fracking the whole of the Northeast, and we'd get loads of gas. Geography is dictating the fact that that's something we've got to move beyond. But we are so fortunate in our geography of wind that it absolutely makes sense, but I don't know that we've necessarily communicated it as well as we could see.

I agree, I agree. I think we've got a much bigger job to do. But as you say, we are really lucky that our natural resources, fossil fuels are in massive decline. But our natural windy resources, it's a windy little island. It has such potential for us. And actually, in terms as well, some of the coastal towns that you see can potential for having new jobs and investment within those areas. It’s a real win-win, if we can do that right?

I wanted to fast forward into the year ahead. 2026 started off in a pretty high octane, chaotic way. What do you see in the next year ahead? The next 100 days say? What’s top of the list for you. What are you currently working on?

We are in a volatile environment. Security is an issue, it is an issue, whether that's around energy security, whether it's around food security, etc. And so I think in that context, the plan we are pursuing, which is having more energy independence around more clean energy is the right one. But we need to explain that better. So I think it's around making it clear what that case is, what the risks are, but also what the opportunities are. We've talked about whether it's around British science, whether it's around British business, whether it's the fact that we've got a really windy Isle. As I say, I've been out on visits, and I've met with teenagers who are doing apprenticeships in clean, in installing clean energy. It's around making making it clear what those opportunities are. And then, thirdly, there are a lot of co-benefits that we sometimes… we talked a little bit about health. But whether it's around nature restoration, a massive thing that people care about, or whether it's around those health benefits, there are a lot of co-benefits. That's a horrible phrase, but, you know, there is a lot of win-wins to doing this. But I think we've got to remake that case, and I think we've also got to listen to people. But it's not just about government making the case. Not many people listening to government, you know, in terms of, there are so many people across this country doing brilliant things, and across the world. But obviously, I'm focused primarily on Britain, in terms of how do we shine a light on those innovators, those entrepreneurs, those community leaders who are doing this, and how do we learn from each other to ensure that we can move faster and multiply those ideas?

I'm just thinking of you then, as a constituency MP, as well. But I mean, the secret sauce to why we got the Climate Change Act, if we're honest, was we came up with some pragmatic ideas, firstly. But secondly, we put the legwork into selling the idea at a constituency level across the country, across all parties. And I'm wondering if you aren't perfectly positioned to try to take the story of climate change into constituency level conversations, because it has to land locally, doesn't it? And I imagine in this intake of new MPs, some of whom will be fully up to speed on climate, but a lot of them won't be. In fact, when I was peer active in Parliament, people would come up to me, what is net zero anyway? You know, the basic level of understanding, perhaps, isn't there. Maybe there's a little bit of thing to take from those Friends of the Earth days, that we can do the abstract, we can do the international, but actually putting the boots on the ground and going to constituencies and telling the story might be the way you shore up this transition and get the hearts involved.

It sounds like you just signed me up to, I mean, I have flashbacks to those meetings that I used to do, I think I do 100 local meetings, going around the country. Look, definitely, it's a good idea. I'm really willing to work with anybody. As I say, this is bigger than any party, any government. This is around our country, our future and the future of our children. And I think you and I hold the same fear, but also the excitement. We have a lot of the right levers in place within this country to really leapfrog to the next level. So I will take it away as an idea.

Talking about working with your strengths, as a country, we're leaning in on the offshore wind transition. We understand the future the North Sea is shifting. We've got an amazing grid and fantastic companies that provide us with clean electrons, and we've got nuclear experts. You know, these are all solid things you can base it on. But for you personally, your strength, I think, is you've got an instinctive understanding of what the everyman or everywoman thinks and feels. You speak human and you enjoy it. And you've got this energy as well, which is palpable. So I would put you on a road show tomorrow, but I would also just encourage your colleagues, Labour MPs, to reach out and have a chat with you, because that's the way you can sort of just be available. And it's interesting, isn't it? Because most ministers, even through the Conservative, they got briefings from civil servants that helped them understand, I don't think constituency MPs get that same access.

I will definitely take it away, and I do find it incredibly grounding, and it's sort of a breath of fresh air, literally, but going home and being in the constituency. And I'm really lucky to have the best constituency in the country. I've got a lot of green space. But actually a lot of my constituents really care about this. And I ran on this ticket around selection within the Labour Party members and said, ‘Look, this is what I care about.’ I mean, I also care about mental health and around business. But I said climate and nature is the thing, and I think it's the way for us to innovate, to create a new future for the next generation. So I think it's really positive vision for us. And so I ran on that ticket, and I was a bit nervous, but I was like, I've got to be honest. You know, you get to an age where you're like, ‘Look, I am who I am’. Do you know what I mean? And as you say, I've got an odd mix of being a family of entrepreneurs, but being an environmentalist. You know, if there was no carbon to travel, I love it. I think we've got to be honest that we are humans who have desires, at the same time as wanting to respect our planetary boundaries, and how do we manage those tensions at all times? And actually, for me, bringing the tensions together is where the magic happens.

Yeah, brilliant. Well, look, Katie, thank you so much for your time. It's really delightful to spend this time with you. And yeah, as you say, people move seats and things change. And I'm so happy for you to be in this role, which you're clearly really loving, and I know you're going to make a great impact. So thank you for your time.

Thank you.

So that was Katie White, MP and Climate Minister. We'll put links in the show notes to any of the materials we referenced. And my thanks go to Oscar Boyd, our producer, to Jamie Oliver, our editor, to the Cleaning Up team and the Leadership Circle members who make this podcast possible. And thanks to you for listening. Please join us at the same time next week for another episode of Cleaning Up.