Boris Johnson’s government has reneged on key promises it has made in the efforts to combat climate change, according to one of the most senior Conservative environmentalists.
The Tory chair of the Climate Change Committee – which advises the government on tackling global warming – has condemned the decision by ministers to give into Australian demands to water down environmental protections in the UK-Australia trade deal.
Earlier on Wednesday, Sky News published a leaked government email that revealed Liz Truss, the international trade secretary, and Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng decided the government could “drop both of the climate asks” from the text of the trade deal.
Image: The PM with his Australian counterpart Scott Morrison in June
Among the areas to be removed was “a reference to Paris Agreement temperature goals”, with the revelation coming less than two months before the UK hosts the COP26 international climate change summit in Glasgow.
Sky News understands the treaty text will contain a reference to Paris, but the reference to specific temperature commitments is disappearing.
Advertisement
This was bitterly condemned by Tory peer Lord Deben, the chairman of the Climate Change Committee, an independent body advising the government on its climate targets.
As the MP John Gummer, he was an environment secretary in Sir John Major’s government.
More on Boris Johnson
Lord Deben told Sky News the change agreed by Ms Truss and Mr Kwarteng “mattered enormously”.
“The government promised that they would not do any of those things, and listen to ministers in the House of Lords saying that, and so it’s to go back on all the promises that they’ve made,” he said.
“If we’re not prepared to hang our hat on the Paris Agreement, to which we have put our solemn promise, and which we have put by law into action in this country, when we are dealing with Australia, which is one of the recalcitrant nations, one of the countries that’s not doing what it ought to do, then really we are not taking the lead at all and to do this at a time before COP26 is very serious.”
Asked why keeping broad commitments to the Paris climate change agreement was not enough, Lord Deben replied: “We just have to stick to this, the moment you make it woolly and not certain… why do you think the Australians ask for it?
“It’s because the Australians will not commit themselves, they are large exporters of coal, they are destroying your climate and my climate and they have to come back to the world stage and work with the rest of us.”
Government sources confirmed that the references to temperature are now “implicit” rather than spelt out in the text of the trade treaty.
This is different from the UK-EU trade deal where the temperature commitments are explicitly in the deal.
Analysis by Sam Coates, deputy political editor
Privately government sources claim the climate compromise in this trade negotiation is, in fact, good for the environment.
They say they have secured a first: Australia will reference the Paris agreement in a free trade agreement for the first time. They point to the fact there will be a whole chapter on the environment in the final text.
But there is no getting away from the simple fact that binding temperature commitments have been dropped. In other FTAs, like the one signed between the UK and EU, those commitments are explicit.
The political significance is what this reveals about government priorities. In the year the UK is hosting the COP 26 climate conference in Glasgow, Boris Johnson could have chosen to make temperature commitments a red line in the trade talks with Australia. It would have been a statement on the centrality of climate change in his agenda.
The consequence of such a statement, however, would have likely been trade talks taking longer and the UK having to give ground in other areas.
When it comes to government priorities, what this all demonstrates is that securing a swift trade deal with Australia has been placed above securing temperature commitments.
The UK government will argue that it has nevertheless secured a “win” on climate by referencing the Paris Agreement in the text of the treaty, the first time this has happened in an Australian trade deal.
The 11th hour change comes three months after Mr Johnson and Scott Morrison, his Australian counterpart, announced they had come to an in-principle agreement over a trade deal.
Both the Australian and UK government played down the significance of the leaked email, which reveals ministers agreed to drop specific climate change temperature targets.
However Sky News talked to a leading Australian politician who made clear that this was an important red line to secure a deal.
Matt Cavanan, the Queensland senator and a former resources minister in the Australian government, said it was right the UK had dropped the requirement from the deal.
“We have always separated our trade policy settings from the domestic policy concerns or priorities of other countries,” he said.
“That’s for them to decide and we’ve always respected other countries to do that.
“I welcome the fact the UK is recognising we are no longer a colony of the UK. The UK does not get to decide what policies are put in place here in Australia.”
Mr Cavanan made clear his scepticism about the Paris Agreement.
“Keep in mind the Paris Agreement is non-binding, it’s not law, it did not go through the US Senate,” he added.
“It was not considered a treaty – it’s an aspirational agreement a bunch of countries signed up to. There was no law that passed through the Australian parliament to give effect to Paris targets.
“I didn’t go to Paris commitment negotiations, I am not going to Glasgow later this year, I won’t be bound by anything discussed at those conferences, I represent the people who vote me in to the Australian parliament.
“Those are the views I resect and am committed to as a senator.”
The email seen by Sky News was sent last month and reveals details about the internal government discussion over the UK-Australia trade deal involving Ms Truss, Mr Kwarteng and Lord Frost, the Brexit minister who also co-ordinates cross-government positions on trade issues.
The email comes from a senior official, a deputy director, in the “trade secretariat” part of the Cabinet Office.
He writes: “As flagged in my note to Lord Frost, the business and trade secretaries were due to speak yesterday.
“We haven’t yet seen the formal read out, but we understand the conversation took place and the business secretary has agreed that, in order to get the Australia FTA over the line, DIT can drop both of the climate asks (ie on precedence of Multilateral Environmental Agreements over FTA provisions and a reference to Paris Agreement temperature goals).”
One member of the government’s Strategic Trade Advisory Group, Matthew Kilcoyne, said the change was only for Australian domestic political reasons.
Mr Kilcoyne, deputy director of the Adam Smith Institute, told Sky News: “The final text no longer makes reference to 1.5 degrees, but it makes reference explicitly to the Paris Agreement which does make explicit reference to that 1.5 degrees, and it holds Australia to that.
“So it’s the first time actually that Australia has ever signed up to an agreement of the Paris Agreement in an international trade treaty, and it proves actually that the UK government is holding them to account.
“And we know that the UK government wants to go further than that, because that’s why they’re holding COP26 in Glasgow in a few months’ time – it is really quite an important document mentioning Paris in the first place.
“The fact that it doesn’t mention 1.5, it really is neither here nor there.”
Watch the Daily Climate Show at 6.30pm Monday to Friday on Sky News, the Sky News website and app, on YouTube and Twitter.
The show investigates how global warming is changing our landscape and highlights solutions to the crisis.
United States President Donald Trump announced on Sunday that most Americans will receive a $2,000 “dividend” from the tariff revenue and criticized the opposition to his sweeping tariff policies.
“A dividend of at least $2000 a person, not including high-income people, will be paid to everyone,” Trump said on Truth Social.
The US Supreme Court is currently hearing arguments about the legality of the tariffs, with the overwhelming majority of prediction market traders betting against a court approval.
Kalshi traders place the odds of the Supreme Court approving the policy at just 23%, while Polymarket traders have the odds at 21%. Trump asked:
“The president of the United States is allowed, and fully approved by Congress, to stop all trade with a foreign country, which is far more onerous than a tariff, and license a foreign country, but is not allowed to put a simple tariff on a foreign country, even for purposes of national security?”
Investors and market analysts celebrated the announcement as economic stimulus that will boost cryptocurrency and other asset prices as portions of the stimulus flow into the markets, but also warned of the long-term negative effects of the proposed dividend.
While a portion of the stimulus will flow into markets and raise asset prices, Kobeissi Letter warned that the ultimate long-term effect of any economic stimulus will be fiat currency inflation and the loss of purchasing power.
The proposed economic stimulus checks will add to the national debt and result in higher inflation over time. Source: The Kobeissi Letter
“If you don’t put the $2,000 in assets, it is going to be inflated away or just service some interest on debt and sent to banks,” Bitcoin analyst, author, and advocate Simon Dixon said.
“Stocks and Bitcoin only know to go higher in response to stimulus,” investor and market analyst Anthony Pompliano said in response to Trump’s announcement.
Opinion by: Agata Ferreira, assistant professor at the Warsaw University of Technology
A new consensus is forming across the Web3 world. For years, privacy was treated as a compliance problem, liability for developers and at best, a niche concern. Now it is becoming clear that privacy is actually what digital freedom is built on.
The Ethereum Foundation’s announcement of the Privacy Cluster — a cross-team effort focused on private reads and writes, confidential identities and zero-knowledge proofs — is a sign of a philosophical redefinition of what trust, consensus and truth mean in the digital age and a more profound realization that privacy must be built into infrastructure.
Regulators should pay attention. Privacy-preserving designs are no longer just experimental; they are now a standard approach. They are becoming the way forward for decentralized systems. The question is whether law and regulation will adopt this shift or remain stuck in an outdated logic that equates visibility with safety.
From shared observation to shared verification
For a long time, digital governance has been built on a logic of visibility. Systems were trustworthy because they could be observed by regulators, auditors or the public. This “shared observation” model is behind everything from financial reporting to blockchain explorers. Transparency was the means of ensuring integrity.
In cryptographic systems, however, a more powerful paradigm is emerging: shared verification. Instead of every actor seeing everything, zero-knowledge proofs and privacy-preserving designs enable verifying that a rule was followed without revealing the underlying data. Truth becomes something you can prove, not something you must expose.
This shift might seem technical, but it has profound consequences. It means we no longer need to pick between privacy and accountability. Both can coexist, embedded directly into the systems we rely on. Regulators, too, must adapt to this logic rather than battle against it.
Privacy as infrastructure
The industry is realizing the same thing: Privacy is not a niche. It’s infrastructure. Without it, the Web3 openness becomes its weakness, and transparency collapses into surveillance.
Emerging architectures across ecosystems demonstrate that privacy and modularity are finally converging. Ethereum’s Privacy Cluster focuses on confidential computation and selective disclosure at the smart-contract level.
Others are going deeper, integrating privacy into the network consensus itself: sender-unlinkable messaging, validator anonymity, private proof-of-stake and self-healing data persistence. These designs are rebuilding the digital stack from the ground up, aligning privacy, verifiability and decentralization as mutually reinforcing properties.
This is not an incremental improvement. It is a new way of thinking about freedom in the digital network age.
Policy is lagging behind the technology
Current regulatory approaches still reflect the logic of shared observation. Privacy-preserving technologies are scrutinized or restricted, while visibility is mistaken for safety and compliance. Developers of privacy protocols face regulatory pressure, and policymakers continue to think that encryption is an obstacle to observability.
This perspective is outdated and dangerous. In a world where everyone is being watched, and where data is harvested on an unprecedented scale, bought, sold, leaked and exploited, the absence of privacy is the actual systemic risk. It undermines trust, puts people at risk and makes democracies weaker. By contrast, privacy-preserving designs make integrity provable and enable accountability without exposure.
Lawmakers must begin to view privacy as an ally, not an adversary — a tool for enforcing fundamental rights and restoring confidence in digital environments.
Stewardship, not just scrutiny
The next phase of digital regulation must move from scrutiny to support. Legal and policy frameworks should protect privacy-preserving open source systems as critical public goods. Stewardship stance is a duty, not a policy choice.
It means providing legal clarity for developers and distinguishing between acts and architecture. Laws should punish misconduct, not the existence of technologies that enable privacy. The right to maintain private digital communication, association and economic exchange must be treated as a fundamental right, enforced by both law and infrastructure.
Such an approach would demonstrate regulatory maturity, recognizing that resilient democracies and legitimate governance rely on privacy-preserving infrastructure.
The architecture of freedom
The Ethereum Foundation’s privacy initiative and other new privacy-first network designs share the idea that freedom in the digital age is an architectural principle. It cannot depend solely on promises of good governance or oversight; it must be built into protocols that shape our lives.
These new systems, private rollups, state-separated architectures and sovereign zones represent the practical synthesis of privacy and modularity. They enable communities to build independently while remaining verifiably connected, thereby combining autonomy with accountability.
Policymakers should view this as an opportunity to support the direct embedding of fundamental rights into the technical foundation of the internet. Privacy-by-design should be embraced as legality-by-design, a way to enforce fundamental rights through code, not just through constitutions, charters and conventions.
The blockchain industry is redefining what “consensus” and “truth” mean, replacing shared observation with shared verification, visibility with verifiability, and surveillance with sovereignty. As this new dawn for privacy takes shape, regulators face a choice: Limit it under the old frameworks of control, or support it as the foundation of digital freedom and a more resilient digital order.
The tech is getting ready. The laws need to catch up.
Opinion by: Agata Ferreira, assistant professor at the Warsaw University of Technology.
This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.
Italian banks have expressed their support for the European Central Bank’s (ECB) digital euro initiative, but are calling for the implementation costs to be spread out over several years due to the financial burden it places on the sector.
“We’re in favour of the digital euro because it embodies a concept of digital sovereignty,” said Marco Elio Rottigni, General Manager of the Italian Banking Association (ABI), during a press seminar in Florence, Reuters reported on Friday.
“Costs for the project, however, are very high in the context of the capital expenditure banks must sustain. They could be spread over time,” Rottigni added.
The comments come as the central bank digital currency (CBDC) project has met resistance from some French and German banks, who fear the introduction of an ECB-backed retail wallet could drain deposits from commercial lenders.
137 countries and currency unions, representing 98% of global GDP, are exploring a CBDC. Source: CBDC Tracker
At its October 29–30 meeting in Florence, the ECB’s Governing Council approved moving the project into its next phase after a two-year preparatory period. A pilot phase is expected to begin in 2027, with a full rollout tentatively scheduled for 2029, pending the adoption of EU legislation in 2026.
European Parliament member Fernando Navarrete, who is leading the parliament’s review of the proposal, recently presented a draft report calling for a scaled-down version of the digital euro to protect private payment systems such as Wero, a joint initiative by 14 European banks, per the report.
Rottigni said Europe should pursue a “twin approach,” combining the ECB’s digital euro with commercial bank-backed digital currencies. “What Europe shouldn’t do is fall behind,” he added.
ECB signs deals with tech firms for digital euro development
Last month, the ECB finalized framework agreements with seven technology providers to support the development of a potential digital euro. The agreements cover fraud and risk management, secure payment data exchange, and software development.
Among the firms involved are fraud-detection specialist Feedzai and security technology company Giesecke+Devrient (G+D).
According to the ECB, the selected firms will also develop features such as “alias lookup,” enabling users to send or receive payments without knowing the recipient’s payment service provider and offline payment capabilities.