Connect with us

Published

on

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has sworn to get the UK off polluting fossil fuels and on to more clean power in order to secure energy supplies, bucking claims by his predecessor Liz Truss that oil and gas expansion was vital.

Addressing world leaders at COP27 in Egypt on Monday, Mr Sunak will argue the “shock” to global energy markets triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine underscores the need to move to cheaper, cleaner, safer energy sources.

Amid domestic economic woes, the PM had declined the invite to the biggest climate summit of the year.

But this week, Mr Sunak made a dramatic U-turn following intense criticism he was missing an environmental and geopolitical opportunity.

In a statement before his departure on Sunday for Sharm El-Sheikh on the Red Sea, Mr Sunak said fighting climate change is not just a “moral good” but “fundamental to our future prosperity and security”.

“Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and contemptible manipulation of energy prices has only reinforced the importance of ending our dependence on fossil fuels,” he said.

Number 10 will hope the promise to make the UK a “clean energy superpower” smooths the way for negotiations at COP27, where almost 200 countries must each bring something to the table in the expectation others do the same.

More on Climate Change

Sunak ‘does not get’ scale of crisis

But the government is still mooting plans to issue more than 100 new licences for North Sea oil and gas extraction, initiated by Boris Johnson and pushed strongly by his successor, Ms Truss.

It has also further delayed a decision on whether to approve a new coal mine in Cumbria, expected on Monday but now pushed back until after COP27.

“We need to move further and faster to transition to renewable energy,” the PM added, although his team did not unveil details of funding or targets to facilitate the aim.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

COP27: World leaders due in Egypt

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer said Mr Sunak “just does not get” the scale of the climate crisis.

Writing in The Observer, Sir Keir said: “Twelve years of the Conservatives has left our energy system exposed, bills rocketing, while failing to tackle the climate emergency.

“My Labour government will tackle the climate crisis by grasping the opportunities it presents.

“We’ll deliver clean power for 2030, and our publicly owned energy generator GB Energy will cut bills, secure our energy supplies, and create jobs.”

‘UK’s policies don’t match targets’

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Have we reached a climate tipping point?

Greenpeace UK said Mr Sunak’s speech might “make the right noises,” but the “hard currency of global climate diplomacy is actions, not words”.

“Not only do the UK’s policies completely fail to match up to its climate targets, but it has also failed to pay more than $300m promised to support developing countries deal with devastating climate impacts,” head of politics Rebecca Newsom told Sky News.

Speaking from Sharm El-Sheikh, she urged the PM to rule out new oil and gas drilling, and to invest in home insulation to cut energy demand.

Read more:
Crucial climate summit hinges on this taboo issue
Adam Boulton looks ahead to whether COP27 can succeed

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘Tense divisive politics distracting from climate’

Mr Sunak’s rhetoric marks a shift from his predecessor, who aggressively sought to boost domestic fossil fuel production during her brief tenure. He has overturned the decision by Ms Truss to lift the ban on fracking for shale gas.

A report by leading energy NGO Global Energy Monitor warned handing out new permits to harvest oil and gas from the North Sea is incompatible with the UK’s goal to reach net-zero, which means slashing emissions as much as possible and offsetting the rest.

Many new projects approved this year would not start producing for several years, would sell the oil and gas on international markets, and still be in operation in the early-to-mid 2050s, risking decarbonisation goals as well as becoming stranded assets.

Debate

Watch the Daily Climate Show at 3.30pm Monday to Friday, and The Climate Show with Tom Heap on Saturday and Sunday at 3.30pm and 7.30pm.

All on Sky News, on 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.

Continue Reading

World

Trump could meet Putin as early as next week to discuss Ukraine ceasefire – White House official

Published

on

By

Trump could meet Putin as early as next week to discuss Ukraine ceasefire - White House official

Donald Trump could meet Vladimir Putin in person as early as next week to discuss a ceasefire in Ukraine, a White House official has said.

They said the meeting would be conditional on the Russian president meeting his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Sky News’s US partner network NBC News reported.

It came days before the White House’s deadline for Russia to reach a peace deal with Ukraine or face severe economic penalties, which could also target countries buying its oil.

Ukraine war latest

Asked during a news conference at the White House if the talks would take place, Mr Trump said: “There’s a very good prospect that they will.”

He said it had not been determined where the talks would take place, but added: “We had some very good talks with President Putin today.”

However, he said: “I’ve been disappointed before with this one.”

Asked if Mr Putin made any kind of concession to lead to the development, Mr Trump did not give much away, but added: “We’ve been working on this a long time. There are thousands of young people dying, mostly soldiers, but also, you know, missiles being hit into Kyiv and other places.”

Trump might finally be a step closer to ending the war

Seven hours is a long time in US politics.

At 10am, Donald Trump accused Russia of posing a threat to America’s national security.

At 5pm, Trump said there was a “good prospect” of him meeting Vladimir Putin “soon”.

There had, he claimed, been “great progress” in talks between his special envoy Steve Witkoff and the Russian president.

It’s difficult to gauge the chances of a meeting between the two leaders without knowing what “great progress” means.

Is Russia “inclined” towards agreeing a ceasefire, as Ukraine’s president now claims?

Is Putin prepared to meet with his Ukrainian foe Volodymyr Zelenskyy, too?

The very fact that we’re asking those questions suggests something shifted on a day when there was no expectation of breakthrough.

Trump repeatedly vowed to end the war within 24 hours of becoming president.

On day 198 of his presidency, he might, just might, be one step closer to achieving that.

More tariffs ‘could happen’

Mr Trump also said he could announce further tariffs on China similar to the 25% he announced on India over its purchases of Russian oil.

“Could happen,” he said, after saying he expected to announce more secondary sanctions intended to pressure Russia into ending its war with Ukraine.

Earlier, he imposed an additional 25% tariff on Indian goods, on top of a previous 25% tariff, over its continued purchases of Russian oil.

India’s foreign ministry spokesperson said the additional tariffs were “unfair, unjustified and unreasonable”.

Vladimir Putin welcomes Steve Witkoff during a meeting in Moscow. Pic: Sputnik/Reuters
Image:
Vladimir Putin welcomes Steve Witkoff during a meeting in Moscow. Pic: Sputnik/Reuters

It came after Mr Putin held talks with Mr Trump‘s special envoy Steve Witkoff in Moscow, with the meeting lasting around three hours.

In a post on Truth Social, Mr Trump said Mr Witkoff “had a highly productive meeting” with Mr Putin in which “great progress was made”.

He said he had updated America’s European allies, and they will work towards an end to the Russia-Ukraine war “in the days and weeks to come”.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Correspondents in Washington and Moscow break down a busy day of diplomacy

‘The war must end’

Mr Zelenskyy later said he and Mr Trump spoke on the phone after the meeting. He said “European leaders also participated in the conversation” and “we discussed what was said in Moscow”.

He added: “Our common position with our partners is absolutely clear: The war must end. We all need lasting and reliable peace. Russia must end the war that it started.”

Mr Zelenskyy later said: “It seems that Russia is now more inclined to agree to a ceasefire.”

He added that the pressure on Moscow “is working”, without elaborating, and stressed it was important to make sure Russia does not “deceive us or the United States” when it comes to “the details” of a potential agreement.

Continue Reading

World

Government ministers among eight killed in Ghana helicopter crash

Published

on

By

Government ministers among eight killed in Ghana helicopter crash

Ghana’s defence and environment ministers are among eight killed when a military helicopter crashed, the government has said.

The West African country’s military said the helicopter took off in the morning from the capital Accra and was heading northwest into the interior to the town of Obuasi when it went off the radar.

Footage of the crash site shows debris on fire in a forest as people circle around to help.

The cause of the crash was not immediately known. The military said an investigation was under way.

Defence minister Edward Omane Boamah and environment minister Ibrahim Murtala Muhammed were killed, along with the vice-chair of the National Democratic Congress ruling party, a top national security adviser and the helicopter’s three crew members.

Read more from Sky News:
Birmingham Airport runway shut after ‘aircraft incident’
Five soldiers injured in shooting at US Army base

State media said the aircraft was a Z-9 helicopter, which is often used for transport and medical evacuation.

It was one of the worst air disasters in Ghana in more than a decade.

A service helicopter crashed off the coast in May 2014 and killed at least three people.

And in 2012 a cargo plane overran the runway in Accra and crashed into a bus full of passengers, killing at least 10 people.

Continue Reading

World

The new space race? NASA accelerates plan to put nuclear reactor on the moon

Published

on

By

The new space race? NASA accelerates plan to put nuclear reactor on the moon

NASA is accelerating plans to put a nuclear reactor on the moon, and they claim it could happen by 2030.

In a directive – a written or oral instruction issued by the US government – to NASA staff earlier this month, Sean Duffy, US transport secretary and the new interim administrator of the space agency, said it should be ready to launch a 100 kilowatt nuclear reactor in five years.

Plans to get a reactor on the lunar surface are not new. The NASA website states the space agency is working on the Fission Surface Power Project to create a system capable of generating at least 40 kilowatts of power – but that is less than half of what Mr Duffy has now proposed.

He also stressed the importance of America’s space agency deploying the technology before China and Russia.

“To properly advance this critical technology, to be able to support a future lunar economy, high power energy generation on Mars, and to strengthen our national security in space, it is imperative the agency move quickly,” the directive, which was first reported on by Politico, states.

Sean Duffy says NASA should be ready to launch a 100 kilowatt nuclear reactor in five years. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Sean Duffy says NASA should be ready to launch a 100 kilowatt nuclear reactor in five years. Pic: Reuters

A nuclear reactor on the moon would be considered a key step towards building a permanent base for humans to live on the lunar surface.

But Mr Duffy warned that the first country to deploy a reactor “could potentially declare a keep-out zone” which he said could significantly inhibit NASA’s Artemis mission – the lunar exploration programme which aims to land astronauts back on the moon in 2027.

When quizzed about the plan on 5 August, he told reporters: “We’re in a race to the moon, in a race with China to the moon. And to have a base on the moon, we need energy.”

Why use a nuclear reactor?

Unlike solar power, which is used on the International Space Station, a small nuclear reactor can operate continuously, Dr Sungwoo Lim, a senior lecturer in space applications, exploration and instrumentation at the University of Surrey told Sky News.

This is critical for infrastructure on the moon, which spends two weeks in complete darkness as it slowly orbits the Earth.

Nuclear reactors therefore diminish the need for sunlight, and can be used to power life support, communications and other critical science instruments, even in darkness.

An artist impression of a nuclear reactor on the moon. Pic: NASA
Image:
An artist impression of a nuclear reactor on the moon. Pic: NASA

“In practice, this means astronauts could use a reactor to establish sustainable bases and extend exploration to places where solar energy is impractical,” Dr Lim adds, including in the moon’s permanently shadowed region, where scientists believe ice water exists.

Professor Mike Fitzpatrick, an expert in nuclear technology at Coventry University, adds that the proposal of a 100 kilowatt nuclear reactor, is relatively small compared to most that are built on Earth.

To put it in real terms, it takes around three kilowatts to power the kettle in your home.

But Prof Fitzpatrick says a smaller reactor could pose as “demonstrator technology”, something small and compact that makes it easier to transport it to the moon.

“Then you can have a whole array of them,” he says.

So, what’s the catch?

While scientists agree that nuclear energy seems like the necessary way to make progress on the moon, Prof Fitzpatrick says questions still remain about safety.

“Shipping the fuel to the moon is relatively safe, because at that point it is not particularly toxic, it is the highly reactive fission products that become the issue,” he says.

“What’s going to be the strategy for long-term storage and disposal on the moon after these plants have operated for certain periods of time? The sooner those conversations are had, and you have international consensus, the less likely it is you’ll get future friction.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Four astronauts launch to ISS after delay

Dr Lim also questioned Mr Duffy’s timescale of 2030, saying meeting the target depends heavily on the space agency’s budget.

NASA’s future funding is currently unknown after Donald Trump’s 2026 budget request sought a cut of $6bn (£4.5bn) and the termination of dozens of science programs and missions.

Over 2,000 agency employees are also set to voluntarily leave NASA in the coming months under the Trump administration’s “deferred resignation” programme.

Is this the new space race?

Last year, Russia’s space agency Roscosmos said it was planning to build a lunar nuclear reactor alongside China’s National Space Administration by 2035, in order to power the International Lunar Research Station (ILRS).

The collaboration was never formally announced by China but the joint plan was included in a presentation by Chinese officials in April this year, which outlined the 2028 Chang’e-8 lunar mission which aims to lay the groundwork for the ILRS.

“Duffy explicitly described it as a competition,” says Dr Lim, adding that the move towards lunar exploration signals a renewed moon or space race among major parties like China, Russia, India and the US to claim strategic lunar territory and technology.

Read more:
Permission granted for first-of-its-kind British rocket launch
Astronauts arrive at International Space Station

Follow The World
Follow The World

Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday

Tap to follow

However, Rossana Deplano a professor of international space law at the University of Leicester, says there is a lot of misunderstanding around “keep out” or safety zones, which Mr Duffy’s directive mentions.

“Safety zones are explicitly recognised in the Artemis Accords,” she says.

“They are a notification and consultation zone to be declared in advance in order to avoid harmful interference.

“They must be temporary in nature and do not establish state jurisdiction, e.g. they cannot be enforced.”

Continue Reading

Trending