Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on ‘what the papers don’t say’ – without fear or favour.
To support its work, subscribe to the monthly Byline Times print edition, packed with exclusive investigations, news, and analysis.
After Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday, MPs will get up one after another to present the titles of legislation they want to push through as backbenchers. They will need Government support to get over the line.
Former ocean rower and new Lib Dem MP Dr Roz Savage will present the Climate and Nature Bill, backed by climate groups including the Zero Hour campaign.
The CAN Bill, which has been pushed by environmental groups since 2020, would ensure that the UK Government creates a “joined-up plan” to tackle the crises in climate and nature, which backers argue are “deeply intertwined”.

It would require the Government to cut emissions in line with 1.5°C – ensuring UK emissions are reduced rapidly, for the “last chance” of limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
But at the heart of it is also a push to not only halt, but also reverse the decline in nature, setting it “measurably on the path to recovery by 2030”.
It would also require public bodies to take responsibility for our overseas carbon footprint, both in terms of planet-warming emissions and ecological destruction.
Restoring nature would have to be prioritised in decision-making, alongside ending fossil fuel production and imports as rapidly as possible. To secure buy-in, it would give people a say through a ‘Climate & Nature Assembly’, and is an attempt at bringing voters together through a more deliberative form of participation, to work out the solutions needed.
The bill could have monumental implications for how the Government works, and Britain’s chances of slashing emissions, as well as protecting and expanding natural habitats.
Q: What was the process like going through the ballot of MPs to propose your bill?
Dr Roz Savage MP:
The success of the bill depends on public engagement, and there’s already much support for the bill. My mailbox is inundated with people urging me to pick up the Climate and Nature bill. It’s a subject close to my heart, having been an environment campaigner for the last 20 years.
It’s essentially a lottery. There’s a big book with numbers from 1 to 650, and each MP writes their name next to a number. They draw numbers from a glass bowl, from 20 to one. The higher up the ballot you are, the more opportunity you have to debate it.
It’s an amazing opportunity to bring a private member’s bill, but it still has to go through due process. We need at least 102 MPs here on a Friday, which is usually a constituency day. It will be voted on, then go through committee and Lords stages. It’s a long journey, but I know about long journeys from my ocean rowing career.
Q: Why is this personal to you? Why does this matter?
As soon as I found out my number had been drawn, I knew I wanted to do something environmental. We’re not short of environmental issues to tackle. Given my time on and in water, I immediately thought of water issues, which are top of mind in my constituency (South Cotswolds). We’ve got big issues with flooding and sewage getting into our river.
Twenty years ago, the level of awareness wasn’t what it is now. [Former Green MP] Caroline Lucas first presented a version of the Climate and Nature bill in 2020, but awareness and desire for change have been growing. I like to think I’ve contributed to that growing awareness, along with countless environmental campaigners and organisations.
We’ve got a better chance in 2024 than ever before. With [UN conferences] COP16 and COP29 coming up on biodiversity and climate change, this will be at the forefront of people’s minds. If we don’t get this through, I hope we at least move the conversation forward significantly. I hope the Government realises that climate and nature are inextricably linked.
We’re often aware that climate change has detrimental impacts on nature, but what we’ve done to nature has helped create the climate crisis. These two issues are linked like hand in glove, and we need to start fixing them in tandem. At the moment, the Government is very focused on Net Zero to the exclusion of almost everything else.
Human history is full of examples where we’ve fixated on one narrow metric without considering the collateral damage. We need to take a more joined-up approach. This is something I’ve thought about extensively, including during my doctorate.
We’ve been trying to tackle environmental issues in isolation, but we must put nature at the heart of every decision we make across all policy areas.
Dr Roz Savage, MP
Q: Have policymakers focused on Net Zero to the detriment of other aspects of protecting the environment and ecology?
Yes, that is my view. Net Zero is important, but we need a joined-up approach. Nature has a crucial role in helping us reach Net Zero. Healthy soil from regenerative farming practices is a more effective carbon sink than degraded soil. It can also hold more water, mitigating the impacts of climate change like sudden rainfalls that create floods.
Water connects everything and is a great metaphor for nature as a holistic system. When we focus on just one aspect, we won’t develop a successful strategy. We must recognise that everything is connected.
I’m glad the current Government is taking action on climate, but it seems to be trying to technologise its way out of the problem, by encouraging the development of large solar farms, which I don’t necessarily agree with, within the first week Labour came to power.
The minerals for solar panels come from overseas, are refined overseas, and the panels are manufactured overseas. There isn’t really an end-of-life plan for solar panels. We might get emissions down to zero, but there’s a lot of embedded carbon in the extraction, refinement, and manufacture of solar panels that we’re not accounting for.
Q: But we’re not going to stay within 1.5 degrees without massive expansion in solar and other forms of renewable energy, are we?
There’s that argument, but many emissions are incurred overseas in the process of manufacturing solar panels, and we’re not including that in the calculations.
One feature of the Climate and Nature bill is that it calls for including carbon emissions incurred overseas in the production of goods we use here.
Climate change doesn’t respect national boundaries. The climate doesn’t care whether carbon emissions were incurred during extraction in Africa and South America or here – the carbon is still being emitted.
Q: Do you have the backing of your party on this bill?
It’s up to each MP. The Climate and Nature bill goes a bit further than Lib Dem policy. We already have environmental policies as a party, which was one of the reasons I chose the Liberal Democrats when I decided to stand for parliament.

The support from my colleagues has been brilliant. We did a photo shoot last week, and I was quite moved to see how many showed up. Everyone looked genuinely proud and happy to be there supporting my private member’s bill.
Colleagues have been lobbied tremendously by their constituents to support the climate change bill. Ed Davey was there at the photo shoot in the front row, looking as proud as anyone else.
Q: Does that mean he backs the Bill?
I’ll just say he was there…
Q: How about Labour? I know some Labour MPs have backed it
Alex Sobel presented a version of the Climate and Nature bill earlier this year, with Olivia Blake, and Clive Lewis co-sponsoring it. [This Wednesday], you’ll see the full list of co-sponsors.
We’ve got 11 from across all the significant parties, which is fantastic. When it comes to environmental law, this has to transcend party politics. We don’t want to end up like the US where the environment has become a politically divisive issue.
There are definitely challenges ahead. It may not sit easily with the current Government because it’s a law that holds them accountable for meeting their targets on climate and nature.
But it’s not unprecedented – like the Office of Budget Responsibility, the Government has created bodies to scrutinise themselves before.
I’m keen to have conversations with Government ministers, especially Defra and BEIS, about this. I’m a collaborative person and want to find a win-win situation for the Government, for us as legislators, and for nature.
Q: If it passes, the bill says that nature will be measurably on the path to recovery by 2030. Five years isn’t very long, is it?
This Government has shown that when it wants to make something happen, it’s willing to move very quickly. There are many examples from history that Governments can drag their feet, but when they’re motivated, things can happen rapidly.
When we look at climate and nature, we’re approaching many tipping points. The [WWF’s recent] Living Planet Report talks about these tipping points, where after incremental change, suddenly the whole system tips dramatically.
I like to think of positive change in the same way – it can often feel like nothing is happening, but then suddenly you hit that tipping point of public awareness, pressure, and desire for change, and things happen very quickly
Dr Roz Savage, MP
Every little thing we do to make a positive difference is another feather on one side of the scales. One day, the scales will tip, and there will be a massive outbreak of common sense. We’ll realise that the future of humanity absolutely depends on the future of nature, and that has to be our top priority.
Q: Is 1.5 degrees possible? Are you confident or hopeful?
I don’t claim to be a climate scientist. There’s a lot of inertia and a time lag built into climate systems. It may or may not be possible, but even if it isn’t, that’s not an excuse to give up. Every fraction of a degree that we can limit climate change makes a substantial difference to the future we and coming generations will face.
We are where we are. We can only do what we can from now on. Ideally, we’d have started reducing emissions 40 years ago, but until we invent a time machine, that’s not an option.
This is why I think we can’t go wrong by investing in nature-based solutions. Solar panels and wind turbines have a part to play, but nature already provides us with powerful solutions, and there’s no downside to nature-based solutions. That’s where I’d like to put the emphasis.
Given the choice between new woodland or a field of solar panels, I’d choose new woodland. I’d like to see forests, grasslands, more living roots, and more trees in urban areas that also help reduce street temperatures. There’s so much we can do that doesn’t just draw down more carbon from the atmosphere but actually makes people’s lives better. I believe we can have a healthier planet and happier people.