The ‘Climate and Nature Private Members’ Bill’, brought forward by Dr. Roz Savage MP, seeks to set new legally binding targets for climate and nature, as well as give the Secretary of State a duty to implement a strategy to achieve these targets. The National Federation of Builders (NFB) has worked closely with Government’s old and new to ensure they understand the impact of their environmental and climate policies. Unfortunately, many of these decisions have resulted in increased taxation, lower growth, and have achieved little or nothing for the climate and environment. The Labour Government is therefore correct to take stock and ensure the direction of travel delivers for nature, business, and society. The following outlines a few examples of where industry warnings were ignored by the Government. The Treasury’s decision to remove the construction industry’s access to red diesel increased project costs and fuel theft, while also creating new maintenance expenses for the plant hire sector. Three years on, most machinery remains diesel fuelled, with the limited availability of electric plant machinery still to be charged by diesel generators. DEFRA’s Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) approach, which is championed as an ‘onsite first policy’ but for most developments cannot be delivered onsite, is creating offsite habitats miles from original development sites. Their strategy also neglects local biodiversity and, if projects can afford the sky-high mitigation costs, means new developments do not build in biodiversity but instead, can create physical barriers within a wildlife corridor. Due to being a statutory requirement, BNG is also reducing levels of affordable housing. Sticking with DEFRA, Nutrient Neutrality schemes attempt to reduce the pollution entering our waterways, not by targeting the polluters but the new build sector, which in some areas accounts for less than 1% of total pollution. Like BNG, Nutrient Neutrality leads to farming land being taken out of use to provide mitigation credits via habitat creation and in the process reducing the UK’s food security. In the MHCLG, vital grid investment, such as pylons and substations, continue to be stopped by NIMBY sentiments, while the Government obsesses over the energy efficiency of new homes, despite these new homes accounting for only 1% of stock and already being 65% more efficient than old homes. These outcomes exist because somebody tried to use policy levers to do the right thing but, in the process, ignores the broader impacts. This consequently damages sustainable environmental and climate improvement, stifles maintainable change, and embeds zero sum outcomes. Worse still, those businesses, our SMEs, that have historically offered the solutions that many champion, such as building within communities and so reducing car dependency, installing renewable energy solutions within buildings, and working with local communities on nature conservation and access, have been leaving the sector at an alarming rate due to the above and many other policy changes that have made doing business impossible and unprofitable. While well intentioned, the Climate and Nature Bill (CAN) is a Bill of unexplored and unintended consequences, far eclipsing the policy harms exampled above. The Government is therefore correct to head off CAN and reassess the UK’s role in solving a global challenge, while balancing the many competing domestic needs, from renewable energy and biodiversity to growth and healthy societies. Building, Design & Construction Magazine | The Choice of Industry Professionals