Global warming, the clue is in the name, is a phenomenon that is not restricted to international boundaries. Reducing carbon in the earth’s atmosphere is what matters and it doesn’t matter from which country they were emitted.

So, my question is “shouldn’t responsible government policy try and reduce carbon emissions for the lowest cost?”

Using the Gold Standard, the highest ethical standards available for international carbon credits, saving a tonne of carbon costs about £12 for a reforestation project in countries like Nepal. Store that number for moment.

The Boiler Upgrade Scheme gives a subsidy of £7500 to save 1.5 tonnes of carbon year, over a 15-year appliance life, that’s 22.5 tonnes in total, that’s a cost of £333 a tonne. So, my first question, and it is the obvious one, why would anyone pay £333 for something that you could buy for £12 and carbon dioxide emissions in Nepal have the same impact as those in Nottingham.

Now that £7500 spent has every chance of increasing the energy bills for the household investing in a heat pump, not ideal. Supporting a reforestation project in one of the poorest countries in the world would be an invaluable source of inward investment and economic boost that otherwise would not take place, a welcome co-benefit.

It has already been announced that the UK is halving its financial commitment climate finance for developing countries, while increasing its support to the BUS. There are rumours in the media that further cuts to the UK’s aid programme are being considered. So, my question, for anyone leading progressive political parties in the UK, is why is a tonne of carbon saving in the UK more valuable to you than saving a tonne of carbon in Nepal?