Net Zero Carbon by 2050 is the UK target, but the Tory and Reform party views on it now seem similar. It’s ‘impossible’ says Tory Leader Badenoch: ‘Net-zero cannot be achieved without a significant drop in our living standards, or worse, by bankrupting us.’ And whole thing must be scrapped, says Reform’s Rice - to save money. But Labour says its ‘imperative’. And, like the REA, it says it is vital - for green growth.
So, what will happen now? Carbon Brief suggest getting to net zero will cut costs and improve security, but not everyone is convinced that it makes sense. For example, Badenoch said that, even if the UK were to reach net-zero, global emissions would not be guaranteed to reach net-zero overall. That’s obvious enough, the UK is only one country, but as Carbon Brief noted, 142 countries, representing more than 80% of the world’s population, are now covered by net-zero targets.
However, let’s assume for the moment that the UK decides to back out of net zero, for example as part of a policy (as pushed by Reform) of avoiding the use renewable energy. Will that save money? No, since the UK would have to find other energy sources- and they will cost more. It was always going to be bitterly controversial, and it was certainly done in a tragically aggressive way, but the move from deep-mined coal in the UK was always going to happen at some point given its high cost. And the reason power now costs so much is because fossil gas is expensive, especially if its imported gas- North Sea reserves are falling fast. There are also health costs from burning these fossil fuels (due to acid gas air pollution), as well of course as climate costs. But then, in this hypothetical future, we are presumably ignoring them, while, no doubt, much would be made of the local impacts of renewables -even if, in reality, they are tiny compared with those of fossil fuels. We would also no doubt hear bold claims about what nuclear could provide- although currently it’s much more expensive than wind or solar.
The reality seems to be that, even leaving climate change aside, we would be better off going for renewable and efficiency in all sectors, as has been relentlessly argued by many greens and academics- and the likes of Chris Goodhall. Interestingly, he is not that enamoured of Carbon Capture and Storage, which some see as a way to keep to using fossil fuel for a while- he sees it as costing 2 or 3 times more than renewables.
It’s also interesting that Dr Benny Peiser, until recently the director of the UK Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), now says that, although it remains opposed to the current net zero approach, in his view, ‘there is certainly a sensible trend towards decarbonization that is driven by technological development. But the goal of reaching net zero in just 25 years is illusory. It is expected that at least half of energy production will still be fossil fuels in 2050. We have to accept that decarbonization will take longer & cannot be prescribed by politicians’.
Well maybe. Kicking things into the long grass has always been a popular political pastime, but rather than a simple pro- and anti-climate policy, it may be, given the UK’s economic crisis, the debate will be reset in terms of timescale, with some projects being delayed or even abandoned.
So did Labour’s chancellor come up with any thing on all this in her Spring Statement? Well no, not much. Energy and climate were evidently not uppermost in her mind- despite some lobbying. For example, the wind lobby made clear that offshore wind needed future proofing, to make it viable longer-term, and she was told by anti-nuclear campaigners that there was a clear political and economic advantage from ‘halting Sizewell C and redirecting the billions saved into making millions of homes more energy efficient, thus reducing fuel poverty’. And some Labour campaigners have been making the case for more of a focus on local green heating. But she may have been more inclined to have listened to those talking about fossil gas and oil security!
However, the end result was none of these. Instead, as most expected, she just pushed ahead with the government’s grim cuts to social security/welfare and to 10,000 civil service jobs- along with more spending on defence, a further £2.2bn, paid for in part by reduced foreign aid. Although she did indicate, separately, that the National Wealth Fund, which has added more than £70bn in private investment to help make the UK a ‘clean energy superpower’ and support high tech like AI, could also be used to strengthen the defence sector. Set up initially with £28b, some saw this fund as safe from being raided by defence, along also with social welfare and foreign aid, but times change! And now the private sector is also being asked to help with climate funding aid. But at least, in the Spring Statement, there is some welcome state spending (£2bn) on new housebuilding, and also support for the skilled workforce that will be needed for it. Though decisions on more capital spending will have to await the spending review in June. Stay tuned!
And also later, for the outcome of a High Court Order which instructs the government to produce a new updated climate plan- detailing the policies that will be introduced to reach near-term carbon targets into the 2030s. The ruling was imposed after the previous plan introduced by the Conservative Government was judged to be unlawful, due to its overreliance on ‘risky technologies’ and lack of clarity on how it will meet its net-zero emissions targets by 2050. It has until October to comply.
Meantime, there are also some smallish but prickly policy issues needing attention. For example, what should GB Energy be able to spend its money on? Much was made of its new £180m commitment to installing solar in schools and hospitals, But then there were worries about using imported Chinese units-would they be made by slave labour? Was Labour condoning that? Who would be a politician! Damned either way!
However, if you are that way inclined, it can be fascinating to take a peek at what seems to be happening inside the Conservative party leadership over Net Zero - at least according to one outside observer. Labour of course has just as many issues to face- but some are different, since its actually in power. That means its mistakes and shortcoming are usually more visible…But at least at this stage, Reeves didn’t make any more green cuts, at least directly- and some were thankful for that. Indeed, she did actually remove one tax- on green hydrogen production. Heavens be praised! But not too much- it looks grim ahead.
Comments
Post a Comment