Net Zero? You have no idea, Rishi Sunak
Every delay getting to net zero is a bad idea, which is why Rishi Sunak's speech is bad news.
The above two diagrams show two extreme theoretical paths to net zero. The area under each graph shows how much CO2 would be emitted before 2050, and therefore how much we would be adding to global warming. The second one indicates how much greater our emissions would be by delaying. And therefore what state the world would be in by then, if other countries followed Sunak's lead. Getting to net zero by 2050 is not enough - how we get there matters. Simon Oldridge has posted a video explaining this. We can disagree on what steps we should take to get there, but not on how quickly we need to do so.
Rishi Sunak's speech
Prime minister Rishi Sunak just gave a speech on net zero, apparently triggered by a leak of his plans to water down his policies if not a complete U-turn. The text of his speech on 20 September can be found here. I'll pass over the feel-good waffle and skip his claims about progress on his 5 priorities and get straight to the net zero points. His speech updates or replaces the Net Zero Strategy: Build Back Greener published in October 2021.
"can we put the long-term interests of our country before the short-term political needs of the moment, even if it means being controversial?"
It is good if a government can plan for the long term as well as the short term. But net zero needs short term action as well as a long term vision.
The non-existent policies that Sunak is banning
"A ban on buying new boilers even if your home will never ever be suitable for a heat pump."
There was a gas and oil boiler ban in newbuild homes only from 2025. There's no mandatory replacement by heat pumps, though they are encouraged - the current Boiler Upgrade Scheme offers grants to help replace fossil fuel boilers. The current plan says, "Consulting on phasing out the dirtiest and most expensive fossil fuels first - new oil, coal and liquefied petroleum gas heating - and replace with low carbon alternatives in non-domestic buildings from 2024 and homes from 2026, following natural appliance replacement cycles."
With a ban on new gas boilers from 2035, and most boilers being replaced within 15 years, we would be on track to net zero for heating by 2050. Any delay would jeopardise this. But of course it is good for the fossil fuel industry.
According to the Electrification of Heat Demonstration Project funded by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), ‘all housing types are suitable for heat pumps'.
"A ban that takes effect in just three years for those off the gas grid."
This was on new installations, not current ones.
"And mandatory home upgrades for property owners in just two years’ time."
I don't know what he is referring to, here.
"There have even been proposals for:
Taxes on eating meat
New taxes on flying
Compulsory car sharing if you drive to work
And a government diktat to sort your rubbish into seven different bins."
He actually posted on X that he was banning these. These were never actually policies. Whilst there could in theory be 8 bins - for glass, paper, cardboard, metal, plastic, garden waste, food waste and general rubbish - in practice some can alternate and not all councils can economically recycle all kinds - some may to be too expensive, for example, if the nearest specialist facility is a long way away.
The X post also included one - "expensive insulation upgrades" - that would benefit landlords but penalise their tenants whose heating bills would not be lowered. And of course not improving insulation doesn't take you towards net zero.
Where we stand
"we’re so far ahead of every other country in the world. We’ve had the fastest reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the G7. Down almost 50% since 1990... And when our share of global emissions is less than 1%, how can it be right that British citizens, are now being told to sacrifice even more than others?"
It's true that our emissions have fallen fastest in the G7 and are relatively low, at least in this country - that comparison does not include imports. But they have not fallen enough to meet our targets. And that is not an argument that should be used by anyone who wishes to be considered a leader. And would we actually be sacrificing more than others? We may have done well to use up all our coal and converted to gas which is a cleaner fuel, and lost a lot of our heavy industry to other countries, but our homes are poorly insulated compared to others who have born the cost of better insulation. And despite some government help, many have had to cut the amount of fuel they use since the price of fuels shot up on the excuse of the war in Ukraine.
The USA may be a long way behind us, but at least the current administration aims to cut its emissions by 65% by the end of this decade.
The longer we rely on gas, with other countries and big oil inflating the price, the better the ROI on renewables is. Every extra therm of gas we buy is a subsidy to big oil and oil-producing countries, since the market is international. We are leaving ourselves hostage. It is time to take back control.
"If we continue down this path, we risk losing the consent of the British people."
So far the only real changes that he has mentioned benefit builders and landlords more than householders and tenants. Whilst the cost of new homes might go up, the cost of running them would go down.
"over the last decade or more, we’ve massively over delivered on every one of our carbon budgets despite continuous predictions we’d miss them."
The Climate Change Committee (CCC) has called progress 'worryingly slow' and called for more urgent action.
"We’ve seen rapid technological advances which have made things like renewables far cheaper: Just consider offshore wind, where costs have fallen by 70% more than we projected in 2016. And people are increasingly choosing to go green – look at how demand for electric vehicles has consistently outstripped forecasts."
We've been slow to adopt heat pumps. We banned onshore wind. We're not in the top 10 for solar. We're spending a lot of money on new nuclear which generally takes a long time to come on line, is way over budget, and is far from cheap, when we could be investing in newer and better technologies that can make a real difference.
"nor am I abandoning any of our targets or commitments."
How can this be so when he is delaying many policies?
Transport
"I’m announcing today that we’re going to ease the transition to electric vehicles. You’ll still be able to buy petrol and diesel cars and vans until 2035."
Delaying the requirement for all new vehicles to be electric is bad for our net zero aspirations and also bad for the manufacturers. Several companies disagree with this change in policy. If countries that drive on the right hand side switch over first, car manufacturers are more likely to build new factories in one or more of them rather than here.
Heat Pumps
"I’m announcing today that we will give people far more time to make the necessary transition to heat pumps."
According to an article by Nesta, out of 17 European countries examined in 2021, the UK had the slowest rate of heat pump installation. Why is it so much more difficult and/or expensive for us?
"I’m announcing today, that the Boiler Upgrade Scheme which gives people cash grants to replace their boiler, will be increased by 50% to £7,500."
This is welcome.
Policy changes
"Under current plans, some property owners would’ve been forced to make expensive upgrades in just two years’ time... So those plans will be scrapped, and while we will continue to subsidise energy efficiency - we’ll never force any household to do it."
Subsidies are welcome, but are there any studies showing what effect this would have on net zero?
"nor will we ban new oil and gas in the North Sea which would simply leave us reliant on expensive, imported energy from foreign dictators like Putin."
North Sea oil and gas is produced by foreign companies who sell the output on the global market and pocket the profits. The price tends to be determined by OPEC and Russia deciding how much they are going to produce - our increased output would not make a dent. Unless we nationalise production, this will make no difference at all, whereas building more of our own wind and solar will free us from that market and give us true energy independence.
"The last Carbon Budget process was debated in the House of Commons for just 17 minutes and voted through with barely any consideration given to the hard choices needed to fulfil it."
This speech changing policy was made during recess so parliament got no say at all, so this is the height of hypocrisy.
"So, when Parliament votes on carbon budgets in the future, I want to see it consider the plans to meet that budget, at the same time."
I'm all for fully considering the pros and cons of new policies and including a budget before they are announced. This would be a major change of policy.
"We’re already home to the four of the world’s largest offshore wind farms, we’re building an even bigger one at Dogger Bank and we’re improving our auction process to maximise private investment into this world-leading industry."
I'm all for wind power if environmental factors are taken into account, but at appears that the auction process is indeed in need of a major overhaul.
"We’re lifting the ban on onshore wind."
It's more than time. Every wind farm is different. Land varies a great deal. A blanket ban was ridiculous. The important thing is not to impose wind farms where local people do not want them or in a way that they do not benefit. So no massive contracts for big wind farms. Keep them locally owned wherever possible.
"We’re investing in four new clusters to capture and store carbon from the atmosphere."
Carbon capture and storage is a huge gamble. It seems very unlikely that it will be effective and cheap in time for net zero. I'd put research on the back burner and focus on technologies and solutions that are available now.
"we’re building new nuclear power stations for the first time in thirty years"
Costs are already soaring. Nuclear may add to energy bills. Nuclear is not the answer. Already nuclear plants are having to shut down because global warming has made their cooling water too warm. Onshore wind is a much better investment.
"We’re investing billions in new energy projects, yet we don’t have the grid infrastructure to bring that power to households and businesses."
I'm glad that the government has now woken up to this fact and hope that it will put the resources into rectifying the situation as soon as possible. As well as holding up our net zero aspirations, it has adversely affected investment and jobs in new technologies.
"And when energy security is national security – that’s unacceptable."
Putting a lot of your eggs into a few huge nuclear baskets is unacceptable for national security too. Just consider Zaporizhzhia and Fukushima. Wind and solar can be decentralised, making it far harder for an enemy or natural disaster to leave large swathes of the country without power, and of course there is no danger from radiation.
"Right now, it can take fourteen years to build new grid infrastructure."
That is unacceptable, but it can take a lot longer to get a nuclear plant up and running.
"There are enough projects waiting to be connected to generate over half of our future electricity needs."
Such a crime that the government has been asleep at the wheel.
"And that’s why today we’re going further, creating the new, £150m Green Future Fellowship. This will support at least 50 leading scientists and engineers to develop real, breakthrough green technologies."
I'm glad to see science getting some support, but it can take some time from the beginning of research to a commercial product so I would not include any in my net zero plans unless and until it was market ready.
"Just the loss of forests alone accounts for the equivalent of ten times the global emissions of the entire United Kingdom."
I do hope we restore many forests. It is important that it is done right, though - the right trees in the right place. Listen to the experts. And nature can help us out in other ways if we help it.
It's time to invest, not retreat
A lot of this is smoke and mirrors - cancelling policies that were never policies. Delaying net zero polices while saying we'll still meet net zero policies. And no acknowledgement of the fact that the less we do in the early years, not only will it be harder to catch up, but we will have emitted more greenhouse gases in the meantime.
Sunak brags of Britain being in the lead, and maybe we are on some of the things he claims, but to throttle back is not the policy of a leader. And there is no mention of the greenhouse gases emitted by the countries that are doing our manufacturing and food production for us. We really need leaders who understand this stuff.
The Office for Budget Responsibility Fiscal risks report – July 2021 estimated that around £1tn of the £1.3tn cost of net zero would be offset by savings in fossil fuels and efficiency. The remaining £300bn spread over 30 years - £10bn a year - would be less now since gas prices have gone up. For comparison, £10bn was the amount Sunak pledged to help the vulnerable with soaring energy bills.
There is a cost to changing our infrastructure - a cost which Britain has met before. In 1935 Britain invested in the world's first national grid. We switched from coal to gas. We switched from synthetic gas manufactured from coal (or “town”) gas to natural gas in the 1970s. A study has found that the ROI on a world-wide switch to 100% renewables is just 6 years. But as I have written before, the Tories do not understand investment - they apparently confuse it with gambling in the stock market, and therefore focus on increasing GDP, which counts bad spending as well as good. When it should be investing more in renewables, which have a faster ROI and lead to greater savings and health benefits for all, it is headed in the opposite direction.
Sunak is the last in a long line of Tory leaders who have let the country down. The people who have influenced him in this direction are bad for Britain. They, his party and he should not be allowed anywhere near power.
Thanks Nigel. There is far more data out there that shows his speech was nonsense, some of it from the government's own sources. Surely he must have known what rubbish he was spouting. Here's another example: https://twitter.com/oxmartinschool/status/1704779444009783601
Excellent summary Sue from an almost unbelievable speech. Pity the main stream media just focused on Rishi “eight bins” Sunak and ignite most of the important aspects.