The UK Government “lacks a plan” on how to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions, despite setting the target in law almost two years ago, a committee of MPs argued today.
A report from the Public Accounts Committee said there was no coordinated strategy with clear milestones for achieving the target by 2050.
It said:
- Government departments were not sufficiently considering the impact of net zero on projects and programmes
- Treasury guidance to departments to put more emphasis on environmental impacts had not shown how this would work in practice
- Government wasn’t checking that activities to reduce the UK’s carbon footprint were not transferring emissions overseas
- Up to 62% of emissions cuts would rely on individual choices but ministers have not yet engaged with the public on the substantial behaviour changes that will be needed
- Ministers should work more with local authorities and give them adequate resources
Meg Hillier MP, chair of the Public Accounts Committee, said the world would be watching the UK when it hosted the UN COP26 climate conference in November:
“Government has set itself a huge test in committing the UK to a net zero economy by 2050 – but there is little sign that it understands how to get there and almost two years later it still has no plan.
“Our response to climate change must be as joined up and integrated as the ecosystems we are trying to protect.
“We must see a clear path plotted, with interim goals set and reached – it will not do to dump our emissions on poorer countries to hit UK targets.
“Our new international trade deals, the levelling up agenda – all must fit in the plan to reach net zero.
“COP26 is a few months away; the eyes of the world, its scientists and policymakers are on the UK – big promises full of fine words won’t stand up.”
Recommendations
The committee’s recommendations included:
Key strategies. The government should publish key strategies by September 2021 for achieving net zero. There should be a timeline of key milestones and decision points. The government currently plans to launch the net zero strategy before COP 26. This would be nearly two-and-a-half years after parliament approved the net zero plans.
Measures on progress. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), which is responsible for achieving net zero, should publish measures to chart progress. These should include reporting from the end of 2021 on progress of emissions levels, compared to expectations, within each sector.
Treasury guidance. The Treasury should set out, within two months, how its guidance will lead to departments adequately considering and reporting the impact of policy decisions on net zero. The report also calls for information on what measures will be included in the Green Book to ensure projects are approved only if they align with the 2050 net zero target.
Exporting emissions. BEIS should review how policies aimed at reducing UK-based emissions take into account the risk that emissions are passed to other countries. The department should also explore how to make the level of emissions in manufacture of imported goods are made more transparent.
Communication of lifestyle changes. Within the next 12 months, BEIS should develop a public engagement strategy on how government communications about individual behaviour change would be coordinated.
Local authorities’ role. Government should be clear about its responsibilities and those of local authorities. It should be clear about government proposes to work with local authorities to secure the funding, skills, resources and outcomes required for net zero.
DRILL OR DROP? 
There we go.
Bullet point 3!!!
Well, if that is actually done then UK on shore planning should be a lot more straight forward. Suspect that will not have been missed by some.
Until you end the concept of infinite growth on a finite planet, the only way to get to net zero is to extinguish all human life on the planet, hardly a useful goal.
And remember, net zero only locks in current levels of emissions, warming and climate chaos. To acheive the fantasy of halting runaway climate change, we’d need to acheive net minus carbon emissions, until atmospheric levels are back down to 280ppm CO2 and 750ppb CH4.
A recent study showed we crossed the tipping point for runaway CH4 emissions from the Arctic back in 1960 when CO2 levels were 315ppm.
Rather ominuously, current CO2 levels have reached 420ppm, and c1850ppb CH4, but satellite readings in late February 2021 show levels as high as 1000ppm across the northern hemisphere, alongside 10,000ppb CH4.
Oh, and the Arctic ice started melting on 23rd February, instead of in April.
On a different slant a paper published last week shows due to declining sperm counts caused by plastic pollution and toxic chemical pollution, the human race will be sterile by 2076. Which the few remaining non-human life forms on the planet by then will no doubt think is a good thing. The human race is literally poisoning itself to extinction. Acheiving net zero is the least of our worries!
I’m perhaps splitting hairs, Mark, but is it not the case that ‘net zero’ refers to the imperative to ensure that any new emissions are sequestered? This is not “the least of our worries”, I would suggest, but the sine qua non of eventual success in reducing those existing greenhouse gas levels responsible for our predicament. Clearly it will not be achieved without the rapid abandonment of fossil fuels. What I think you are saying is that this leaves us with the greenhouse gases already emitted to deal with. This we try to achieve by ‘drawdown’ for which many options are available provided we humans collaborate on a massive supranational scale, a scale, as you suggest, certainly not consistent with the concept of infinite growth. The means are there involving energy, agriculture, economics and the rest but not yet the will, of which government inaction is both the cause and the manifestation, as without government action there will be no intergovernmental reaction.
The figures, as you rightly point out, are daunting and we are indeed “poisoning [ourselves] to extinction.” You seem, however, pessimistic when you talk about achieving the stopping of runaway climate change as a fantasy. I think you do us humans a disservice in talking in such terms and discourage others in their efforts, no matter how puny. You also provide cover behind which our government can shield in its inability, whether through lack of conviction, of nous, of courage, or all three, to grasp the nettle. I feel you underestimate our desire to protect our children’s future, a desire so strong that I believe we can rise to the challenge given inspired leadership, (not yet discernible, I’ll grant you, in the current political class).
Mark, I agree with you in respect of the population. World population moving onwards to 10 Billion is the real issue. Maybe there will be antis protesting outside maternity wards?
Looking at the numbers of young folk I know visiting maternity wards following lock downs, they seem to be finding a way to avoid extinction!
Good job too, as one of my neighbours told me just before the budget:
“This (costs of Covid) one’s on the younger generation. Our lifetime has been taken up paying back WW2 debt.”
There is a great deal of (ancient) wisdom in that. And, it does mean that movements towards net zero will need to be well thought out and value for money, because there will be huge constraints upon what is available. Cash for ash type scams/schemes will need to be excluded as poor value for money will be starkly exposed when cash is constrained.
The Arctic ice one is a one year variation, and often has been in the past. I think the Artic vortex had decided to visit Texas in February! World weather patterns do vary considerably from year to year and a longer time frame needs to be examined to get a trend rather than an outlier.
MARTIN ,
Talking about the ” Artic Ice ” , there is one thing we can ALL be 100% certain about . Climate change is melting the ice at an alarming rate .
Check this out from NASA .
https://climate.nasa.gov/
We should ALL be very concerned .
[Word removed at poster’s request]
But not in Texas, Jack! Frozen wind turbines all over the place.
Nor in UK during January/February.
Winter of 1963 in UK, summer of 1976 in UK. Did that huge difference represent a trend? Don’t think so, it demonstrated the fickleness of the UK weather. Even back in 1066, the Normans had problems crossing the Channel due to constant northerly winds. Helped the Vikings, but not the Normans-although the final results suggest the weather pattern was not the game changer.
Yes, climate change is doing certain things in certain places, so why not weaponise the “something must be done” phrase? However, when it comes down to defining the something those advocating stopping fossil fuel still have not come up with the answers, or, more importantly, how to cope with 10 Billion on this planet, with the majority of them not wanting to just exist a peasant lifestyle but wish to consume like the wealthier nations have done for decades.
1720 is the “something must be done” advocate, yet he/she admits to being anti HS2! Well, how is that taking ownership of responsibility? There is no doubt HS2 is less polluting than motorways, which are having to be expanded to “Smart” motorways (what a joke of a name) to increase capacity-and fatalities. Blaming governments for lack of leadership but being unwilling to accept what they do to improve matters does allow for a continual “something must be done”, but that something is not the same for everyone, so very few are ever satisfied. This is shown repeatedly on this site when hydrogen is discussed and the issue rapidly descends into the “colour” of the hydrogen. That is not the issue. The issue is the cost of it, because unless a cheap form of producing hydrogen is focused upon then it will not get rolled out.
As I posted above, populations will have a lot to fund in the coming years. The move to net zero will need to understand that otherwise it will get little acceptance.
And bullet point 3 is a key point, and easy to address without cost and with environmental benefit. Yet, you antis don’t want to address it! So, why do you then continue with the “something must be done” nonsense, when you spend much of your time (and you have put in the hours Jack!) trying to stop “something”?
MARTIN ,
I worry about you sometimes.
Your really not trying to convince forum members , that the extreme weather patterns we are now experiencing are in some way the norm, are you ?????
To try and normalize the extreme swings in UK weather , which are happening with increased ferocity and regularity by citing the Winter of 1963 and the Sumner of 1976 is even beyond the imagination of J.K.Rowling .
The burning of fossil fuels is a key player in the Climate Catastrophe… The costs in monetary terms regarding damage caused in the UK and around the world are so great, they are unquantifiable .
Although I will also concede that rampant , out of control population growth. greed and over consumption are also a driving factor.
Well, Jack, as you will be unable to do anything about your last sentence, the rest is irrelevant.
For example-what is over consumption? Is it the past where vast numbers died from starvation, or is it the current where over 50% of the world’s population are now classified as middle class, and just want to do what the middle classes did in other parts of the world before them? (Perhaps you should campaign telling them they should return to the good old days?) And a big part of that will be burning fossil fuel. Sorry, but what is done in UK is a fleas bite upon an elephant in respect of the globe-and no one will take notice of what the UK does, except to say, “good for them, we can now be more expansive ourselves.” And, that is already happening.
Especially, when they see simple things that could be done in UK to help the global situation, like LOCAL SOURCING, are campaigned AGAINST.
Basically, you, and others, argue that what the UK does will be a good example, which is twaddle, and then campaign setting a bad example of maintaining maritime transport emissions and poor environmental standards from many sources of imports! And, there is just as much greed within the alternative sector. You do not need to look much further than Mr. Musk, or “cash for ash”. Sorry, you do not represent a more socially aware grouping in reality and you try and prevent simple and rapid progress to assist the climate situation, simply because it does not fit a certain dogma. Or, perhaps, it does assist individuals needs to maintain their own market?
For Nimbys, I can understand the motivation. For others, it seems, just an excuse to find a cause for a multitude of motivations, but few of them as justified as the Nimbys. And, for those on the night shift, Jack, utilising extra energy when good old natural daylight is available, to then complain about over consumption is a bit rich! I would suggest if you adjust your activities to fit better with winter and then summer daylight hours that would be a big step towards assisting the environment, because it is well known (lol) that the rest of humanity will follow.
And then we could all enjoy viewing the stars, rather than the view be interrupted from all those Jacks spoiling the environment.
Bigger issues than this DOD article:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/05/china-five-year-plan-emissions
“China has set out an economic blueprint for the next five years that could lead to a strong rise in greenhouse gas emissions if further action is not taken to meet the country’s long-term goals.”
And look where the UK was in 2017:
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/chart-of-the-day-in-2017-us-had-largest-decline-in-co2-emissions-in-the-world-for-9th-time-this-century/
This Agreement was enshrined in Law back in 2019 some 31 years before the deadline of 2050.
Aporoaching 2050 there will be few if any of the signatories still in politics or capable of being found responsible for any failures to enact policies to ensure compliance with the obligations it contained.
As compliance will involve massive investment in alternative energy sources plus massive write off costs for current energy generation systems current political figures will avoid any worthwhile changes as long as possible.
Except, they are currently NOT avoiding any worthwhile change, Peter.
It may not satisfy yourself, but investment is happening in alternative energy sources.
Interesting you point the finger at politicians. What are you suggesting? That alternative energy sources need massive investment and massive write off costs for current energy and it will be the tax payer who picks up the bill, and not industry? Yes, that is what you are saying!
OMG. Someone grab that cat and put it back in the bag. Too late.
Peter of course can speak for himself but I suspect his use of the word ‘worthwhile’, Martin, implies significant progress towards the zero carbon goal, progress which recent reports deny we are making. Investment is indeed happening, but certainly not on the ‘massive’ scale Peter rightly advocates, and politicians are certainly not stepping up to the mark in sufficient numbers and with sufficient clout. Peter, it seems to me, is not ‘suggesting’ anything: he states facts of which most, I think, are aware.
Of course the tax payer will eventually have to pick up the bill. The question is, is the bill of inevitable annihilation to be preferred to the bill incurred in preventing it? As Peter says: “current political figures will avoid any worthwhile changes as long as possible”. It’s up to us to educate and motivate where such awareness and motivation is lacking.
Except 1720, you want to educate and motivate by being against HS2!
So, you actually want to STOP worthwhile progress towards the zero carbon goal, and it was you who (mis) quoted the massive investment as being the reason you put forward AGAINST. That is a repeating problem on this site. The same individuals contradict themselves over time and believe no one will notice.
Now, you may have your own reasons to prefer the expansion of smart motorways to increase capacity, but none of them would help the environment or the death toll, so excuse me but I will look for others to educate and motivate.
Your something must be done approach is not my something, and if I am to pay for something I will chose the something. Maybe that is why the massive scale should be done bit by bit, showing it works before the next bit is attempted? Otherwise, the voters will simply say, no, because they are largely concerned with their life span, unless they believe they are returning. Inevitable annihilation is already a factor for this world,(Giggle solar activity) and has been known about for a lot longer than man made climate change, but has not resulted in massive investment to avoid it. (Except for Mr. Musk blasting off with his rockets!)
I am sure some may go for the massive investment, perhaps Mr. Biden, but if that results in gas prices rising in US then the result is pretty certain. Education and motivation will be trumped (woops) by the ability of the voters to decide if they accept, and they didn’t even during WW2. In that case, there would then just be a reverse, so I am not a believer in massive investment into things that might make no long term difference, but okay with it into things that will. Your posts indicate the opposite, so, not educated or motivated by your approach. Sorry.
Oh for heaven’s sake, Martin, you are still going on about HS2. Were you not answered adequately on March 2nd. (the Biscathorpe report)? And Martin, I don’t mind where your education and motivation comes from, as long as you get it. Certainly your arguments leave something to be desired, and there are many contributors better qualified than me to offer you such help.
You may like to think you can control where HMG spends your money. If you’re right, then you’re making a spectacularly bad job of it. Sad that you feel that voters are only concerned with their life span: I feel however that you’re wrong and that many care what happens to their children and grand children, and would like to postpone indefinitely your inevitable annihilation – the one that “has been known about for a lot longer than man made climate change, but has not resulted in massive investment to avoid it.” Wasn’t that my point? (By the way, I’m sure you care too, but where does that leave your powers of argumentation? Back with HS2, I expect.) And who decides what might make no long term difference, and what will? Perhaps those educated, inspired and motivated by something other than greed.
Keep to the point, Martin.