Rishi Sunak’s delays to net zero targets have divided his party, united industry with environment and attracted criticism from the government’s climate advisor.
The government was widely accused of causing confusion and lacking clarity, certainty and consistency. The announcement was welcomed by some Conservative right wingers.
During a press conference in Downing Street this evening, the prime minister announced:
- Ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars and gas boilers delayed from 2030 to 2035
- Grants under boiler upgrade scheme increased by 50% to £7,500
- Boiler switch exemption for poorest households
- New oil and gas exploration licences in the North Sea to continue
- No “watering down” of net zero targets
The prime minister also tried to take credit for scrapping proposals that were not government policy, such as taxes on eating meat and flying and requirements to sort rubbish into seven different bins.
Key reaction
Government advisor
“UK further away from meeting climate commitments” – Climate Change Committee
Professor Piers Forster, chair of the CCC, said:
“The Government not only has a legal obligation to meet its Net Zero 2050 target. It also has a commitment to hit the interim emission reduction targets it has put into law.
“The Climate Change Committee has an obligation to assess progress towards those targets. In June, we said in our Progress Report that we were less confident in the Government’s ability to deliver its 2030 and 2035 commitments than we were a year previously.
“We need [to] go away and do the calculations but today’s announcement is likely to take the UK further away from being able to meet its legal commitments. This, coupled with the recent unsuccessful offshore wind auction, gives us concern.
“More action is needed and we await the Government’s new plan for meeting their targets and look forward to receiving their response to our Progress Report, expected at the end of October.”
Politics
Anger over announcement during parliamentary recess – Commons speaker
A spokesperson for Sir Lindsay Hoyle said:
“If he had the power, the Speaker would recall the House immediately – and he is writing to the Prime Minister today, to express that view in the strongest of terms.
“This is a major policy shift, and it should have been announced when the House was sitting.
“Members with very different views on this issue have expressed their disquiet on the way this has been handled, especially as the Commons rose early last night, so there was plenty of time for this statement to be made.
“Instead, the unelected House of Lords will have the opportunity to scrutinise this change in direction this afternoon, when it hears the Government’s response to a private notice question on this issue.
“This is not the way to do business. Ministers are answerable to MPs – we do not have a presidential system here.
“The House of Commons is where laws are made, national debates are had – and where statements should be made.”
“Chaotic approach to running the country” – Labour
Ed Miliband, the shadow energy secretary, said the prime minister was “rattled, chaotic and out of his depth”:
“Today is an act of weakness from a desperate, directionless prime minister, dancing to the tune of a small minority of his party. Liz Truss crashed the economy and Rishi Sunak is trashing our economic future.
“Having delivered the worst cost of living crisis in generations, the prime minister today loads more costs onto the British people. Delaying the phase out of petrol and diesel cars will add billions in costs to families and damage investor confidence in the UK, as we have seen from the furious business reaction today.
“This is a prime minister who simply doesn’t understand and cannot grasp for Britain the opportunities for jobs and our economy of driving forward with action on clean energy.
“After today, it is clearer than ever that only Labour can create jobs, lower bills, deliver energy security for Britain, and tackle the climate crisis.”
“Sunak has rolled over to right wing” – Liberal Democrats
Ed Davey, Lib Dem leader, said:
“This is not leadership from Rishi Sunak, this is putting the UK at the back of the queue as the rest of the world races to embrace the industries of tomorrow.
“The prime minister’s legacy will be the hobbling of our country’s future economy as he ran scared from the right wing of his own party. It is selfish and it epitomises his weakness.
“At the very time we need to stand up and lead, Sunak rolled over.”
“Lack of clarity, certainty and consistency” – government’s reviewer of net zero strategy
The Conservative, Chris Skidmore, said investors were confused and did not know what to do in the light of the announcement. He said:
“There is [now] a complete lack of clarity, certainty and consistency over what the UK’s Net Zero pathway is.”
He said:
Any delay to our net zero commitments will be at the detriment of the UK’s jobs, investment and economic growth. We risk destabilising business confidence in the UK that would have created thousands of jobs across the country. People will pay the price through higher bills and prices, leaving the UK stranded with the windustries of the past rather than the future.”
“We cannot afford to falter now” – Boris Johnson MP
The former prime minister said in a statement:
“Business must have certainty about our Net Zero commitments.
“This country leads on tackling climate change and in creating new green technology. The green Industrial Revolution is already generating huge numbers of high quality jobs and helping to drive growth and level up our country.
“Business and industry – such as motor manufacturing – are rightly making vast investments in these new technologies. It is those investments that will produce a low carbon future – at lower costs for British families.
“It is crucial that we give those businesses confidence that government is still committed to Net Zero and can see the way ahead. We cannot afford to falter now or in any way lose our ambition for this country.”
“Lift moratorium on fracking” – Liz Truss MP
A statement by the UK’s shortest-serving prime minister said:
“I welcome the delay on banning the sale of new petrol and diesel cars as well as the delay on the ban on oil and gas boilers. This is particularly important for rural areas.
“I now urge the government to abolish the windfall tax on oil and gas and lift the fracking ban, which would reduce people’s energy bills and make the UK more competitive.”
“Pure political game playing” – Caroline Lucas MP
Ms Lucas (Green), chair of the climate change all party parliamentary group, said:
“This is pure political game-playing from Rishi Sunak – he clearly doesn’t care about the climate in the slightest. He knows green policies will make energy bills cheaper, homes warmer, our air cleaner and will protect the environment for generations to come. Bending to the misinformed demands of a handful of Tory backbenchers, under the misapprehension of delivering short-term political gain, will leave people paying the price for his government’s failures”.
“Risks to Conservative’s hard-won reputation” – Conservative Environment Network:
The group’s director, Sam Hall, said:
“This was an unnecessary speech that risks damaging the Conservative Party’s hard-won reputation on environmental issues.
“Today the PM has changed little of substance besides delaying the transition to electric cars.
“Sticking to the 2030 deadline would have saved UK motorists money, supported car firms that have invested in new EV factories, and unlocked crucial investment in charge-point infrastructure.”
“Move to intelligent net zero” – Sir Jacob Rees Mogg
The former energy secretary under Liz Truss said:
“The problem with net zero and having regulations coming in so quickly was that it was a scheme of the elite on the backs of the least well off.
“Rishi Sunak has changed that. He is going with the grain of the nation and moving for ‘intelligent net zero’ by 2050, but not putting in costly bans in the next few years.”
“PM must stick with net-zero policies” – senior cross-party MPs
The chairs of several all party parliamentary groups said:
“Rishi Sunak must maintain his Government’s commitment to delivering net zero policies to cut household costs and support business, say senior cross-party MPs.
“Existing policies must not be weakened. Any backsliding from the Prime Minister on his climate change and energy policies would hit consumer bank balances and undermine business stability, through higher energy bills in leaky homes, and missed investment and job creation in green industries.
“The policies which must be maintained include the 2030 ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars, in order to cut emissions in line carbon budgets and to provide certainty for industry to invest in UK electric vehicle manufacturing and charging infrastructure.”
“Economic and environmental vandalism” – Green Party
Green Party co-leader, Carla Denyer, said:
“This is nothing short of economic and environmental vandalism that will mean higher energy bills, fewer jobs and lost investment all while weakening the UK’s climate action even further.”
She said:
“This is a desperate and dangerous u-turn from the Prime Minister which will throw the UK economy, the wellbeing of its citizens and the future of our environment out the window in a misguided attempt to create divisions for political gain.
“More than anything this speech sounded like an admission of the government’s failure to implement climate policy in a way that brings people with them while showing the benefits of a more sustainable future.”
“Hard to see how legally-binding carbon targets will be met” – House of Lords committee
Lady Parminter, chair of the environment and climate change committee, said she was “dismayed by the announcement and would be writing to Rishi Sunak to set out the members’ concerns:
“The overwhelming evidence we have received so far in our current electric vehicles (EVs) inquiry is that both industry and the public need policy certainty, consistency, and clear leadership on the journey to net zero. We had that same message from stakeholders consistently in our previous inquiries into the boiler upgrade scheme and into behaviour change needed to meet carbon reduction goals.
“The target to end the sale of petrol and diesel cars by 2030 was welcomed by all the industry we took evidence from. It is they who are crucial in providing the low-carbon products and services we need to get to net zero.
“Given a third of all emission reductions required by 2035 need to come from individuals and households adopting new technologies, choosing low-carbon products or services and reducing carbon-intensive consumption it is hard to see how our legally-binding carbon targets will now be met.”
40% less likely to vote Tory if government weakens climate commitments – new polling data
A poll of 2,000 people for Channel 4 News by FindOutNow showed that more than 40% of people would be less likely to vote Conservative at the next election of the government did not stick to its climate change commitments. Just over 12% said they were now more likely to vote Conservative.
Campaigns and think tanks
“Environmentally reckless and economically inept” – Friends of the Earth
The organisation’s Mike Childs, said:
“Rishi Sunak is being environmentally reckless and economically inept.
“Building a green economy is the best way to tackle the cost-of-living crisis, boost energy security and strengthen the economy. Weakening these green policies will simply undermine business confidence and put British jobs at risk.
“The government is already being taken to court over its weak and feeble climate action plan, which we say is unlawful. If this current package is weakened further, and in a way that’s not transparent about delivery risks, then further legal challenges are inevitable.
“With the world in the midst of a climate crisis we need bold political leadership – not another Prime Minister posturing to a narrow section of his own party for perceived short-term electoral gains. The consequences won’t just fall on people in the UK – they will reverberate globally.”
“Sunak must explain how he will met net zero commitments” – Greenpeace UK
Greenpeace UK’s policy director, Doug Parr, said:
“Sunak is taking the public for fools. He claims he’s helping ordinary people by playing politics with the climate, but we know the real winners will be big corporations like the oil and gas lobby.
“Rowing back on home insulation and commitments to help people move away from gas will ensure we stay at the mercy of volatile fossil fuels and exploitative energy companies.
“It will also spook international investors who will be looking for genuine government commitment on the green economy, costing the UK jobs and opportunities.
“The many scandals we face like the cost of living, inequality, and the energy crisis can be fixed with the same solutions we know will tackle the climate crisis.
“Sunak must explain how we will meet our net zero commitments by rowing back on all of the policies to get us anywhere near it.”
“Announcement designed to grab headlines” – Good Law Project
“The Prime Minister’s destructive new plans are designed only to grab headlines and a political gamble to please the right wing of his party. But the stakes for the environment are much higher. And most people agree that we must do better than this – and we can.
“We believe the Government’s current policies to reduce emissions are already inadequate and unlawful. The last thing we need is for them to be weakened further.
“In fact, through our latest legal action, we have forced the Government to disclose to us that its latest net zero plan is already fraught with risks.
“We are now going back to court to demand the Government reveals how successful the Carbon Budget Delivery Plan is likely to be for each individual government department.
“Ministers have refused to make these ‘risk tables’ public and in the next few months we’ll have a hearing in the High Court to try and force the Government to publish them for all to see.
“This is the second time we have taken legal action against the Government over net zero. Last year, we teamed up with Friends of the Earth and ClientEarth, and went to the High Court to successfully force the Government to rewrite its woefully inadequate net zero strategy.
“But the renewed plan isn’t up to scratch either – and to make matters worse it is now about to be stripped back further. We want to help the public and Parliament hold the Government to account on its new net zero strategy and to stop Ministers from hiding vital information.”
Changes could cost households almost £8bn – Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit
Analysis by the ECIU concluded:
“Policy changes announced today by the Prime Minister could cost British households almost £8bn in higher bills over the next decade, and more if gas prices spike again, due to cancelling new energy efficiency regulations for the private rental sector.
“There could be further impacts for household bills due to changes to the phase-out of oil boilers for off-gas grid homes.
“Costs to the NHS due to poor housing could reach £1.2bn a year, or £12bn over the next decade.
“More generally, if gas demand remains high across the economy, the UK could pay an extra £150bn over 10 years to overseas gas producers, compared to if the Government introduced policies to ambitiously cut gas demand.”
Jess Ralston, the ECIU’s energy analyst, said:
“This looks chaotic and not the way long-term policy should be made around important issues, with emergency cabinet meetings and investors spooked.
“Quite the opposite of an honest debate, the implication that any of these policies were going to affect the cost of living here and now is untrue. In fact, the PM has sided with landlords over renters, putting their energy bills and cost of living up by ducking the improvement of rules on energy efficiency. That doesn’t make any sense when excess cold in homes costs the NHS £1.2bn per year and renters are amongst those with the lowest incomes. As the North Sea declines, if the UK fails to shift to heat pumps, we’ll end up reliant on importing ever larger quantities of foreign gas.”
Industry
“Announcement undermines ambition, commitment and consistency” – Ford UK
Lisa Brankin, chair of Ford UK, said:
“Three years ago the government announced the UK’s transition to electric new car and van sales from 2030. The auto industry is investing to meet that challenge.
Ford has announced a global $50 billion commitment to electrification, launching nine electric vehicles by 2025. The range is supported by £430 million invested in Ford’s UK development and manufacturing facilities, with further funding planned for the 2030 timeframe.
“This is the biggest industry transformation in over a century and the UK 2030 target is a vital catalyst to accelerate Ford into a cleaner future. Our business needs three things from the UK government: ambition, commitment and consistency. A relaxation of 2030 would undermine all three. We need the policy focus trained on bolstering the EV market in the short term and supporting consumers while headwinds are strong: infrastructure remains immature, tariffs loom and cost-of-living is high.”
“Clear consistent message needed” – SMMT
Mike Hawes, chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, said:
“The automotive industry has and continues to invest billions in new electric vehicles as the decarbonisation of road transport is essential if net zero is to be delivered.
“Government has played a key part in bringing some of that investment to the UK, and Britain can – and should – be a leader in zero emission mobility both as a manufacturer and market. To make this a reality, however, consumers must want to make the switch, which requires from Government a clear, consistent message, attractive incentives and charging infrastructure that gives confidence rather than anxiety. Confusion and uncertainty will only hold them back.”
“Mis-step on many levels”
Chris Norbury, chief executive of the electricity supplier, E.ON UK, said:
“There is no ‘green vs cheap’ debate, it’s a false argument that only serves to delay the vital work of transforming our economy – work that creates more affordable and secure energy while also boosting jobs and skills, often in the areas of the country most at risk of being left behind.
“This is a mis-step on many levels. From a business perspective, companies wanting to invest in the UK need long term certainty to create the jobs and economic prosperity the country needs. Equally, in our homes and communities we risk condemning people to many more years of living in cold and draughty homes that are expensive to heat, in cities clogged with dirty air from fossil fuels, missing out on the economic regeneration this ambition brings.
“Net zero is an opportunity to transform our economy and the lives of people across the country and the Government needs to think again before abandoning our climate commitments for this decade.
“Just yesterday we were appointed Strategic Energy Partner for the city of Coventry. This is ground level delivery of the energy transition designed to help people and deliver cleaner greener communities. This is happening, there is a real desire for it around the country.”
“Sends the wrong signals” – techUK
Julian David, chief executive of the UK tech industry association, said:
“To make the long term investments necessary to achieve Net Zero businesses need a clear and stable policy environment. Weakening targets sends the wrong signals, deters investment and turns heads towards countries with more stable regulatory environments. It places the UK’s prospects as a clean tech leader at serious risk. The Government’s own commissioned review said the net zero transition is the economic opportunity of the 21st century, and the economic benefits will be mostly felt by countries who move early and encourage the most R&D and innovation. “
DRILL OR DROP? 
Part way there, Rishi, but a way to go.
Just remember you are expected to produce an economy that supports UK voters not forces them to pay huge amounts they can not afford for something that was committed to without any consultation with the UK voters. Why is it affordability is such an issue? Oh yes, high energy prices draining disposable income, yet the experts stated UK energy security was not a problem, just a few years ago! They also pushed UK motorists to buy diesel cars, those nice clean German diesels whilst UK had poor capacity to produce diesel so would buy from Russia. Revenue that has been spent on what? Now the UK taxpayer paying to counter the result of that spending.
Siren voices and rocks come to mind. Alternatively, managing a p.u in a brewery.
The Green “Party” have produced one MP in Westminster and have an economic “policy” that even they could not explain to themselves. My local Green candidate divorced himself from such, but one then wonders why he would not stand as an Independent.
The vested interest comments wailing against this move, included one “expert” who was asked how the taxation from petrol and diesel would be replaced. His suggestion? The oil/gas companies should pay! One question-why? They are mobile, they can just clear off and laugh as they go, and then ship a more expensive product from over the horizon. Possibly from those US LNG terminals that Al Gore thinks no one notices. Perhaps he doesn’t as he jets around trying to sell more books.
That is the extent of the gravy train. It has on board some pretty idiotic “experts” and their nonsense will be just what the media lap up, so, good luck.
(Didn’t see any reference to E10 petrol Rishi. That “expert” nonsense slipped through your net. Sorry “experts” and industry who willingly and actively pursued, will you now pay for the extra cost of UK food? Like you did(nt) for Cash for Ash?)
No need to worry about the Opposition Parties, Rishi. The rush towards financial ruination is even greater with them, and all will suffer the same consequences as soon as the little people realize it is them who will pay, not someone else, and not industry as they will have cleared off to find a lower tax home where energy costs are lower.
Think a few people may benefit from reading the manifesto that BJ was elected on, because Sunak and Truss were not elected by the voters, it is they who have changed commitments without the support of voters. Not to mention jeopardising the government’s statutory obligation to meet Net Zero – which they are currently falling behind on their own progress targets. I hope this foolish and desperate u turn will punish Sunak even more when his government face a general election.
It seems that people forget that the U.K. does not solely influence global car production and much of the multi national car industry is already on course for the end of fossil fuel powered cars by 2030, some even sooner. All this means is that manufacturing investment and jobs will go to those countries embracing this inevitable change. The U.K. car industry is already lagging behind Europe in this regard.
And it isn’t as though petrol and diesel cars would simply disappear come 2030 there will be millions still on the UK’s roads. So what is Sunak actually saving the U.K.?
The fact is the NS oil and gas supplies are diminishing and are now more difficult to extract, the amount of shale in the UK was over estimated, numerous studies, including by the BGS state this. Even this government has admitted that a fracking industry IF it were even viable would be a decade away and will not lower gas prices. The gas belongs to the company and is sold at market price. So the failure of the offshore wind auction and a lack of investment and ambition in green energy and technology will only leave us more exposed to the volatile fossil fuel market and the geopolitical baggage that comes with it.
The right wing of the Conservatives and the likes of the Sun have run a campaign against everything green. But failing to act and invest just costs us more in the long term. Just look at the water companies and consider how we would have saved billions if onshore wind had been permitted and more solar had been developed thus reducing the amount of expensive gas we have had to buy. How much less energy we would have used if our homes had been better insulated. Shortsightedness and stupidity personified.
Has Sunak been straight with the U.K. electorate of the risks and cost of his u turn? No.
Well said Kat. This move is purely the action of an irresponsible, short sighted government desperate to gain votes. To be playing politics with something as serious as the climate crisis we are facing is despicable. It’s time they started acting like grown ups instead of frantically chasing headlines and sound bites in the right wing press and media.
That made me laugh, Pauline. Playing politics with climate change? Now, as anyone who observes the contributions on DoD that would be something to be avoided, wouldn’t it??!!
If I was so inclined I might do an examination of what media was referenced the most frequently, but no need. The Guardian would win, hands down.
Unfortunately, Pauline, climate change has been captured by the politicians and various groupings including the anti capitalists, and the anarchists. You are too late to call for the grown ups. The grown ups will be the ones to fund whatever all these lot(s) want to foist upon them, so they will be labelled as all sorts of things, but when it comes to it they will be the ones to fund and can remove that if they want. They did in Uxbridge and have already been labelled, but I am sure they are grown ups and the labels are from those who are not.
Now, I agree with Net Zero but no one actually asked me before a legally binding agreement was reached and no one supplied the costs that would be required. That was a so called right wing PM, yet the actions were that of a left wing dictator. Do excuse me if I observe the huge dollops of hypocrisy and misinformation that are used within this debate. If it was a form of energy and could be captured it would solve a lot of problems.
Oh dear KatT, you are pontificating about the car industry again. I recall you did the same previously and had to be informed there is a difference between what is available to purchase and what is being suggested for the future.
Global car production. Well, the revised targets simply bring UK more in line with the rest of the world rather than forging ahead of the global market. There is no point in forging ahead if the demand is not there-unless you force people into buying something they don’t want and have to pay them a subsidy to make it add up. I listened to a Labour politician this am advocating the forging ahead as it would create all those new jobs. For whom? China? They have history on this. Remember the drive to diesel? All those UK diesel cars produced? Nope-all those lovely clean German diesels-that weren’t!
UK has achieved the Net Zero targets consistently. There is no prize for forging ahead, just a lot of costs. I note no mention of the huge subsidies funding the new factory in Somerset, or the subsidy for Port Talbot within your lack of investment-on the day that it is shown UK borrowings are still out of control. You talk about lack of investment yet how has UK ended up with so much off shore wind energy? That now requires £200B for new nuclear for when the wind doesn’t blow. (On the platform of someone else will pay, well should that £200B not be funded by the unreliable intermittent wind and solar sectors?)
The gravy train answer? Always someone else will pay. As soon as the need for new nuclear is admitted-someone else will pay. Sunak has simply been honest and stated they will not, and if you are ready and able to pay vote for someone else and you will find out the reality. They weren’t too keen in Uxbridge, were they?
Then the tired old insulation fall back. Well, KatT I am currently looking to move house. I know the EV for my property, I will know the EV value of any property I look to buy. I may be ancient, but there is one advantage. I know what the situation was previously and can see the EV is now much better than it used to be. I constantly get telephone calls about how I could improve my EV, which does not need improving and I can not afford as I am subsidizing the energy bills of loved ones who all have decent EV levels but have particular needs to use a lot of energy. Someone else is paying in that situation-me.
As for your usual nonsense about UK gas and oil being sold on the world market, you conveniently ignore that UK gas and oil taxation can be regulated to effectively reduce energy costs to UK consumers. Oh no, they wouldn’t do that? Oh yes, they just have, and what they just have is just an increase on what has been done for many years. When, and if it is not done, who will then pay? Oh yes, someone else. The Windfall Tax continues, the big support on energy bills does not. Where will the money go? The NHS? Not to worry, if it is not there, someone else will pay. Yes, they will KatT-the individual tax payer. Mind you I note in USA they have started to plonk a tax on EVs to compensate for loss of taxation revenue. Good for those who have forged ahead to find out who the someone else is?
As you have advocated heat pumps previously I am surprised (lol) you missed the bit about increased grants for them, or the talk about rapid Grid expansion. (That should be easy, Rishi (lol) as should be the underground radio active material storage facilities, as should be the explanation to the fishing industry-see latest Japanese fish exports to China plummeting.) There is no point creating a huge demand for extra electricity if it can not be distributed. By the way, a heat pump system for my property would cost at least £20k, which is what Rishi was referring to. I have a supplementary system that only cost £3k and that was affordable, but it is still supplementary. The £15k to get the £3k to work well was an investment into the value of my property, but I don’t suspect too many people would want to make it. Someone else would pay it? Well, if they did via subsidy that would be less for other things, like the NHS, so that-to me-doesn’t make sense.
Oh dear Martin, you are pontificating!
It seems that you are clear that the capitalism you advocate no longer works. You have not made the final leap however. Until we have a society committed to economic justice: until we have lawmakers elected for their ability and not to prop up the system, until we give our respect elsewhere than to those driven by their own pocket and not the common good, we are not going to find a solution to the problems besetting us.
Please stop pontificating. You are not convincing.
Well, 1720, in the absence of an alternative being offered that adds up, I will continue to advocate capitalism. No it doesn’t work much of the time, but it does work better than the alternatives that are usually so “great” that they have to be hidden behind another set of clothes, that examined are just the same as the Emperors.
You, on the other hand offer no alternative, as you know it will not add up. Then, you try and advocate the adding up is not important, resort to self righteousness and find a platform that has nothing to do with that in a desperate search to find the “we’s” from another area. Then you declare they are ignorant. They would need to be to sign up to something which is not even attractive enough to be honestly presented.
If I am not convincing you, 1720, I am happy I am on the right track. If I am not convincing those you indicated were ignorant then I hope that is not the case, or the solution is theirs. I also have few problems, thankfully. Maybe that is because I look at the facts rather than attempt to manipulate what facts are. If you want lawmakers elected for their ability, then “we” will have to pay them a great deal more! If “we” want Medical Consultants employed for their ability-ditto. At the moment, Medical Consultants are not consulting because they claim they are not being paid enough. Oh dear, that darned capitalism again.
You should embrace it 1720. Without it everyone finds out a lot quicker that the someone else will pay is a lie.
And your solution, Martin?
My solution, 1720?
Very much as Graeme has stated, and to be honest about the costs. Then to accept unreliable energy sources are an add on, but not the solution. Then to accept there is a need for oil and gas that will remain, and make sure the carbon from that is managed.
Within all that, to make certain local supply is the driving factor and accept that no energy source comes without it’s own issues and that UK produces a tiny amount of the problem emissions in the world. (That should elicit “our” responsibility to provide recompense for the industrial revolution, but no mention about our unpaid bit on the other side of the equation. The Laws of Arithmetic can also be ignored, when convenient.)
As far as I can see, 1720, those evil Tories are going along that track. I happen to think it is the right track and whether it is the Tories or anyone else, as Graeme said, you can’t buck the Laws of Physics. It may not be a quick track but to suggest it could be is to buck the Laws of Economics after a financial crash and a pandemic. That is what Sunak is trying to correct, and look at the reaction.
If fusion works, happy days, even if it is those nasty Tories who are giving it a push.
However, you have tried to alter most of that from someone else who said exactly the same thing shortly before he died, and had been the Chief Scientific Officer, even though it was then published in the Guardian. Maybe when I am gone you will make contact with me? (Heaven forbid-I hope!) If you manage that 1720, I will not have changed my mind-just for the record.
I would suggest somewhat superior to something should be done and someone else will pay. Obtaining a stronger currency as a result of high interest rates doesn’t seem too attractive either, although anyone with savings could be selfishly happy.
However, for all of that, I expect long after I have gone there will be, “well that didn’t work. The real problem is population growth, so “we” have just signed you all up to Net Zero sex!” (Probably in Bangkok or Rio.) Happy days, children and grandchildren?
Then, even after that, “well, “we” all knew solar activity would destroy all life on earth so just enjoy it whilst it lasts. Sorry “we” spent all the money on the two above rather than getting humanity a future somewhere else.”
Goodness, 1720, I didn’t realize I was so far ahead of my time!
Energy is a vital resource. All of our businesses and homes depend on it. Just look around your towns and cities and see the effect of high energy prices. Businesses closing, people being put out of work. The high price of weekly shopping. The lesson is clear. Cheap energy leads to prosperity, expensive energy leads to poverty. While clean energy is desirable. Reliable, affordable energy is a necessity. As a retired Engineer I know that it’s not possible to buck the laws of physics. Our best chance for clean AND reliable is therefore nuclear. Unfortunately we’ve allowed our national nuclear expertise to wane and we’ve allowed regulations on top of regulations to make it expensive and slow to implement. Even though we built our first Nuclear Power Station (Calder Hall) in 1956 in less than 4 years.
My view is, we have an Energy Emergency, so use all of our available resources to avoid poverty and use the funds to go all out for Nuclear. Some ideas worthy of consideration.
Consider an Engineering strategy of ‘Design one, build many’ for nuclear plants.
Actively help Rolls Royce develop their Small to Medium Reactor (SMR) previously used for nuclear submarines.
Start a UK national energy company with a target for the UK to have the cheapest energy in the western world.
I see Michael Shellenberger has just released a new documentary on the plight of the North Atlantic Right Whale which faces an extinction level event.
http://websites.milonic.com/notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/
Looks plausible.
KatT says fracked (and presumably any locally produced) gas “will not lower gas prices. The gas belongs to the company and is sold at market price.”
This is completely irrelevant, and that should be completely obvious to anyone paying attention to recent history. UK produced gas can be taxed (and it is, at a massive 75% currently) and the proceeds *have been used to subsidise* (ie lower prices) for consumers.
That tax is levied on production (i.e. at source, here in the UK) so it doesn’t matter whether the gas stays in country or is exported. The bulk of it WILL stay in country though as that’s by far the lowest cost route and therefore most profitable option for the producers. A big part of it will no doubt also be piped to Europe, to help replace russian gas and displace more expensive (and high CO2) LNG.
And by the way, in case it’s not obvious, we can’t tax foreign (imported) production the same way. That right belongs to the foreign tax jurisdiction, not to us. We could apply import duty but that would gain nothing because 1) our own consumers would end up paying it and 2) foreign producers can give us a wide berth if they choose.
I don’t know if KatT and others follow replies here, but it would be nice to know if it’s worth bothering with this kind of explanation. The real political tragedy these days is that people pick up and run with the ideas that suit them and avoid/ignore (and are probably deeply suspicious of) anything that contradicts them.
Tom-your explanation, supplying the facts-has been given before yet the same nonsense is still posted routinely.
I am sorry, but facts are irrelevant to the arguments, and then there is surprise that some have to deal with the real world.
This is a site that is moderated, yet the one bit that is not moderated is to keep the facts accurate.
Then there is the political platform that has to be created to accommodate the political activists who see the subject as fertile ground even whilst they show they know little about the subject. Does that really add to the discussion? I thought the discussion was about something else. (I hate forecasts, but I would forecast EVERY political party in UK will play politics with climate change and make a mess of dealing with it as a result. Not just the UK, either.)
There really are some odd concepts put forward even then. Like a manifesto made before a pandemic, serious inflation and a major conflict should remain unchanged. Now, I used to have to produce an annual business plan. I would have received a P45 if that was not adjusted during the year to reflect changes that could not have been planned for. If there are those who have never produced a business plan have they not produced a household budget, or managed their pocket money?
( I took my grandson to his child minder this morning and noticed a traffic jam forming where I was planning to return. I decided to return by another route, and still arrived home no later than usual. See, it can be done. No need for hysterics, just a pragmatic approach.)
Everybody who pays an energy bill in UK has received financial support this last winter from the UK Windfall Tax. It is not ancient history. It was 40% previously, so support will have been given then either with energy costs or public services. One would ask, are renewables going to pay as much in tax? If so ,they will not be that “cheap” will they? If not, where is the taxation coming from? Could that be why these things are never accurately and factually discussed? Surely, there should be an answer-by now? “Someone else” is just another way of saying “I haven’t got a clue”.
I am not sure whether the subject attracts dishonesty or creates it, either way it doesn’t really help the argument.
P.S-I also note there are big chunks of the UK car industry who after seeing the revised plans, have welcomed them and described them as “pragmatic”.
Martin, I agree with your sentiments, but I think what you mean is not that facts are irrelevant but that we’re losing the ability to discern them. It seems to me we divide into factions with curated talking points, and then lob grenades at each other without really engaging in argument at all.
Part of the problem in a forum like this might be that commenters don’t bother following up. They dump their views and move on. Perhaps that’s because they feel the general tone of discussion is such that nothing constructive will come of it? So they only come here to top up the balance for their “silo” of opinion.
If that’s so, then part of the solution surely is to make discussion more tolerable. It needs to be friendly, non-accusatory, and genuinely understanding of the persistent confusions in our society. We live with a common predicament that our media, and our cunning and divisive political actors (of EVERY stripe), have cultivated over the years in their never-ending struggle for influence and power. We have to somehow disarm the combative reflex that they rely on.