Rishi Sunak’s delay to decarbonisation of buildings and vehicles will make it harder for the UK to meet its emissions targets, the government’s climate advisor said this afternoon.
The independent Climate Change Committee (CCC) was responding to the prime minister’s announcement last month (20 September 2023) that the ban on new petrol and diesel cars and gas boilers would be postponed until 2035. He also scrapped a requirement to improve energy efficiency in rented homes.
In an assessment of how the changes would affect emissions targets, the CCC said:
[these developments] “have made meeting future targets harder through both the direct impacts of reduced policy ambition and through the Government’s indication that it will loosen certain Net Zero policies”.
The CCC also said it was “unhelpful” that the prime minister’s announcement failed to provide estimates of the effect of his announcements on emissions or evidence to support the claim that UK targets would still be met.
The CCC’s chair, Professor Piers Forster, said:
“We remain concerned about the likelihood of achieving the UK’s future targets, especially the substantial policy gap to the UK’s 2030 goal.
“Around a fifth of the required emissions reductions to 2030 are covered by plans that we assess as insufficient.
“Recent policy announcements were not accompanied by estimates of their effect on future emissions, nor evidence to back the Government’s assurance that the UK’s targets will still be met.
“We urge the Government to adopt greater transparency in updating its analysis at the time of major announcements.”
Friends of the Earth said the CCC’s assessment revealed “glaring inconsistencies between the government’s rhetoric and action” (see Reaction for full quote).
Detail
The CCC welcomed the implementation next year of the zero emission vehicle mandate, which requires an increasing proportion of new car and van sales to be electric. It also welcomed a deal with Tata for the industrial electrification of the Port Talbot steel plant.
But it said:
“the Prime Minister has also relaxed important policies to decarbonise buildings and transport and sent a message to business and the international audience that he will allow more time for the UK to transition to key clean technologies. These steps have countered the positive progress of other announcements.”
In September, Rishi Sunak committed to meet the UK’s target, agreed with the UN, to reduce emissions by 68% by 2030.
But the CCC said the prime minister’s announcement had led to “renewed scrutiny” of the UK’s position as a global climate leader. It said:
“We urge the Government to restate strong British leadership on climate change in the crucial period before the next climate summit, COP28 in Dubai.”
The CCC’s progress report to parliament in June 2023 showed that the UK was not on track to meet this target, known as the nationally determined contribution or NDC.
Today, it said a 2035 date for new fossil boilers was “potentially compatible” with net zero emissions by 2050. But on the exemption of 20% of households from the phase-out, the CCC said:
[this] “will have an impact on emissions all the way out to 2050 making Net Zero considerably harder to achieve.
“Most importantly, it creates widespread uncertainty for consumers and supply chains. Although the grant for heat pumps was increased from £5,000 to £7,500 it has not been accompanied by a larger budget and will, therefore, serve fewer homes.”
The CCC said the delay to banning new fossil fuel car sales to 2035 was “expected to have only a small direct impact on future emissions” because of the zero emissions vehicle mandate.
But it added:
“The risk is that the public and automotive companies perceive a weakening of government commitment to the electric vehicle transition, which could undermine consumer confidence and/or jeopardise some inward investment relating to EV manufacturing.”
The CCC added that the prime minister’s announcement could increase costs to the public:
“Electric vehicles will be significantly cheaper than petrol and diesel vehicles to own and operate over their lifetimes, so any undermining of their roll-out will ultimately increase costs. The cancellation of regulations on the private-rented sector will lead to higher household energy bills.”
It also said the government’s new messaging around net zero risked “undermining consumer confidence and the development of UK supply chains, which are particularly important for delivery of buildings decarbonisation”.
Reaction
Friends of the Earth’s climate campaigner, Danny Gross, said:
“This assessment highlights the glaring inconsistencies between the government’s rhetoric and action.
“Rishi Sunak has said he will honour his commitment, made at the COP27 climate talks in Egypt, to cut the UK’s carbon emissions by over two-thirds by 2030. His climate advisors are telling him loud and clear that his plans just don’t add up and the target will be missed.
“Instead, the Prime Minister is scrapping policies that would reduce harmful emissions and cut sky-high energy bills. A government of integrity, wouldn’t be trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes by pretending it can deliver on promises with a climate plan that’s just not up to scratch.”
A legal challenge by Friends of the Earth to the government’s net zero plan, known as the Carbon Budget Delivery Plan, is due to be heard at the High Court in February 2024.
DRILL OR DROP? 
Advisors advise, Governments decide.
Looking at the public reaction following the adjustments it would tend to indicate who is in tune with public sentiment and who is not.
Good luck though with insurance costs of your EVs, repair bills and time to get them back on the road! Good luck with the charging costs when the other insurance policy for when the wind doesn’t blow-new nuclear-is added to the bills. If you want a taster, examine Hinkley Point, then add quite a bit more for the disposal costs of new underground facilities-coming to someone’s back yard.
UK has achieved it’s carbon emission targets. Have others? Is there a prize for doing more than has been set, and even if there was, would it actually make any difference whatsoever to global climate change-or, would it just keep a number of organizations in business?
P.S:
Who pays for “Grants”??? Looks to me as if CCC is starting to show that the Civitas estimate of £4.5T is much closer to reality than their own £1.3T.
Could always add it to the National Debt as that is all under control and the costs of servicing are so cheap! LOL.
The headline should have read “Rishi Sunak’s delay to decarbonisation of buildings and vehicles will make it harder for the proponents of lunatic energy policies to drive the UK to Economic Bankruptcy”. There fixed it for you.
‘proponents of lunatic energy policies’
My friend has given me some stats from his solar and battery set up to give an example of output and costs. Standard size house array and 1 tesla power wall battery. Installed in May so the windy winter months which will be less output are not shown.
He either uses or sells 100% of all that he produces.
His octopus battery tariff pays him an average of 22p for every kw he sells but he also sells back from the battery at 31p per kw between 4pm and 7pm.
Over winter he will use his system to buy and sell to maximise the use of his system. He will buy in at 16p per kw and sell 10kw each day at 26p between 4pm and 7pm.
The whole system can be programmed to do this for you and it also automatically looks at the following days forecast and adjusts accordingly. Battery has 10 year warranty and is guaranteed to still have 80% charge after the 10 years.
These types of systems show positive moves towards the climate change emergency, can be installed quickly, and when their potential is maximised can be cost effective.
John, there is a whole debate out there about the payback period for solar installations and I look forward to some verifiable data coming out rather than baseless speculation. Suppliers say 5 to 7 years and of course their data is unlikely to be pessimistic. The Guardian have printed a letter by someone who is carefully collecting actual data and he says 7 years is too optimistic.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/26/solar-power-payback-takes-much-longer-than-you-think
On the other hand, if energy prices are pushed higher by ‘proponents of lunatic energy policies’ it might become worthwhile especially if we can put aside the increasing fire risk apparently associated with retrofits. Remember also that these system produce least during the winter months when the power is most required.
As stated clearly in my post’
He either uses or sells 100% of all that he produces.
The Guardian link gives states from a system without battery storage and the ability to sell surplus at night.
In case you have forgotten it’s not just about the money
According to the post below the type of system I have described costs £30,000
Ahh, it now seems likely to cost £17-£20k. Well, jP it took a bit but eventually there is at least a likely. My last customer base, largely in the farming community, would still be very suspicious of the likely.
If there are some who have £17-£20k to invest, and more if the likely doesn’t actually happen, good luck to them. However, that is not an option for the majority of people in the UK, and for many where it is it would be way down their bucket list.
I really have no problem with people investing their money as they like, it is yourself from previous posts who seems to have an issue with that. To make out such investments are a solution to replacing use of oil and gas in UK is somewhat impractical. I note some very nice schemes where people have a property with a fast flowing stream through their property and invest enough to harvest the energy but it hardly scratches the surface. I also know a land holder who has a very neat system that takes complete bales of straw and plonks them into a furnace to generate all the heat required around the estate. However, he inherited £millions to purchase the estate from the sale of a family business which still left over £100m in a Trust to distribute income to good causes. All very nice, but not within most people’s orbit. Most people’s orbit is that they will be spending a much greater proportion of their income on energy and the poorer they are, the greater that proportion. £6k/household per year will be fine-for a minority. It is nothing of the sort for the vast majority. Perhaps that may be the reason that the deal was signed way before the cost to households was admitted?
What commission do you get, jP?
Anyone else notice that there was no cost provided for the system? (I have come across quite a few salesmen who think that absence will not focus attention upon it being absent!)
I could have energy supplied by a constant stream of naked ladies running around on a big wheel. However, I suspect that would not be something I could afford, and there are many more things I have to divert my funds towards, such as the high cost of food exacerbated by lunatic proponents of energy policy who decided wheat should be plonked into E10 petrol, even whilst people starve around the world because they can not get hold of wheat. How much of the estimated £6k/household/year is that already costing my household? I have yet to see any “scientists” sending me an apology, not even a “grant”.
(The only reason the ladies are naked is that they would have to run so fast for so long, it would be unkind to expect them not to be able to perspire freely.)
More seriously, I did chat to someone who had a friend who did something similar. I asked how much it all cost. £30k was the answer but not a problem as the house owners were wealthy. Sorry, I am not wealthy and £20k to plonk a heat pump system into my property is a long way down my bucket list. £3k for a small one for supplementary heat, okay-done it. Then, I have my chunk of £200B for new nuclear around the corner, and my chunk of £50B (to dispose of the nuclear waste). Hopefully, after my chunk of the £50B to upgrade the Grid. I would not like to even estimate what my chunk of subsidizing energy bills to encourage businesses to stay in UK would look like.
I have done the lottery, jP, and that may change my calculation but that has less probability of happening than the UK meeting Net Zero has of adjusting global climate change.
I did do my bit for the cause today when I checked at the restaurant if when Stop Oil is successful and my credit card is useless whether they would accept that I could plonk a chicken on the counter as payment. Strangely, they were not enthusiastic.
The cost of a new rooftop solar, battery storage, and grid connect varies considerably. My friends system started with just panels some years ago. His payback time was 6 years with the panels having a 20 year life. He only recently added the tesla battery. His battery alone would have a 10 year payback (just buying and selling) but his panels will reduce that to just 5 years. Tesla batteries can cost between 7 and 9 thousand fitted although there are cheaper options. At present there is no vat on panels and battery if they are fitted at the same time. It would seem likely that a new fitted system would cost between 17 and 20 thousand fitted with the technology expected to get better and prices drop.
Time to stop subsidising fossil fuels and move onto cleaner cheaper renewable energy systems.
/www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/24/fossil-fuel-subsidies-imf-report-climate-crisis-oil-gas-coal?_hsmi=271728808&_hsenc=p2ANqtz–pYddI9nZNzr3qXTkcQz6mLYJvs7_A_zx4S4oyges4KhUO5U-ydra4gHwY1Lk2cQhrckEi1cAzPAaQk7zASHUnoEQOyA
Good data on your friend’s solar installation. Hopefully more people will be encouraged to install similar data driven solutions. On the other hand your Guardian article link was total greenwash. It suggested that the lack of punishment for fossil fuel companies were therefore subsidies ! While actual subsidies in the form of green levies on energy bills and direct donations from government to wind farm companies wasn’t mentioned ! Typical Guardian propaganda.
An update on real subsidies.
http://websites.milonic.com/notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/
MARTIN ,
I’m sorry to step in to the debate , but I need to flag up to the readers a RED Collywaffle ALERT .
For the 100th + time I ask …. You show the readers here and now how the SO called £200bn for new nuclear will be coming from the pockets of UK citizens….
As I’ve told you until I’m blue in the face , EDF are investing their own money in building UK nuclear power stations..
MARTIN , we all know and laugh at your attempts to rubbish the electricity network and we’ve all laughed at the thought of going back to GAS LIT lighting in operating theatres ……… BUT SERIOUSLY, trying to rubbish the electricity network in favour of gas , you are having a joke with us aren’t you ??????
ALSO , surely you aren’t trying to push the highly toxic process oyherwise known as Fracking on the British people are you???????
Fracking which has been proven to be highly toxic , environmentally damaging, climate changing , dangerous to human and animal health . Which devalues homes in Fracking areas and leaves a toxic financial burden for future generations .
Well, an interesting step, Jack, up to your usual standard. [Edited by moderator]
Ermm, you do realize Jack that Tesla invest their money in building cars (well, until recently someone else’s money) then someone is expected to buy the product and they have this strange requirement of ermm paying for it, which includes all the costs of manufacturing and then a margin! As a result, Mr.Musk becomes the richest man in the world! For Mr. Musk see EDF. How rich can easily be seen by looking at Hinkley Point as a marker.
I fear you are confused with French largesse and the Statue of Liberty Jack, or you might just want to post nonsense. Alternatively, you may dwell within some strange closed society where what you consume you don’t have to pay for. Maybe you are just a Smurf and being blue in the face is your natural state. However, the vast majority, even those who frequent DoD, are outside of those groups and may be amused but I suspect not, to see they are assumed not to be.
Having missed your opportunity for a good investment in Chesapeake Energy Jack, are you now so bitter about missing out on Pioneer also?
Jack are you suggesting that the UK should not attempt to extract any of our huge reserves of fossil fuels (at least 50 years supply of onshore gas) in favour of more expensive imports from unregulated competitor countries ? in favour of the less well-off struggling to pay their energy bills ? In favour of black-outs because of inadequate supply ? I assume that you recognise that China is opening two coal fired power stations every week ?
Graeme-yes “he” is, as it seems that “we” are going to be friends with Russia once the war is over and will be able to get their nice gas and oil! (see previous posts.) Gas peaking (so far) at $47 in Europe compared to $7 in USA is just denied. (see previous posts.)
The merits of propaganda are explained. (see previous post.)(Although, the downside of very clumsy propaganda were conveniently ignored[edited by moderator]
I would suggest assuming any recognition of anything factual may be a step too far. Currently, based upon Jack’s economic model because French car companies have invested in car factories I should have my new model delivered FOC (or close to, as I will not have to pay for their investment) any day now. That should be good as with all the UK potholes that are not being fixed as UK can not afford to, one of those nice models designed to keep eggs intact driving over ploughed fields may just be what I need! Of course there is the alternative of UK being able to afford to mend potholes by producing more of the fossil fuel it uses and raising the taxes upon that, rather than importing and gaining nothing in taxes and weakening the value of Sterling. However, that sort of arithmetic is taboo, so back to having to assume any recognition of anything even with a very low probability. Meanwhile, the reality is that I need to get my car suspension serviced/repaired. I am left assuming what might actually get put in the potholes-which will be exacerbated by all those heavy EVs.
I did see a very sorry situation yesterday with a young woman “f” ing and worse at an elderly guy who had nearly backed his car into hers, purely accidentally. When taken to task as young children were around she just stated “that is who I am”. Made me think, “and who makes you who you are?”, but I kept that to myself as I assumed it would have required a lot of counselling sessions beyond my ability to get that through. Such is “life”(?) it seems.
Still no wind here, and my gas boiler doing a Sterling job. Shame though about how much Sterling.
There appears to be no end in sight for the multi-billion dollar rout in renewable energy stocks, as a surge in borrowing costs threatens to squeeze returns in the sector for years to come.
The industry received a fresh blow on Friday, after a sales warning from equipment provider SolarEdge Technologies Inc. sent shares in solar stocks across the US and Europe tumbling as much as 25%.
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/after-280-billion-wipeout-green-stocks-confront-soaring-debt-costs-1.1987289?fbclid=IwAR2VtoqJS568bp8FwLAUlB22v7KNui2bEL9uOcZMiUTy7bLqzpaVjmG8wIU_aem_AWvod1qD_1bwfvUZjQdjeyRCeWUH9YbuAOhwRwbwVsmXho6hC-IwyvudOVWbEZl8_VE