The energy secretary has rejected a request from MPs to set out calculations on how recent changes to transport and home heating policies will affect UK emissions targets.
Claire Coutinho was responding to calls from parliament’s environmental audit committee for an updated carbon budget delivery plan, following the delay until 2035 of a ban on new petrol and diesel car sales and fossil fuel boilers.
The committee, which published the minister’s response today, said a revised plan would allow for “ready examination” of the government’s claim that the UK remains on track to meet the majority of its carbon budget obligations, following the changes in policy.
But Ms Coutinho said:
“With a constantly changing external environment covering economic, technological, and wider trends our plans will of course need to be revised over time.
“However, it is not appropriate, nor is it a requirement, to update and publish a revised version of the Carbon Budget Delivery Plan every time there is a change in economic data, a policy or wider factor.
“The Carbon Budget Delivery Plan, published in March, remains the most recent presentation of our detailed plans, with the vast majority of the near-200 quantified policies set out in the plan continuing unamended and remaining in place following the Prime Minister’s announcements.”
She said the changes, announced last month by the prime minister, were “fairer” and more “pragmatic”.
The committee’s chair, Philip Dunne, said it was disappointing that Ms Coutinho had not answered many of his specific questions:
“A detailed response showing the impact on future emissions would have assisted our scrutiny of the revised timeframes for the phasing out of petrol and diesel vehicles and of fossil fuel boilers, and the potential impact of these changes on the emissions reductions required to meet net zero.”
In a separate response to the government’s climate advisor, Ms Coutinho said the UK was on track to meet its legal target of making the UK net zero by 2050.
Earlier this month, the Climate Change Committee (CCC) said the policy rollback on fossil fuel cars and boilers would make it harder for the UK to meet its emissions targets.
In June, in the annual report to parliament, the CCC criticised ministers for “backtracking on fossil fuel commitments” with the approval of a new coal mine in Cumbria and a new round of oil and gas licences in the North Sea.
The CCC said the government was on track with only nine of the 50 key indicators for emissions reduction.
Ms Coutinho said:
“we will take a pragmatic, proportional and realistic approach to net zero. That means not taking forward CCC recommendations on policies that force families to make costly and burdensome changes to their lifestyles.”
She said government policy would ease the burden on families and preserve choice. Ministers were “anti-aviation emissions, not flying”, she said. They wanted to deliver “sustainable flying for everyone”.
On oil and gas, she said:
“Despite the declining role of oil and gas in our energy mix, there will still be a role for oil and gas in our energy system up to 2050 and beyond. Britain will still need to continue to import energy and our own production is key to our export strategy.”
She said the oil and gas industry provided “vital engineering skills and high-quality jobs” that would be crucial to expanding the offshore wind sector.
She also said the government would continue to ensure emissions from oil and gas projects were minimised.
“Government off track”
Danny Gross, energy campaigner, Friends of the Earth, said:
“No matter how it tries to spin it, the fact remains that the UK government is well off track for meeting both its legally-binding sixth carbon budget and its international pledge to cut emissions by two thirds by 2030.
“Tougher action, such as a comprehensive home-insulation programme, is urgently needed to make up for the shortfall. But with Rishi Sunak’s recent preference for weakening green commitments, the prospects are far from encouraging.
“Ministers mustn’t be allowed to shirk their duty to act on the climate crisis. We are already taking the government to court next year over its climate strategy and are prepared to take further legal action if its revised policies fall short of what is required.
“Accelerating the transition to a carbon-free future isn’t just good for the environment, it will also bring huge economic benefits with new jobs, cheaper bills and increased energy security.”
DRILL OR DROP? 
The Government are in a difficult position. They know that Net Zero is completely unachievable, and will totally destroy the economy. Unfortunately it’s the law, so they need to maintain the illusion that they are complying. Even though it was never properly planned or costed. (some estimates say it could be up to £3Trillion). The UK public will never agree to a horrific drop in living standards to reduce our 1% contribution to world CO2, while China builds 2 coal fired power stations a week.
The estimate from Civitas is £4.5T, £6k/household per year up to 2050. That looks conservative, to me.
The problem was this was signed into law without any consultation with the payees-the households-and without any accurate assessment of costs. If it sounds so much like a stitch up, it is a stitch up.
Then a few idiots moan that the Minister refuses to give figures she is not required to give.
I would just add that UK has met it’s targets to date, yet there is increasingly shrill comments “we” are all still doomed. It ain’t working then, is it! If anyone thinks the public will keep on forking out for something that they are being told ain’t working, good luck with that.
My prediction is that the political classes who tie themselves to this Titanic will disappear very quickly, probably and ironically to get better paid jobs in some “think” Tank! I do actually agree with the aim of Net Zero, but it needs to be achieved in a way that is affordable. If people want clean water, rivers and seas will they accept that the rebuilding of our infrastructure is pushed down the road for more decades to achieve rain water separation? (Add on numerous other priorities.)
Not many want to revert to a yurt. If some want to, fine by me but don’t expect me to join them or fund it for them.
I don’t think anyone will disagree with the concept of keeping our rivers and seas sewage free. Rain water separation should be, in my mind at least, a priority.
Net Zero on the other hand is a theoretical concept which suggests that if we can reduce our greenhouse gas emissions we can control the temperature of the planet. The theory is allegedly supported by computer modelling. There are of course plenty of scientists out there who disagree. http://websites.milonic.com/notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/
What I do know with a degree of certainty is that impoverishing the UK in the process, while giving others such as China a free pass, is not a sensible/ sustainable approach.
There are a lot of theories around Net Zero that have very dubious spawning grounds, and then very dubious gestation periods. Even, so, a lot of people make a lot of tax payer money from them. Goodness, how difficult was it to model that the wind doesn’t always blow? The Chief Scientific Officer was telling politicians it didn’t and what was needed and the politicians were saying, oh no it isn’t (new nuclear.)
When one sees the approach that someone else will pay it not only smells like a rat, it is a rat. The classic is processing cereals to be used in fuel. It was proposed in USA decades ago and very quickly distorted the whole world food supply market as farmers were encouraged to grow maize instead of soya. Soya prices escalated around the world and thus every animal receiving soya in their diet became more expensive to rear-and the someone else was the person buying meat products. Then Europe got into the act with wheat. Then other scientists reran the models, and oh dear, it wasn’t beneficial to the environment at all. Whilst all that was going on world population was continuing to increase and the supply of basic cereals for food to feed them was becoming more and more of a lottery, which leads to the poorest in the world dying to adjust supply and demand.
Now, there are the idiots who feel they should just double down and remove artificial fertilizers from helping to get the balance right. The replacement? Sustainable farming! I have done it, and it is a good system although it has one major drawback-it will not feed 10B people. I am sure there are scientists who will make money out of saying it will, but when it fails to do so and people are starving, they will be replaced by others who then re-run the models, and based upon previous there will not even be an apology.
Sorry, that is not caring, it is not protecting the grand children. It is nonsense with a cloak to cover their nakedness whilst money is made. Then, a lot of cash was made from Cash for Ash in N.Ireland. Then there is Drax! And on and on and on…..
There is a whole Group who just fail to Think as individuals and then claim others are the same, so that is okay.
Just one bit to think about. If our rivers and seas are to be cleaned up and rain water separated that not only requires a lot of money but a lot of fossil fuel to achieve it. Think about that.
NSTA award 27 new licenses in N. Sea for new hydrocarbon exploration. 115 applications from 76 companies, even with a huge tax upon profits. Gobbled up.
The off shore wind auction? Zilch. Stranded.
I know arithmetic is a problem for some, but that looks pretty conclusive to me.
I see an increasing number of articles sceptical of Net Zero in the press, which is encouraging. Only the Guardian appear to have doubled down on their stupidity. It seems the great British Public are finally realising that it’s not in their interests to adopt policies which will impoverish the masses, leaving them cold in the winter and stuck in their 15 minute cities without permission to leave. Emeritus Professor Kelly of Cambridge has explained why. http://websites.milonic.com/notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/