Climate Finance - A Ukraine War Victim

 This short think-piece reposted from EiD and originally from Climate Change News is a timely reminder that, while the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a near-term problem, climate change poses an existential threat against which we cannot afford delay.

As governments redirect emergency aid to Ukraine, they need to find additional funds for climate finance and not pitch the two crises against each other

 Rod Janssen  March 25, 2022

Mattias Söderberg, chief advisor at humanitarian NGO DanChurchAid, provides his views on the need to keep financing climate change in an article on the Climate Change News website.

 

Climate finance should not be made to compete with aid to Ukraine

A little over four months ago, ministers from developed countries attending the Cop26 UN climate summit in Glasgow promised to scale up their climate support to developing countries.

The promise was a critical part of the Glasgow Pact. But Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on 24 February shifted priorities, challenging a commitment made to the world’s most climate vulnerable nations.

The war in Ukraine is a horrifying crisis that must be addressed by the world’s most powerful nations. But its implications go far beyond the country’s border, the humanitarian crisis and millions of displaced people.

There are concerning repercussions for how the world confronts the climate crisis.

In almost all developed countries, climate finance comes out of aid budgets. If wealthy nations are to increase climate finance, more development aid will be used to support efforts to cut emissions and cope with climate impacts in developing countries.

Climate finance is now competing with much-needed relief to Ukrainian refugees and communities living under Russian shelling. If the pot of money for overseas development doesn’t grow, there will be less money available for climate finance.

Western countries, and particularly EU member states, are already revising their budgets to redirect funds to support Ukrainian refugees, reduce their dependence on Russian gas and oil, and scale up their military and defence budgets.

In a major policy shift, Germany approved a national defence fund and committed €100 billion ($110bn) in military spending. In Denmark, 11% of the national budget for overseas development assistance has turned into support for Ukrainian refugees. And in Norway, the government has decided to put development aid disbursements, including climate finance, on hold while they assess the possibility for allocating more of the money to Ukraine.

Meanwhile, the US has already fallen short on its climate finance promise. President Joe Biden committed to provide $11.4bn a year for climate finance in poor and vulnerable nations by 2024 – a considerable increase from levels under his predecessor Donald Trump but still short of the country’s fair share of $45-50bn.

Now, this just sounds like empty words. Earlier this month, Congress approved only $1bn in climate finance for 2022 while agreeing on a $13.6bn aid package to Ukraine.

The war is further compounding a rise of global food prices, which reached an all-time high in February 2022. Around a quarter of global wheat exports come from Russia and Ukraine and disruptions to the wheat trade may tip some countries into famine.

A global food crisis will require additional funds from wealthy nations to address and put more pressure on already limited aid budgets.

The solution must be for wealthy nations to deliver new and additional climate finance, outside of pots of money earmarked for overseas development assistance – a long-standing demand of developing countries and NGOs.

Even this may become a challenge. With Ukraine as a top priority for US and European leaders, the next round of spending plans and budgets are likely to see investments to address soaring energy prices, the halting of Russian energy imports and a boost for national defense budgets rather than climate action for the world’s poor.

That would make it more difficult for western countries to deliver on their promise of significantly scaling up climate finance and meeting and exceeding a 2009 goal to mobilise $100bn a year.

The war in Ukraine is horrific and humanitarian support to refugees and a transition away from Russian fossil fuels are necessary.

However, the climate crisis is not on hold. Promises of additional climate finance must be kept. Both because the money is urgently needed, to enable mitigation and adaptation in developing countries, and because climate finance is part of the fragile political agreement on global efforts to limit global heating.

Tyre Extinguishers - Not The Way To Do It

 SUVs are a pain in the butt and should have been legislated away, or at least into a little niche, when they first started appearing (or even before). Unfortunately UK policy makers were, once again, far to lily livered to attack "the right to drive". It's like a four-wheeled version of the US gun lobby.

However, now we are at this parlous state is deflating tyres and annoying people really the way to persuade them to change their habits (and vehicles)? I think not. Major tweaks to taxation might be a better bet.

The following is from the Conversation via EiD.

Climate activists take a new approach: sabotaging hundreds of SUVs

 Rod Janssen In an article on The Conversation website, Graeme Hayes, Reader in Political Sociology at Aston University and Oscar Berglund, Lecturer in International Public and Social Policy at the University of Bristol discuss the actions of activists in Britain to deflate the tyres of SUVs. What do you think about this type of activism? Will it have any impact?

 

Tyre Extinguishers: activists are deflating SUV tyres in the latest pop-up climate movement

A new direct action group calling itself the Tyre Extinguishers recently sabotaged hundreds of sports utility vehicles (SUVs) in various wealthy parts of London and other British cities. Under cover of darkness, activists unscrewed the valve caps on tyres, placed a bean or other pulse on the valve and then returned the cap. The tyres gently deflated.

Why activists are targeting SUVs now can tell us as much about the failures of climate policy in the UK and elsewhere as it can about the shape of environmental protest in the wake of Extinction Rebellion and Insulate Britain.

The “mung bean trick” for deflating tyres is tried and tested. In July 2008, the Oxford Mail reported that up to 32 SUVs were sabotaged in a similar way during nocturnal actions in three areas of the city, with anonymous notes left on the cars’ windscreens.

In Paris in 2005, activists used bicycle pumps to deflate tyres, again at night, again in affluent neighbourhoods, again leaving anonymous notes. In both cases, activists were careful to avoid causing physical damage. Now it’s the Tyre Extinguishers who are deflating SUV tyres.

In the early 2000s, SUVs were still a relative rarity. But by the end of 2010s, almost half of all cars sold each year in the US and one-third of the cars sold in Europe were SUVs.

In 2019, the International Energy Agency reported that rising SUV sales were the second-largest contributor to the increase in global CO₂ emissions between 2010 and 2018 after the power sector. If SUV drivers were a nation, they would rank seventh in the world for carbon emissions.

At the same time, the Tyre Extinguishers’ DIY model of activism has never been easier to propagate. “Want to get involved? It’s simple – grab some leaflets, grab some lentils and off you go! Instructions on our website,” chirps the group’s Twitter feed.

Changing activist strategy

Though the actions led by the Tyre Extinguishers have numerous precedents, the group’s recent appearance in the UK’s climate movement does mark a change of strategy.

Extinction Rebellion (XR), beginning in 2018, hoped to create an expanding wave of mobilisations to force governments to introduce new processes for democratically deciding the course of climate action. XR attempted to circumvent existing protest networks, with its message (at least initially) aimed at those who did not consider themselves activists.

In contrast, activists in the Tyre Extinguishers have more in common with groups that have appeared after XR, such as Insulate Britain, whose members blockaded motorways in autumn 2021 to demand government action on the country’s energy inefficient housing. These are what we might call pop-up groups, designed to draw short-term media attention to specific issues, rather than develop broad-based, long-lasting campaigns.

After a winter of planning, climate activists are likely to continue grabbing headlines throughout spring 2022. XR, along with its sister group, Just Stop Oil, threaten disruption to UK oil refineries, fuel depots and petrol stations. Their demands are for the government to stop all new investments in fossil fuel extraction.

The Tyre Extinguishers explicitly targeted a specific class of what they consider anti-social individuals. Nevertheless, that the group’s action is covert and (so far at least) sporadic is itself telling.

In his book How to Blow up a Pipeline, Lund University professor of human ecology Andreas Malm asked at what point climate activists will stop fetishising absolute non-violence and start campaigns of sabotage. Perhaps more important is the question that Malm doesn’t ask: at what point will the climate movement be strong enough to be able to carry out such a campaign, should it choose to do so?

Given the mode of action of the Tyre Extinguishers, the answer on both counts is: almost certainly not yet.

The moral economy of SUVs

For now, the Tyre Extinguishers will doubtless be sustained by red meat headlines in the right-wing press. It’s still probable, however, that the group will deflate almost as quickly as it popped up: this is, after all, what has happened with similar groups in the past.

The fact that activists are once again employing these methods speaks to the failure of climate policy. Relatively simple, technical measures taken in the early 2000s would have solved the problem of polluting SUVs before it became an issue. The introduction of more stringent vehicle emissions regulations, congestion charging, or size and weight limits, would have stopped the SUV market in its tracks.

SUVs are important because they are so much more than metal boxes. Matthew Paterson, professor of international politics at the University of Manchester, argues that the connection between freedom and driving a car has long been an ideological component of capitalism.

And Matthew Huber, professor of geography at Syracuse University in the US, reminds readers in his book Lifeblood that oil is not just an energy source. It generates ways of being which become culturally and politically embedded, encouraging individualism and materialism.

Making SUVs a focal point of climate activism advances the argument that material inequality and unfettered individual freedoms are incompatible with any serious attempt to address climate change.

And here lies the crux of the conflict. The freedom of those who can afford to drive what, where and when they want infringes on the freedoms of the majority to safely use public space, enjoy clean air, and live on a sustainable planet.

Everyone Can Do Their Bit

 "Saving energy in a hurry" really can be effective in a crisis. I picked up this post from EiD which itself is a repost from the Conversation.

During this gas supply crisis “can energy consumers really make a difference?”

 Rod Janssen

Aurore Julien, Senior Lecturer and Research Manager, University of East London writes on The Conversation website, that consumers can make a big difference. Interestingly, Aurore Julien’s PhD covered rapid energy savings to mitigate a natural gas crisis (2014).

EiD would like to point out that the Buildings Performance Institute Europe has recently come up with Solidarity and resilience: An action plan to save energy now!   The IEA came up with a 10 point plan referred to in the Julien post.

Separately, Fiona Harvey writes on The Guardian website with the following question: Can turning down our radiators turn up the heat on Vladimir Putin? No doubt there will be more such articles soon.

 

Turning down your thermostat really can ease a gas supply crisis – here’s how

Russia has threatened to close a major gas pipeline to Europe in retaliation for countries considering bans on Russian oil imports. This could drive up prices due to lack of supply internationally, which would affect even countries like the UK which do not use much Russian gas.

Right now, prices are already sky-high and affecting people’s bills. Ofgem, the UK energy regulator, will increase the price cap by £693 (US$911) from April 2022, meaning gas bills will increase for 22 million customers. This will particularly affect those already in fuel poverty.

This is not the first time that Russia has used gas supply as a political weapon. In 2009, the country cut off supplies to Ukraine when supply contract negotiations collapsed. Ukraine retaliated by withholding Russian gas to Europe, which meant no gas at all for some households. The crisis resulted in higher market trading prices for natural gas. It was thought that Russia depended so heavily on the revenues generated from European sales of its gas that it was unlikely to use it against Europe. Yet, UK energy regulators later suggested that a disruption in gas from Russia would result in an overall reduction in the pool of gas available on the market, which could drive up gas prices.

Recently, the International Energy Agency suggested turning thermostats down to use less gas in the current crisis. It claimed lowering the heating by just 1°C would reduce gas demand by some 10 billion cubic metres a year – about 7% of Europe’s annual imports from Russia.

So can energy consumers really make a difference?

Saving energy in a hurry

Consumers have shown that they’re able to rapidly reduce their energy consumption in response to a crisis: this is known as “saving energy in a hurry”.

These programmes are generally voluntary and promoted through public advertisement campaigns. Sometimes other measures are used too, such as rationing, technology replacement (installing low-energy bulbs) and financial measures (such as making energy use over a certain amount much more expensive to discourage consumption). These measures are often relatively cheap, do not harm the economy as much as blackouts, and they are effective.

In my research, I examined whether saving energy in a hurry could be used to reduce gas demand in a crisis similar to the one we face today. I surveyed households in London to ask them what energy saving actions they would be willing to take in a severe gas shortage. From their responses, I calculated that household energy use would fall by 23%, based on both use of gas for household heating and cooking, and gas used in power stations to generate electricity.

The most effective actions were to turn off radiators in unused rooms, lower the thermostat by 1°C and draw curtains to keep the heat in. Reducing electricity use could reduce gas demand too: turning off lights was somewhat effective, whereas unplugging electronics such as phone chargers or turning off equipment such as TVs on standby at night had a negligible impact.

There are examples of saving energy in a hurry from the past. During the second world war, posters encouraged citizens in the US and the UK to save fuel such as petrol and coal.

More recent examples have been in response to electricity shortages. In 2008, when an avalanche damaged a major electrical power line in Juneau, Alaska, the town launched an campaign named “Juneau Unplugged” asking inhabitants to save power. Demand dropped by 40% in a few weeks, largely within the first week. In the summer of 2011, Japanese consumers reduced power demand by 12% to ease the electricity shortage triggered by the Fukushima disaster. In Colombia in March 2016, a drought threatened the 70% of the country’s power capacity which comes from hydroelectricity. A six-week media campaign, combined with high charges levied on those consuming more energy, resulted in a 4.5% fall in energy consumption.

But would it work today?

So we’ve seen it has worked in the past, but it’s almost impossible to predict how much gas would be saved in the current situation. Behaviour is complex and difficult to predict exactly – the political context, the way the promotion campaign is led and other measures taken could affect how readily people comply.

Tactics such as energy saving in a hurry should only be taken in extreme circumstances, as they inconvenience consumers and require credible leadership by responsible authorities to succeed. Authorities would need to ensure that households do not put themselves at risk by lowering the thermostat too much, as indoor temperatures below 12°C are risky for vulnerable people. But it may still be an attractive alternative to the disruption caused by price hikes.

Long-term approaches for reducing energy consumption are needed. A more dependable solution would be to deploy heat pumps to provide an energy efficient alternative to heat homes, alongside greater energy efficiency measures like insulation and double glazing which could halve energy demand in UK homes over 20 years.

When heat pumps are powered by the growing proportion of renewable energy in the grid, this ultimately reduces dependence on gas as well as carbon emissions. With 10% of the contracts Gazprom (a Russian majority state-owned energy company) uses to supply Europe with gas expiring at the end of 2022, there’s an overwhelming incentive to eliminate dependence on Russian fuel.

Distributed Generation Anyone?

 Back in the days when I had to don a suit every weekday morning we were talking about the importance of distributed generation. Now, 20 years on, what do we have people calling for? Well, see this repost from edie:

MPs and local authorities back Local Electricity Bill to reduce reliance on imports

9 March 2022, source edie newsroom

More than 300 MPs, including Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer and the chairman on the 1922 Committee, and 100 local authorities have backed a new "Local Electricity Bill" aimed at promoting renewable sourcing projects across the UK and move away from foreign gas imports.

The campaigners argue that the Bill could enable community renewable energy capacity to grow twentyfold by 2030 to account for 10% of UK electricity generation

The Local Electricity Bill has been championed by the campaign group Power for People, with the aim of enabling communities across the UK to source local clean energy. This, in turn, would reduce the UK’s dependency on volatile gas imports.

Power for the People has today announced that more than 300 MPs, including 116 Conservatives, and 102 local authorities have now backed the bill.

Power for People’s Director, Steve Shaw, said, “The biggest threat to human civilisation and the natural world is climate breakdown. Global emissions have increased by over 400% since 1950, with levels of CO2 at their highest concentration in the past two million years. It is not too late to turn things around - I know the power of campaigns like this.

“The enormous emissions reductions the Local Electricity Bill aims to bring must be a key pillar in our mission to avert climate catastrophe whilst making our energy system more robust and boosting local jobs and the economies of communities across the country.”

Currently, UK customers can purchase electricity from nationally listed utilities. Organisations that are also supporting the Bill – including WWF, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the RSPB – believe that more powers need to be issued to power community renewable energy projects.

The campaigners argue that the Bill could enable community renewable energy capacity to grow twentyfold by 2030 to account for 10% of UK electricity generation.

The group is now calling for more MPs and the Government to back the Bill. Currently, supporters of the Bill, including Conservative MP, David Johnston, are in talks with the Government’s Energy Minister, Greg Hands MP, and his department.

In his response, the Energy Minister stated: “The Government recognise the role community and locally-owned renewable energy schemes can and do play in supporting the UK’s national net-zero targets … [Community groups] can be a catalyst in the promotion of behaviour change, which we all know is vital to reaching net zero.”

Russian sanctions

The UK has this week made a landmark decision to stop importing Russian oil and related projects this year.

The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) said in a statement that the phase-out will “allow the UK more than enough time to adjust supply chains” but will also “step up the international pressure on Russia’s economy. The UK has already banned Russian ships from UK ports.

Russia is the world’s third-largest oil producer and exporter, beyond only the US and Saudi Arabia. Oil accounts for 44% of all Russian exports, generating 17% of the Russian federal government’s annual revenues. Yet, because of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, its export markets are fast dwindling.

The UK is not the only major economy to announce fresh measures to end Russian fossil fuel imports. The European Commission has outlined plans to accelerate some of the EU's plans on renewables and gas storage, with the ultimate aim of becoming independent from Russian imports “well before” 2030. These plans have been called ‘REPowerEU’. They will shortly be put to the bloc's Member States at a meeting in Versailles.

Elsewhere, US President Joe Biden has today announced a ban on all Russian energy imports, starting with oil, which will be phased out in 2022.

Matt Mace

Ending Imports of Oil from Russia

 It was always a stupid idea because it's been obvious for years that Vladimir Putin is an unmitigated sh*t but now the UK government has pledged to cut all imports of Russian oil by the end of this year. This country is in the fortunate position of not actually importing that much - for mainland Europe the situation is a lot more difficult.

There is a saying that democracy is the least worst form of government and the current crisis certainly demonstrates that it's a better bet that totalitarianism. I'm just massively ashamed that those in power in this country were so greedy for Russian money - most of it stolen for the poor benighted citizens who are now being lied to on a grand scale.

Further Expansion to ULEZ?

 Sadiq Khan is looking to expand the London ULEZ to cover the whole of greater London next year. My reading of the current situation is that although it's hitting some pockets the ULEZ has been successful in lowering NOx emissions and presumably CO2 ones as well. Overall that has to be a good thing so a further expansion is probably warranted.

Plastics Treaty

 At last, something going in the right direction. This is a repost from EDIE:

'A key moment in the effort to eliminate plastic waste': Green groups react to the UN plastics treaty

2 March 2022, source edie newsroom

The United Nations has come to an agreement on the terms for a landmark global treaty to stop plastic pollution across the globe, a decision that has been unanimously welcomed by green groups.

Green groups have been quick to point out the momentum this could generate

The UN meeting, known as UNEA 5.2, came to a close on Wednesday in Nairobi after more than a week of negotiations between UN member states on topics including nature-based climate solutions, sustainable food systems, green jobs, poverty eradication and preventing pollution.

Negotiations have been tasked with agreeing to the broad terms of a new global treaty to slow – and ultimately end – plastic pollution globally. The treaty covers both terrestrial and marine habitats and applies to plastic pollution of all sizes and all sources. Click here to read up on all the key inclusions of the treaty.

Ultimately, attendees from 175 nations agreed on a text which covers the full lifecycle of plastic, from production to waste management. It also covers plastics of all types and sizes, from large pieces of abandoned fishing gear, to nurdles and microplastics.

The UN Environment Programme’s (UNEP) director Inger Anderson has stated that the final treaty could be the most important multilateral pact for the environment, globally, since the Paris Agreement was ratified in 2015, committing the world to work towards temperature pathways of 2C and – if possible – 1.5C.

Here, edie rounds up the key commentary and thoughts from some of the leading organisations in the circular economy space.

Espen Barth Eide, UNEA-5 President and Norway’s Minister for Climate and the Environment

“Against the backdrop of geopolitical turmoil, the UN Environment Assembly shows multilateral cooperation at its best. Plastic pollution has grown into an epidemic. With today’s resolution, we are officially on track for a cure.”

Lord Zac Goldsmith, UK Government Minister for International Environment 

"This agreement by governments at UNEA is truly historic, and I’m so proud that the UK co-sponsored the proposals and helped get them over the line.

"In the space of just one human lifetime, we have caused unimaginable damage to the global environment, choking every single part of the global ocean with plastic pollution. And although there is much to be done now to turn it into an ambitious and far-reaching treaty, we can now begin to close this ugly chapter. I am so grateful to UK negotiators for their fantastic work securing an agreement this week."

Dame Ellen MacArthur, founder and chair of trustees, Ellen MacArthur Foundation

“This is a key moment in the effort to eliminate plastic waste and pollution on a global scale. The mandate agreed by UN member states opens the door to a legally binding treaty that deals with the root causes of plastic pollution, not just the symptoms.

“Critically, this includes measures considering the entire lifecycle of plastics, from its production, to product design, to waste management, enabling opportunities to design out waste before it is created as part of a thriving circular economy.”

Sian Sutherland, co-founder, A Plastic Planet 

"Last year A Plastic Planet called for a global treaty to tackle plastic pollution, and the world's leaders have listened. We applaud the UNEA for seeing through the fossil fuel lobbying, acknowledging that we must consider the impact of plastic through its entire lifecycle, its impact on health, and crucially, making this treaty legally binding. These three points are fundamentally key to the treaty being effective.

"This is a huge opportunity for governments around the world to turn the tide on plastic and show industry that simply pumping out plastic with no responsibility for the devastation it causes is no longer acceptable. Plastic is not a pollution problem or even a waste problem. It is a design problem, a production problem and this is where industry has a great opportunity to be a part of the solution now. A Plastic Planet urges every stakeholder to seize it with both hands, build national action plans and enact a treaty that will measurably loosen fossil fuel plastic's grip on our planet."

Richard Slater, chief R&D officer, Unilever

“This is a landmark decision by UN member states. A legally binding treaty that addresses the full life cycle of plastic will make a dramatic difference in the fight against plastic pollution. Tackling plastic pollution is not only the right thing to do; it’s a catalyst for innovation and reflects what our consumers want – less plastic waste. With an ambition to conclude negotiations by the end of 2024, the hard work starts now to put in a place a robust plan to end plastic pollution.” 

Wouter van Tol, Head of Sustainability, DS Smith

“The plastic waste crisis is one of the key environmental issues of our time, so it’s positive to see that governments across the world have endorsed this agreement to tackle plastic pollution collectively. However, implementing an agreement of this size can take time and businesses and governments have a responsibility to scale up their actions now.

“They can start by replacing problem plastics with widely recycled alternatives today as the technology already exists. At DS Smith, we have already helped remove 170 million pieces of problem plastic from supermarkets and online retailers globally and replaced it with paper-based solutions since the launch of our Now and Next Sustainability strategy in 2020. This is the first step on our journey to replace more than one billion pieces of problem plastic with fully recyclable, fibre-based packaging solutions by 2025.”

Allison Lim, VP of corporate and public affairs, The Alliance to End Plastic waste

"From our perspective, the urgency of action is this: Some three billion people across the globe still do not have access to adequate waste management services. Plastic waste leakage will continue unless we find commercially viable solutions to develop this infrastructure to allow better collection, sorting, processing and recycling of plastic waste.

"Therefore, we welcome the proposed draft resolution on a framework for addressing plastic product pollution and look forward to an inclusive approach that takes into consideration local and national needs and capacities and promotes cooperation among local communities, the informal sector, municipalities, civil society and the private sector.

 "Our focus for the agreement is on its successful implementation. The Alliance’s mission is to drive collective action across different stakeholder groups to address the plastic waste challenge, with an initial focus on improving collection, sorting, processing, and recycling. Working with our members, partners, and governments, we have accelerated this mission through voluntary action and are working to develop a circular economy for plastics. We stand ready to contribute to the development of the instrument, based on our collective experience and expertise."

Raffi Schier, co-founder, Bantam Materials 

“This treaty has the potential to change plastics industry forever. We have known for a long time that a truly circular economy on plastic is possible today. There is nothing to stop packaging from being made from high-quality recycled content in most instances. All that’s currently missing is the demand, which this treaty can help to solve. We now must make sure that the supply of recycled content is of a good quality and uphold standards around labour and other environmental impacts.

“Responsible businesses must not wait for treaties like this to come into force. Taking action now is vital.”

Matt Mace and Sarah George

Poor engagement risks missing net zero

 Poor engagement? It's more like zero engagement. Reposted from edie more proof that HMG is just not up to it.

Report: UK risks missing net-zero due to poor engagement with households, businesses and councils

2 March 2022, source edie newsroom

The UK Government still has "no clear plan" for funding the transition to net-zero and risks losing the confidence of organisations that will prove key to delivering a low-carbon future, including businesses and local councils.

The UK Government legislated for net-zero in 2019 and published its Net-Zero Strategy last October

That is the damning conclusion of a new report out today (2 March) from the Public Accounts Committee (PAC). The 27-page document forms part of the PAC’s ongoing assessment of the Government’s plan for achieving its 2050 net-zero target, which was enshrined into law in 2019.

The report berates the UK Government for taking more than two years to develop its flagship Net-Zero Strategy. This policy package was one of several requested by the PAC in March 2021 and finally came in October 2021, shortly before COP26 began in Glasgow, due to Covid-19-related delays.

Ministers have badged the Net-Zero Strategy as a comprehensive plan to “transform every sector of the global economy”, but green groups have argued that the lack of new time-bound, numerical decarbonisation targets for any sector – and the near absence of agriculture and food – makes the Strategy uncredible. Indeed, ClientEarth and Friends of the Earth are taking the UK Government to court over the Strategy.

The PAC is warning that the gaps in the Strategy, if unaddressed, could result in poor support for the net-zero transition among the general public and a failure to leverage the amount of funding needed from the private sector.

Its main issue with the Government’s approach is its failure, to date, to publicly disclose a final estimate of the cost of the net-zero transition and how this will be accounted for.

Through the Treasury’s Net-Zero Review, it stated that global efforts to reach net-zero emissions are likely to deliver “slightly positive or slightly negative” levels of growth for the UK. The PAC asked why the Treasury would not formally accept the advice provided by the Climate Change Committee (CCC), which estimates the cost to be 0.5%-1% of GDP. Members were told that the Treasury believes the CCC’s calculations are based on “heroic assumptions”, with errors potentially compounding as the decades go on.

“To publish policy without commensurate funding merely amounts to an aspiration not a real intention by Government,” the PAC’s report states. As well as highlighting the need for more Government funding, it emphasises slow progress in preparing for tax changes. The Treasury has admitted a potential £37bn drop in revenues by the 2040s as fuel duty and vehicle excise duty are phased out, for example.

A potential solution is a national road pricing scheme, whereby electric vehicle drivers pay duty by the mile. Whichever solutions are chosen, the PAC wants clear guidance to be provided by the central Government as soon as possible. It also wants the Treasury to take a deeper look at any and all taxes with links to the green economy, rather than the handful of tax schemes it currently classes as environmental.

Engaging the private and public sectors

As the report goes on, the Committee outlines the evidence it has heard about the Government’s failure to date to engage organisations that will be key to delivering net-zero, including local councils and the private sector – particularly financial firms.

On the private sector piece, the report notes the Government’s own admission that the private sector will need to deliver the bulk of the investment and innovation needed to take important low-carbon technologies mainstream. It argues that the Government is not, at present, putting measures in place to encourage the necessary economies of scale to grow, including grant funding and business-friendly regulation. It argues that many businesses in sectors such as carbon capture and home retrofitting have lost confidence in the Government after a string of “stop-start decisions” on key schemes, with the Net Zero Strategy providing little clarity on longer-term schemes.

The PAC is recommending that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) should provide an update every 12 months on how quickly technology costs are falling and the levels of private investment leveraged – as well as the rectifying policies and regulations implemented.

As well as funding, the report points to concerns from businesses over a lack of focus on upskilling and reskilling from the Government. Such concerns have repeatedly been raised in recent months by organisations including Ashden, the Aldersgate Group, the Trades Union Congress (TUC), Onward and - as well as MPs on the Environmental Audit Committee. Recent official statistics showed that the UK only hosted 207,800 green hobs in 2020, putting it off track to meet the 2030 target of two million full-time equivalent roles.

The PAC is calling for BEIS to publish its plans for encouraging the private sector workforce to develop the skills needed to achieve net-zero, drawing on the recommendations included in the Green Jobs Taskforce.  It is also recommending closer collaboration between BEIS and other departments, including the Cabinet Office, to analyse the skills gaps within the Government’s own workforce, after hearing evidence that many departments do not have the skills needed to deliver their part in the net-zero transition.

As for engaging the public sector, the report reiterates MPs’ previously-stated warnings around a lack of finance, the need for new powers and a requirement for councils to develop net-zero transition plans.

Building public trust

A lack of confidence from investors, businesses and local authorities in net-zero has trickled down and created a lack of confidence among the general public, the PAC report warns.

It outlines how many consumers are unsure of how they could access the technologies they need to change behaviours for a low-carbon lifestyle, such as heat pumps or an electric car, when the upfront costs remain high. The general public, like businesses, are worried that grant and loan funding will be complicated to access and could be withdrawn at short notice, the PAC states.

The report does welcome the fact that BEIS is now monitoring public attitudes to issues relating to net-zero every quarter. However, the conclusion is that this alone is not sufficient. The Government has faced repeated warnings from organisations including its own climate advisors that it is not currently doing enough to engage the public with the climate crisis and with the national response. These warnings have only been compounded by the current energy price crisis, which has served as fertile ground for the spreading of misinformation on the low-carbon transition.

edie has reached out to BEIS for its initial response to the PAC’s report. A spokesperson for the Department said it will "consider the Committee's report carefully" as the UK "builds on its track record of decarbonising faster than any other G7 country."

“The Government’s Net-Zero Strategy requires government, local government, regulators, businesses, and consumers working all together to deliver its targets,” summarised PAC chair Dame Meg Hillier MP. “A top-down strategy from government won’t deliver on its own. There is a risk that a series of disconnected initiatives announced by central government will not bring about the changes that are now set out in law.”