But something is clearly afoot within the UK government about how to deliver climate targets. The leaks to the BBC on Tuesday (19 September) suggest delaying bans on fossil fuel technologies and ruling out regulatory changes in areas such as flying and meat consumption. What follows is based on the contents of that leak (which No 10 has not denied) and the prime minister’s late-night statement.
Sunak is right that politicians must be honest about the costs and benefits of net zero. The transition to low carbon technologies is an enormous challenge. We have built modern civilisation on the back of burning fossil fuels for heat, transport and manufacturing. The UK is a world leader in extracting oil and gas and has invested tens of billions of pounds in fossil fuel distribution systems. Changing to a new system based on low-carbon generation and electrification may be inevitable. But it is still challenging.
Being honest means setting out the rationale for how government policy will achieve long-term targets. The much talked about bans on oil boilers (2026), non-hybrid petrol and diesel cars (2030) and gas boilers (2035) were only proposals. They do not exist in legislation. The idea behind the bans was to give businesses certainty to invest in renewables, electric vehicles (EVs) and heat pumps, as well as the supporting grid infrastructure. This certainty remains deeply important. Especially as other G7 countries commit more resources and subsidies to these technologies. It would be better for businesses and consumers to have firmly legislated dates for the transition. That would give confidence to investors and reduce the risk of future government’s sending confusing signals.
Being honest means explaining to people what any bans would mean and what might replace them. For instance, the current proposed bans only apply to new heating systems and cars. This would mean millions of cars and boilers using fossil fuels well into the 2040s. As more people buy EVs and electric heating systems, air quality will improve for everyone in towns and cities. Homes with electric heating would still be warm, and likely more comfortable as people move away from intermittent heating and building fabric is improved. People could drive 300 miles on a single car charge of their EV and find fast charging points when required.
So, changing the date of the phase-out of new oil boilers to 2030 or aiming to reduce the number of new gas boilers installed by 80% (rather than 100%) by 2035 might be pragmatic. But it is only pragmatic because of a lack of progress by government and industry. The UK is behind many peers in EV charging infrastructure and rolling out electric heating. The UK transmission system requires five times more capacity to be built in the next seven years than our transmission operators have achieved in the last 30. Our system is throwing away billions of pounds of cheap renewable electricity each year. And the UK is now falling behind in the one area it has led the world – offshore wind – because the latest Contracts for Difference auction did not reflect increases in costs.
Being honest means detailing how the government will achieve its legally binding targets to reduce emissions over the medium term. The current government cannot ask future generations to pick up the cost of reduced action now. At the moment the UK is on track to deliver the current carbon budget. There is much less confidence about the fifth and sixth carbon budgets, covering the period 2028 to 2037. If the UK government weakens its plans to reduce emissions, it could find itself in court. This would only increase uncertainty and the risk of delay.
Some politicians talk about the need to avoiding bankrupting British people on the path to net zero. Setting aside the hyperbole, everyone agrees that the transition should be fair and just. The prime minister’s speech might usefully set out how the government will encourage the transition to low-carbon technologies. This might include moving green levies into general taxation and reforming the power market, which would make electric heating and transport more attractive than fossil fuels. It might include extending the technologies that receive VAT relief because they are energy saving materials to reduce the capital cost. It might include equalising VAT on EV public charging with home charging. It might include new loans for businesses seeking to switch their industrial processes away from fossil fuels.
The UK has a broad climate consensus. All serious politicians recognise that human activity is causing climate change. All credible politicians support achieving net zero by 2050. There is no political dividing line to be drawn with the Labour Party. You don’t play politics over the world we all inhabit. That is true whether you are prime minister or aspiring to that role.
To avoid the criticism that he is playing politics with the future of the planet, the prime minister should offer to meet with the other political parties to talk through his proposals and any legislation that might be forthcoming in the King’s Speech. As global car manufacturers such as Ford and Stellantis made clear almost immediately, the UK cannot afford more years of uncertainty on climate policy. As the prime minister recognises, reducing uncertainty means politicians avoiding short-term decision-making.
Historians may judge the current prime minister kindly if his speech sets out a positive vision for how the UK will meet its carbon budgets and remain on course to reduce emissions by 2050. This vision will need to be backed up with clear targets – in legislation – for phasing out fossil fuels, money to support the transition and regulatory reform to make it easy to build new infrastructure. That judgement may be less kind if he simply shunts the problem into the future for short-term political gain.
Tom Lowe is an energy policy consultant and founder of Thermal Storage UK. This article is written in a personal capacity.