Reaction to Extinction Rebellion (XR) tends to sway between bemusement, a grudging respect and anger.
Footage during last week’s wave of protests of irate tube passengers hauling one activist from the roof of a train seemed to indicate that public sympathy for their approach is waning. However, it is undeniable that awareness of the net-zero goal has been raised significantly as a result of XR.
Perhaps I shouldn’t have been surprised to hear this opinion openly voiced at the Energy UK conference last week. Chief executive Lawrence Slade pointed out that while the sector has been pushing the view that radical change is needed to achieve net-zero for many years, it is XR that has landed that message.
In many ways the utilities sector and the activists have a common purpose and the former could be used as an example of an area where real change has been made. Aside from the obvious strides taken in energy, the water sector has one of the country’s most ambitious net-zero targets (which it updated on this week).
I did approach XR to see if it would consider doing just that but immediately regretted it. A spokesman told me that the group is not interested in solutions, only about getting the media and politicians to accept reality and to launch citizens’ assemblies. Fair enough, but surely they would agree with efforts to encourage the public to reduce consumption of both energy and water? No. What is needed is a radical reforming of how society is structured. Industry and government must stop pretending this is about individuals. So there.
While it’s clear XR is never going to give credit to the tangible changes markets can drive, it is encouraging to hear the sector talking up the potential to capitalise on the platform XR has created.
Speaking at Utility Week Congress the previous week, Octopus Energy’s Greg Jackson described net-zero as the “biggest business challenge since the dawn of the internet” and stressed his excitement at the possibilities it presents.
Last Tuesday, National Infrastructure Commission chairman John Armitt went back even further, citing the oft-quoted parallel of the moon landings.
However, he cautioned: “The interesting thing about putting a man on the moon was that it was done by a very select group of people while the rest of America didn’t even know it was going on. This is a vision that everyone has to be engaged in and has a part to play in it.” He went to air his concerns that the government is not giving clear enough indications to the public about the concrete changes that will have to happen to hit the 2050 net-zero target.
For Regina Finn, chair of the Low Carbon Contracts Company, who shared a panel with Sir John, it was clear that utility companies will have to overcome a deficit of trust with consumers to bring them along with the journey.
She said: “I spent seven years as chief executive of Ofwat and felt like I was banging my head against a brick wall trying to persuade water companies that it was their job to engage with customers. That engagement of all suppliers with all consumers is definitely not good enough. It’s about more than just sticking meters in people’s homes. There has to be a dialogue.”
But Baroness Bryony Worthington, one of the architects of the Climate Change Act, agreed with XR that we should not be fixated on the 2050 target, saying a 2030 goal was ultimately just a question of how much money we are willing to spend. She said the government should focus on offsetting emissions to get to a net-zero point and then concentrate on drawing down from there.
Of course, if public disorder has brought climate change to the attention of the British public, it could also derail it. In his letter to the Treasury last week, Committee on Climate Change chairman Lord Deben stressed that it is vital the government is clear on the allocation of costs for hitting net-zero, if it wants to avoid a version of France’s ‘gilets jaunes’ backlash.
It was a point also raised by Worthington, who said the big changes necessary would “have to be loaded onto the ‘able to pay’ sector.
She added: “If you think about the aviation debate it seems pretty obvious that business class travel is going to have to pay. You give people one or two flights a year tax free and then the costs start to ramp up from there. People are familiar with that approach from income tax, so why not expand it into energy? We should give people a lifeline wedge of gas that is free of subsidy charges and then layer it up from there.”
While climate change may still be an inconvenient truth, at least it is finally being spoken out loud.
And for that, we thank you Extinction Rebellion. So…. could we just get to work now please?