Category: Net Zero

  • How to respond to spouters of ‘Net Zero stupid’

    The Citizens’ Climate Lobby is all about solutions. It’s about how society can make the changes needed, to avoid climate catastrophe, as rapidly and equitably as possible. Our starting point is that global warming is real, dangerous and caused by humans.

    This approach made a lot of sense until recently. There was broad political consensus that climate change was a serious issue and that the UK should aim to get its net emissions down to zero by 2050. Our politicians were proud to be world-leaders in this endeavour.

    Unfortunately, that has changed. We now have anti-science politicians in the UK, and elsewhere, who openly dispute the need for net-zero. Instead, they champion a cynical philosophy in which every country pursues its own, blinkered self-interest even though this is a proven route to a poorer world for everyone.

    As the impacts of climate change become ever more obvious, these short-sighted politicians will change their direction when it suits them to do so. But, in the meantime, when discussing CCL-UK policies we may find ourselves increasingly encountering push-back on whether greenhouse gas emission reductions are necessary at all.

    The problem is anti-net-zero soundbites that have been well crafted to sound plausible even though they disintegrate on closer inspection. Examples I’ve heard, recently, from senior politicians include “2050 is an arbitrary target” and “We can’t afford net-zero”.

    To counter these. I’ve set up a new website (netstupidzero.org) that takes these soundbites and explains, in simple terms, why they’re misleading. You may notice that the site name, itself, is a direct quote from the Reform Party’s Richard Tice who is, perhaps, the most prominent promoter, in the UK, of anti-science disinformation.

    In my website I’ve tried to use common-sense rather than go into detailed scientific explanations. My aim is just to make it easy for anyone to counter anti-net-zero propaganda whenever and wherever it’s used. I hope you find it illuminating and useful.

  • How many more institutions and politicians, let alone protesters, have to say we need to keep fossil fuels in the ground?

    How many more institutions and politicians, let alone protesters, have to say we need to keep fossil fuels in the ground?

    On October 25th the Lancet published its annual Countdown on Health and Climate Change report in which it stated that world governments are “putting the health of all people alive today and future generations at risk” by locking in dependence on fossil fuels.

    On the same day a Unicef report warned that funding has to be increased to protect children and vulnerable communities from worsening heatwaves; a day later the United Nations reported that current NDCs will lead to 2.5C warming and that only 24 out of 193 nations had updated their plans as asked at COP26. The UN Secretary General, in an interview with the BBC stated that countries should not invest in more fossil fuels…. 

    This is the defining issue of our time, nobody has the right to sacrifice international action on climate change for any reason.……..We need to tell the truth. The truth is that the impact of climate change on a number of countries in the world, especially hotspots, is already devastating”.The most stupid thing is to bet on what has led us to this disaster.

    Also on the 25th Alok Sharma asked our government to ‘explain and demonstrate’ how new oil and gas development can align with the Net Zero target. The short answer is it can’t and it needn’t if investment in fossil fuels were to go to renewables and insulation projects instead. Meanwhile it was reported that BEIS data shows “that with existing and near-fully planned policies, the UK is projected to emit nearly double the amount of pollution as it should do under its 2030s goals”.

    There are signs that the government’s environmental policy may be taking steps in the right direction with the appointment of Therese Coffey as Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Rishi Sunak declaring that the moratorium on fracking will be retained.

    Climate Income of course would send the clear message that it pays to decarbonise whilst protecting households from rising fossil fuel costs during the transition.

    With change in the air now may be as good a time as any to write to your MP and, if you haven’t already done so, submit a response to the Net Zero Consultation. Thanks to all the members who have done so already, it does make a difference!

  • Tackling fuel poverty during the great transition – 7 principles for climate activists

    Tackling fuel poverty during the great transition – 7 principles for climate activists

    CCL member Rob Paton explains how Climate Income can be used as a solution to the fuel price crisis as well as the environmental one.

    The fuel poverty facing many households and the climate crisis facing us all must be tackled in synch. If they are not dealt with together, each problem worsens the other.  Fuel poverty, accentuated by a price spike, has led to calls questioning support for renewable energy and has clear potential for social and political instability. Yet the necessary action on fuel poverty must not be at the expense of the climate.  Households on benefits, or with low and insecure earnings, will be the least able to protect themselves from the consequences of weaker climate policies.  

    Fuel poverty should be addressed primarily by increased income, not reduced fuel prices.  What those in fuel poverty need is more money.  They know their priorities. And it must be money they can rely on – not complicated special payments, or means tested and arriving late to tackle a spike in prices..

    What businesses and our economy need for the transition to zero carbon is an underlying trend of rising carbon prices.  Economists and business federations agree on this. Most businesses can deal with price fluctuations, or are learning how to. Carbon subsidies and tax reliefs are a part of the problem not part of the solution. 

    4   The direction of travel for public finances should be away from the present high degree of carbon reliance and towards sustainable, post-carbon sources of revenue.  An overhaul of the UK’s current mish-mash of fossil fuel taxes and subsidies is long overdue.  A coherent approach would raise more funds, be fairer and simpler, support the drive to carbon neutrality.  This is bound to take time – so the sooner the taxation system starts down this road the better.

    5  Likewise, the direction of travel for income support during the great transition should be from indirect to direct payments. That is, from transfers hidden in a tax or benefits system to discrete, climate-related payments, labelled as such and paid directly. Citizens need to know that they are being supported in tackling the climate crisis, and enabled to play their part.

    6   Consistent policy on carbon pricing, fiscal reform and income support requires a cross-party political consensus.  Surveys have repeatedly shown that the public mood is to find and sustain the common ground, and to get on with the job.  Political contestation on other issues – including other climate and environmental policies – can and should continue, both locally and nationally. But a framework to tackle the great work of this decades-long transition is needed. These are three essential elements for such a framework. 

    Communicate, communicate, communicate. Public trust in politicians needs to be restored if sometimes unpopular policies are to be sustained. A cross-party consensus in Westminster needs the backing of public opinion, and its calls will be taken more seriously by the public than party-political pronouncements. Especially when promised action follows. Nothing is clearer and more convincing than a payment direct to your bank account.  

    Climate income offers a way forward with the clear potential to satisfy all these principles.  It may not be the only one. But it is the only one I am aware of.        

    Rob Paton 02/02/22 

    We are not the only ones with this message, today’s Carbon Brief Daily reports on two interesting reactions to the Levelling Up White Paper (Business Green is paywalled) ..

    Business Green’s James Murray, analysing the paper, writes that “a government that properly prioritised the net-zero transition, rather than treated them as a separate silo, would find it much easier to embed climate action in its response to the gas price crisis.”

    In another comment on levelling up in Business Green, Prof Henrietta Moore writes that “without tax reform, the cost of funding net-zero will fall disproportionately on the shoulders of those least able to afford but most likely to suffer the consequences of a rapidly degrading environment”. 

    Happily the fuel price crisis mitigation measures announced by Rishi Sunak today do not involve tinkering with carbon pricing and leave all to play for!

  • Writing to your MP about the Climate Coalition 10 Point plan – a great opportunity to remind them of the benefits of CF&D which they have already acknowledged!

    Writing to your MP about the Climate Coalition 10 Point plan – a great opportunity to remind them of the benefits of CF&D which they have already acknowledged!

    Many members may have received an email from the Climate Coalition requesting that they email their MP about the Coalition’s 10 point plan, (or could go to the website and find out about how to get involved).

    There seems to be no place for easily mentioning the benefits of CF&D in the email template. I decided to add a piece after my name, so it is right at the start of the email. I have also used the government’s own words from the carbon pricing policy report to mention the benefits of CF&D! This is an easy way to remind MPs that the government itself is aware of the advantages of using CF&D to finance the move to net zero and beyond!

    My name is Catherine Dawson.  I am also a member of Citizens Climate Lobby UK  and have written to you about the benefits of Carbon Fee and Dividend and was involved in the Time is Now Zoom meeting in June. As you are aware the Government in  its report on carbon pricing policy acknowledged that …..Placing a price on carbon creates the incentive for emissions to be reduced in a cost effective and technology-neutral way, while mobilising the private sector to invest in emissions reduction technologies and measures…..  It would make it possible to achieve many aspects of the suggested ten point plan without crippling the economy or deterring the market led economic model.

  • Leading scientists back promoting the use of carbon capture technology.

    A article in the Guardian (13/11/20) interviewing Michael Mann (author of the ‘hockey stick study) cites a letter signed by many scientists and activists, including James Hansen, which states that carbon capture technology, derided by many climate activists, has to be part of the solution. The beauty of CF&D, of course is that carbon emitting industries would get their money back in saved tariffs so it becomes cost effective…..

    Leading scientists, academics and campaigners have called on governments and businesses to go beyond “net zero” in their efforts to tackle the escalating climate and ecological crisis.

    The former archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and the leading climate scientist Michael Mann are among a group of prominent environmentalists calling for the “restoration of the climate” by removing “huge amounts of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere”.

    Net zero targets have been a focus of governments, local authorities and campaigners in their attempts to address global heating. The authors of Friday’s letter, however, say that although stopping emissions is “a necessary prerequisite”, governments and businesses must be more ambitious and work to “restore the climate” to as safe a level as possible.

    “The climate crisis is here now,” … “No matter how quickly we reach zero emissions, the terrible impacts of the climate crisis will not just go away … As such, no matter how quickly it is done, solely cutting emissions is not enough.”Hitting net zero is not enough – we must restore the climate.

    The idea of removing emissions from the atmosphere – either directly from the air or by capturing it from power plants – has been a strongly debated subject among environmentalists and engineers for years.

    Critics point out that it has proved difficult to replicate the technology at scale and that constructing the necessary machinery would itself be environmentally damaging.

    Many fear that the idea of carbon capture is a “technological fix” used as an excuse by corporations which are opposed to the radical changes needed to move to a zero-carbon economy. However, there is a growing body of evidence that natural solutions – protecting and restoring natural forests and habitats and allowing native trees to repopulate deforested land – could help remove large amounts of carbon.

    The letter, which is also signed by the Guardian columnist George Monbiot and several leading members of the global school climate strike movement, said their call for restoration was not about “promoting one specific removal technique, but supporting the basic aim of trying to restore the climate”.

    The letter adds: “We urge activists to start including restoration in their campaigning. We urge governments and companies to start acting, not only to reach net zero as soon as possible, but to achieve restoration as well. And we urge every citizen to do what they can to make the dream of restoration a reality.”

    Mann recently stated that it would be game over for the climate if Trump won again, luckily that scenario has been averted, though he has yet to concede… In an article in the Guardian (2/10/20) about the threat of Trump, Mann did, however, state that there is some good news which offers hope if we act now….

    ‘Our destiny is determined by our behavior’

    Fortunately, there is encouraging news about climate science as well. It was long thought that Earth’s climate system carried a substantial lag effect, mainly because carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere, trapping heat, for many decades after being emitted. Even if all CO2 emissions were halted overnight, global temperatures would keep rising and heatwaves, droughts, storms and other impacts would keep intensifying “for about 25 to 30 years”, Sir David King, the former chief science advisor to the British government, said in 2006.

    Mann says research over the last decade has overturned this interpretation. Using new, more elaborate computer models equipped with an interactive carbon cycle, “what we now understand is that if you stop emitting carbon right now … the oceans start to take up carbon more rapidly,” Mann says. Such ocean storage of CO2 “mostly” offsets the warming effect of the CO2 that still remains in the atmosphere. Thus, the actual lag between halting CO2 emissions and halting temperature rise is not 25 to 30 years, he explains, but “more like three to five years”.

    This is “a dramatic change in our understanding” of the climate system that gives humans “more agency”, says Mann. Rather than being locked into decades of inexorably rising temperatures, humans can turn down the heat almost immediately by slashing emissions promptly. “Our destiny is determined by our behavior,” says Mann, a fact he finds “empowering”.

    This reprieve will not necessarily spare polar ice sheets or evade tipping points that cannot be recrossed, the scientist cautions, and Earth is already experiencing “much more extreme weather … than we expected 10 years ago”. Greenland and Arctic ice is already melting after the current temperature rise of 1C, or 2.7F, above pre-industrial levels, and it will continue melting even without further warming. The resulting possibility of “massive sea level rise” is one example of why Mann says that humanity is “walking out on to a minefield” of tipping points: “The more we warm the planet, the more of those unwelcome surprises we might encounter.

  • A good argument for Carbon Fee and Dividend by a Free Marketeer

    A good argument for Carbon Fee and Dividend by a Free Marketeer

    Ambrose Pritchard, writing in The Telegraph criticises the proposed Democrat Green Deal as being a dirigiste policy with an ulterior motive of ‘fuelling’ the trade war with China. He gives a very cogent explanation of the mechanics of carbon fee and dividend and why he prefers this market led method of carbon pricing. He also argues why the dividend should go directly to consumers…

    Mr Biden’s new age Gosplan is not to my taste. Should the Democrats be pledging to install 500 million solar panels and 60,000 wind turbines over the next four years? Is such dirigiste planning the American way?

    The laissez faire way is to set a carbon price that ratchets up predictably, letting business respond to the price signal, and letting Schumpeterian competition find its own answers. All former chairmen of the Federal Reserve and a cast of economists of all ideological stripes have backed HR 763, a bipartisan House bill for a carbon tax and dividend.  

    It starts at $15 a tonne and ratchets up $10 every year until CO2 emissions are almost eliminated. The money raised is rotated back into people’s pockets. The higher the carbon price, the bigger the cheque, and the poor do best. 

    Needless to say, Ursula von der Leyen’s variant in Europe aims to siphon off its carbon tax to fund the Commission’s apparatus. The EU seems to have learned little from the gilets jaunes and the sociology of revolt. 

  • Net Zero – what next?

    Net Zero – what next?

    Charles Appleby, of Saving Our Planet, give his thoughts on the next step for Net Zero

    The UK Government commitment to Net Zero Greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 is very welcome.

    This higher commitment by the UK Government is an important first step by a major economy towards tackling the global Climate Emergency. This the right thing to do morally, and the only decision that stands a chance of protecting the future of our children and future generations.

    Much further work is required internationally: by national governments, local governments, businesses and individuals across the world in order to limit global warming to the 1.5C, as recommended by the IPCC. 

    But here is the work still required by the UK Government:

    • Emissions could be cut by 40 percent in just over a decade by the introduction of Carbon Fee and Dividend. Please could all parties give this detailed consideration for early implementation both in the UK and all major economies.
    • To achieve Net Zero earlier, ideally, than 2050
    • To monitor progress against this commitment, at least annually, to ensure the UK keeps on track to meet the 2050 target, and by meeting milestones, particularly for 2030
    • To ensure this commitment is not diluted at the 5 year review point
    • The UK Government needs now to work to get others countries to make a similar – or stronger – higher commitment, particularly the EU and other of the 19 countries in the Carbon Neutrality Coalition
    • The UK Govt must also work with UNFCCC to encourage other major countries also to make a higher commitment
    • As reductions in CO2 emissions begin to be achieved, it is critically important that these translate into real reductions in the use of fossil fuels – so it is critical for governments to find effective ways to restrict fossil fuels from being taken out of the ground.
    • Measures need to be put in place to ensure UK industries do not face unfair competition from overseas companies operating under less strict CO2 emissions regulations
    • It is important that the UK achieves Net Zero without using International Carbon Credits
    • Instead, tree-planting and other nature-based solutions to climate change should not be used to remove ADDITIONAL amounts of CO2 emissions.
    • As part of early quick wins for this policy of Net Zero emissions, the UK Government needs urgently now to stop fracking and to stop coal mining in the UK
    • The UK should also look to remove subsidies on fossil fuels – and to use this money towards the cost of transition to a low-carbon economy