Article for ConservativeHome by Emily
Carver, Media Manager at the Institute of Economic
Affairs
The Government’s Net Zero strategy is unravelling from the inside
out. Last week, it was reported that the Prime Minister – who
seems increasingly to be governing by U-turn – may push back the
ban on gas boilers, due to growing backlash over the cost of
reducing our emissions.
This week, Number 10’s climate change spokesperson said she didn’t “fancy” buying an electric car, and
would continue driving her diesel, only days after having called
on the public to go “One Step Greener” by, among other
“micro-steps”, walking to the shops instead of driving.
This is just a snapshot of the inconsistency of the Government’s
green messaging. Why should a household invest in green
technology, only for the policy to be reversed or delayed? Who
would bother scrapping their diesel or petrol vehicle, when the
public face of COP26 has decided herself not to go electric?
Of course, when polled, the majority of the public support
addressing climate change. Who wouldn’t want a greener, more
sustainable planet? However, as is the case with so many
policies, it is far easier to support a rosy abstract goal than
it is to face its real-life consequences.
The green agenda is no doubt important – not least for our own
quality of life – but, as many have warned, arbitrary targets set
by ministers lead to poor – and often frenzied – policies.
Fundamentally, the plans rely on the false assumption that
ministers and bureaucrats are best placed to pick winners when it
comes to technology and the future of energy. Successive
governments have shown this manifestly not to be the case.
Further, the idea that we must reach “Net Zero” is in itself a
misguided aim, lending itself to an “at all costs” strategy, much
like those who back a “Zero-Covid” strategy. This is what has led
to an over-reliance on heavy-handed prohibitions – such as the
ban on sales of petrol and diesel cars – rather than the use of
price incentives.
For politicians, there is little in the way of accountability.
Setting a target for three decades in the future is illusory,
lending itself to virtue-signalling and ill-thought-out measures.
Fundamentally, it overestimates the Government’s ability to plan
ahead. Who could possibly believe that officials would be able to
predict the state of the energy sector in three decades? It would
be far preferable for the Government to set a price for carbon,
adopt a technology-neutral approach, and allow technologies to
compete.
It is concerning that ministers continue to use the language of
“crisis” and “emergency” when discussing climate change. As we’ve
seen over the course of the pandemic, this kind of rhetoric has
been deployed when justifying government by decree, lockdown
measures and prohibitions. Could it be that the same could be
used on the basis that we face a climate emergency? Perhaps the
lunatic idea that we might lockdown to protect the planet isn’t
as farfetched as it sounds.
However, as the costs of Net Zero become more widely known, it is
likely that those who have up till now acquiesced with the
Government’s plans will begin to make their voices heard –
particularly at a time when inflation and tax hikes are on the
horizon. Even the broadcast media, which has been overwhelmingly
supportive of Net Zero, is beginning to raise questions about –
and publicise – the cost of the Government’s proposals.
This month, the Office for Budget Responsibility has estimated
the total cost of reaching Net Zero by 2050 could reach £1.4
trillion. Lord Lawson has predicted the true cost could be twice
this. The Government’s infrastructure adviser has said that
families will have to pay up to £400 more a year for food, gods
and travel to allow polluting industries to capture their carbon
emissions. It is likely that this will also be an
underestimation.
It is often argued that despite the fact Britain accounts for a
tiny proportion of the world’s carbon emissions we must set an
example for other countries to follow. Sure, this may be
admirable – and we should do so to some extent – but when China
and India are industrialising at the rate of knots, expanding
their coalmine capacity year on year, it becomes harder to defend
the Government’s arbitrary targets. If the aim is to drive down
global temperatures, our efforts will appear to an increasing
number of people as little more than an act of economic
self-harm.
It has been argued that the Government should be honest about the
costs of Net Zero and the impact it will have on our lives. As
the media catches on, politicians and the green lobby can no
longer shield the truth from the public. People are unlikely to
take kindly to a dramatic, government-imposed reduction in their
living standards and hikes to their cost of living. Any Net Zero
policy that doesn’t command the support of the public is doomed
to failure.
