Net zero or not zero?

Net zero or not zero?

A Conservative report.

“Net Zero is the economic opportunity of the 21st Century”

“It is an opportunity and not a cost”

Those remarks come from a debate in the House of Commons (Feb 9th 2023). Chris Skidmore (Conservative MP for Kingswood) was the chair of the Net Zero Review and was presenting his report. Our government had established the review in 2022 to examine net zero – how necessary is it, can we do it and what will it cost? (The answers were 1. Absolutely essential. 2. Yes, we can. 3. It’s not a cost but an opportunity.)

The final report is some 130 pages; it reaches conclusions and offers solutions. Here’s our summary of the debate and executive summary.

Mr Skidmore said that the remit of the review was “To allow us to understand how we can transition to net zero in a more affordable, efficient manner that is pro-business and pro-growth”. It is an admirable document, impeccably Conservative and nothing to fear.

What did Mr Skidmore conclude?

Wide consultation had taken place and “The message from the overwhelming majority of respondents was that when it comes to the opportunities that net zero and energy transition can bring to the UK, Westminster, Whitehall and Government are falling behind the curve. Thousands of infrastructure projects are ready to take place, and thousands of businesses see the opportunity in net zero.

Two wonderfully opposed concepts were deployed - “net zero” or “not zero”. As one MP said: “We are at a crossroads…. Ultimately the choice of not zero will cost more than … net zero. That is the choice.

Mr Skidmore pointed out that not zero would be highly damaging, environmentally and socially, but also that it would be profoundly financially harmful. He said that “net zero is the primary economic opportunity of this century, but if we do not invest now … we will turn our backs on a potential £1 trillion of investment by 2030 and on up to 480,000 jobs by 2035.” Net zero really is the economic opportunity of our lifetimes and it really can’t be described as a cost.

During the debate it was agreed that the then government was not doing enough to promote net zero and was still promoting not zero (e.g. the licensing of new fossil fuel fields). This was described as a “slam dunk fail”. Up till that debate the Conservative Government had “overpromised and underdelivered. We have missed opportunities for investment in renewables and the Government’s biggest investment is still in oil and gas exploration. The private sector is ready to invest in net zero, but it needs certainty, clarity, consistency”.

It was chillingly noted that international competition is already up and running – the EU and the US are heavily investing in net zero and if we don’t match this we’ll fall further and further behind. We’ll be customers rather than producers; clients, not entrepreneurs. Our brains will drain, and we’ll be reduced to bidding to make a few parts for the shining new technologies being developed elsewhere. We’ll be bit-players in the new industrial revolution. Bystanders.

Wera Hobhouse (Lib Dem Bath) pointed out: at the present rate we are “on course to overshoot our target level of greenhouse gas emissions twofold” and only one fifth of the Government targets had been achieved: “an unforgivable underperformance showing that the Conservative Government’s commitment to net zero is lukewarm at best…. It has to be hot and passionate.” “The transition to net zero must be at the heart of every Government policy”, and we need “a net zero delivery authority, as recommended in the report, and continuity from the Government on policy”.

The report sets out “ten 10-year missions” designed to bring the requisite “long-term vision of programmatic certainty” for investment between 2025 and 2035 irrespective of government changes. This provides a road map for government to move towards net zero and away from not zero, which the report demonstrates will be deeply harmful. Government action must be far more radical and far more rapid. For example: “The sooner we act, the sooner we will be able to achieve net zero in an affordable and efficient manner.” And “If we delay action on net zero by 10 years, we add on 23 base points of GDP to our public debt”.

Skidmore spoke to a lot of stakeholders and found the overwhelming majority to be either on board or eager to come aboard – all they need is for government to provide a positive and consistent business environment to enable and encourage investment in net zero rather than not zero. As described by Mr Skidmore’s report, it’s a no-brainer.

If you would like to read the entire document, it is available as a pdf download here

In view of this positive but thoroughly Conservative review, what can we do?

We can write to our MP. Most of his constituents will agree with the findings in Mr Skidmore’s review, and he needs to know this, and act on it. Unless we tell him, he won’t.

So let’s all write to Charlie!

charlie.maynard.mp@parliament.uk

or: Charlie Maynard MP, House of Commons, London SW1A 1AA

NB: You must include an address in the constituency and state that you are a constituent.

Previous
Previous

Talk…

Next
Next

Enough already!