This government is relying on uncertain technology to get us to net zero, and those with the lowest incomes are likely to pay the greatest price.
Last week, the government released 3,000 pages worth of documents to back up its claims that it was responding to the climate emergency. They also responded to the High Court, which declared the government’s net zero strategy insufficient to meet its own legally binding obligations.this impressive page count Masks the fact that there are few new policies and no additional funding. Instead, we take the same old approach of gambling on emerging technologies to achieve net zero emissions, and risk exacerbating social inequality.
The documents come at a time when the country is going through a severe cost of living crisis.The economy remains the biggest issue for the public, while environmental concerns have become drop to the lowest level within four years. Over the past 15 months, right-wing pundits and media outlets have waged a relentless attack on net-zero emissions, using higher energy bills as an opportunity to mock the government’s plans for net-zero emissions.We’ve seen the impact on the public: only 10% believe The government is likely to meet its net-zero emissions target. In this context, it is critical that governments take a more active role in educating the public about the scale of the challenge and the opportunities, while ensuring a fair transition through effective policies. Neither of us last week.
Locals always have veto power over net zero plans, just as we reject on land renewable energy or more recently hydrogen village in Whitby. This is one reason why governments are consulting on how to incentivize communities to embrace new infrastructure, for example by reducing energy bills. But such tailored measures detract from the fact that existing policies to achieve net-zero emissions will exacerbate inequality and burden disadvantaged communities. For example, the current government is actively pursuing hydrogen to power our industries and homes, but expects consumers to foot the bill.The retail cost of hydrogen is expected to be 50 – 100% higher than natural gas and the government is currently legislating to pay the difference by new tax on household bills. At least 5 GW of new capacity to be built by 2030 could unfairly increase the burden of already heavy energy bills and affect the lowest income groups the most.
But it’s not just hydrogen; there are new renewable energy projects, grid enhancements, billions of carbon capture and storage units, and new nuclear power plants. All this infrastructure that this administration is currently investing heavily in to decarbonize the economy will likely be paid for through consumer energy bills. While consumers will certainly benefit from building out cheaper renewable energy, locking in our dependence on fossil fuels for decades to come will have devastating effects on households and continue to expose them to severe energy market volatility.
The solution is not to pause our net-zero ambitions, but to accelerate their achievement, while redistributing costs and benefits more equitably. In the short term, this administration should do three things.The first is to protect all consumers from extreme price volatility, as we have done over the past 15 months, by overhauling our energy tariff structure and ensuring that every household has access to Free or highly subsidized energy able to meet their basic needs. This will ensure that no one, regardless of income or circumstances, will have to face power outages or choose between heating or eating.
Second, the mobile of‘The fixed costs of the energy system (such as building and maintaining the grid) are shifted to a more progressive tax regime. With more than 3 million heat pumps expected to be installed by 2030, many wealthier households are expected to move off the gas network, pushing the cost of maintaining the current grid to the remaining households, many of whom are already poor. This is a perverse outcome of transition and needs to be nipped in the bud before it becomes a huge political issue. We may end up with a similar outcome where massive investments in network hardening are required to meet the demands of heat pumps and electric vehicles, with the costs borne by all consumers.
The third is to regulate and finance energy efficiency measures in the privately rented and able-to-pay sector.Government indecision leads tenants to stay in some the worst British conditions while paying high energy bills. Likewise, if we are to encourage wealthier, energy-intensive households to improve the energy efficiency of their homes, we need to provide them with reliable information, low-cost financing, and high-quality delivery.
If we do not urgently change the way we pay for the transition to net zero, there is a huge risk that the public consensus on the need for climate action will unravel, both now and in the future.
Image: iStock
