By Paul Homewood
.
Will net zero upend our lifestyles? Will we fly less, turn down our thermostats, become vegans?
The British public are already feeling the effects – from the push to buy EVs and install heat pumps, to Ulez, low-traffic neighbourhoods and the endless restrictions on plastics.
Although the UK became the first country to halve emissions over the last 50 years, many insist we must go further, faster to tackle the “climate breakdown”.
Consider a new Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) report on transport emissions. The think tank has created 12 profiles that describe the ways people travel now and the “opportunities” for different groups as we hurtle towards net zero. These include “flying less”, “more public transport” and a “shift to an electric vehicle”.
Those in the “car reliant” group, who overwhelmingly have children and are 10 times more likely to use a personal vehicle than travel by public transport or walk/cycle, are encouraged to use social leasing schemes and car clubs if they cannot afford an EV.
In other words, decades of rising car ownership, with all the freedom and independence it has brought, could come to an abrupt end.
Rishi Sunak may have insisted that net zero won’t be “forced” on us, but the legally binding Carbon Budget proposed by the Climate Change Committee estimates that around 10pc of our emissions saving by 2035 will come from “changes that reduce demand for carbon-intensive activity. Particularly… an accelerated shift in diets away from meat and dairy products…[and] slower growth in flights and reductions in travel demand”.
And soon, a Labour government – led by a self-professed “socialist” – may be in charge. Wars and pandemics aside, no policy has ever handed the Left a better excuse to meddle, spend taxpayer money, control, subsidise and pick winners than net zero.
Yes, Sir Keir Starmer has abandoned his £28 billion a year “green prosperity” pledge, but the party is putting plans for a state-led energy company – one that will, apparently, bring down both emissions and bills – front and centre of its campaign.
Shadow climate secretary Ed Miliband claims renewables are cheaper and more secure, though even the Tony Blair Institute thinks this is nonsense. The IFS is now warning that Labour’s clean energy drive won’t boost growth sufficiently to bring down debt.
For the first time, our society is trying to progress by embracing less efficient and productive technology. Heat pumps operate with lower power output than their gas-fired equivalents, meaning that they typically generate heat more slowly and at a lower level. The costs of EVs are mounting – last week it was reported that the extra weight of EV batteries means tyres are wearing out after less than 10,000 miles, a lower figure than for petrol equivalents – as demand slumps.
But perhaps the greatest fallacy is that net zero can be achieved “fairly”. Eco-warriors may relish in the thought of the entire nation regressing to a pre-industrial time, but the reality will be very different.
As the detrimental effects of decarbonisation on poorer households, who are less able to invest in new technologies or change their behaviour, become more stark, pressure to spread the misery more equally will increase. This week, one of the architects of the Paris Agreement insisted rich individuals in all countries must pay more to tackle the climate crisis, whether through taxes or charges on consumption.
Central to the IPPR’s research was the finding that the highest earning 1pc emit at least seven times more from their transport than average earners.
In response, politicians will reach for lazy, ill-conceived solutions. Targeted, economically irrational bans on activities enjoyed by the super wealthy – which will likely have a negligible impact on emissions – will be imposed.
Debate is already underway over a frequent flyer levy, with some suggesting it should exclusively be imposed on those travelling First and Business class – but this will just be the start. Helicopters or private jets, as Extinction Rebellion are already demanding, could be banned.
Restrictions on heating home swimming pools, or on the number of cars we can own, may be brought in. Or garage taxes. Or mandatory solar panels on large houses and higher VAT on luxury goods. Or higher excise duties on champagne.
Slowly and wearily we will adapt, just as we have to paper straws and congestion charges. But even then, it won’t be enough for the green zealots. As the economist Stephen Davies has written, there is no alternative to fossil fuels for a range of economically vital activities – such as steelmaking – and building the extra electricity-generating capacity will mean mining more copper than we have done in history until this point.
To make the windmills and solar panels we will need massive use of fossil fuels. When the limits of what is achievable become more apparent, will Labour retreat or double down?
Few would challenge the need to decarbonise, but our current approach will be needlessly costly and disruptive – however much politicians may try to downplay it.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/net-zero/rich-will-soon-pay-heavy-price-for-net-zero/
Actually many already do challenge “the need to decarbonise”, and many more will do so when they find out the impact it will have on their lives.
But I can make one prediction – the ultra rich will continue to live their luxury lifestyles just as they do now, even if they do have to pay frequent flyer taxes.
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
June 8, 2024 at 04:30AM
Iowa Climate Science Education 