Section 1.1 of the Climate Change Act 2008: ‘It is the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that the net UK carbon account for the year 2050 is at least 100% lower than the 1990 baseline.’

1. It’s unachievable.

Many vehicles and machines (used for example in mining, agriculture, heavy transportation, emergencies, commercial shipping and aviation, the military and construction) and products (for example concrete, steel, plastics – all needed for the construction of renewables – fertilisers, pharmaceuticals, anaesthetics, lubricants, solvents, paints, adhesives, insecticides, insulation, tyres and asphalt) essential to life and wellbeing require the combustion of fossil fuels or are made from oil derivatives; there are no easily deployable, commercially viable alternatives. Our civilisation is based on fossil fuels; something that’s unlikely to change for a long time.

Wind is the most effective source of renewable electricity in the UK … but: (i) the substantial costs of building the huge numbers of turbines needed for Net Zero, (ii) the complex engineering and cost challenges of establishing a stable, reliable non-fossil fuel grid by 2035 (2030 for Labour) – not least the need to cope with a vast increase in high voltage grid capacity and local distribution, (iii) the enormous scale of what’s involved (immense amounts of space and of increasingly unavailable and expensive raw materials, such as so-called ‘rare earths, required because, unlike fossil fuels, the ‘energy density’ of wind is so low), and (iv) the intermittency of renewable energy (see 2 below), make it most unlikely that the UK will be able to generate sufficient electricity for current needs let alone for the mandated EVs and heat pumps plus industry’s requirements and other demands such as the predicted growth of AI.

In any case, the UK doesn’t have enough skilled technical managers, electrical and other engineers, electricians, plumbers, welders, mechanics and other tradespeople (probably about a million) to do the multitude of tasks essential to achieve Net Zero – a problem worsened by political demands for massively increased house building.

‘Net Zero’ means that, where emissions are unavoidable, equivalent amounts must somehow be removed from the atmosphere. There’s no detailed, costed (or indeed any) plan for this, thereby invalidating the entire project.

2. It would be socially and economically disastrous.

Neither political party’s all-renewable energy project includes a fully costed engineering plan for the provision of comprehensive grid-scale back-up when there’s little or no wind or sun; a problem that’s exacerbated by the pending retirement of fossil fuel and nuclear power plants. Both are now talking of building new gas-fired power plants – thereby undermining Net Zero – but they’ve not published any detail and, in any case, intend it seems to fit them with carbon capture and underground storage systems – an unproven, wasteful and expensive technology that hasn’t been shown to be viable on a national scale. This issue is desperately important: without full back-up, electricity blackouts would be inevitable – ruining many businesses and causing dreadful problems for millions of people, including health consequences threatening everyone and in particular the poor and vulnerable.

Even more serious is the fact that, because there’s no coherent plan for the project’s delivery, little attention has been given to overall cost. All that’s clear is that it would almost certainly be completely unaffordable: for example, a recent National Infrastructure Commission projection of £1.3 trillion is probably far too low – estimates in excess of £3 trillion seem likely to be more accurate. The borrowing and taxes required for costs at this scale would destroy Britain’s credit standing and put an impossible burden onto millions of households and businesses.

Net Zero would have two other dire consequences:

(i) As China essentially controls the supply of key materials (for example, lithium, cobalt, aluminium and so-called rare earths) without which renewables cannot be manufactured, the UK would greatly increase its already damaging dependence on it, putting its energy and overall security at most serious risk.

(ii) The extensive mining and mineral processing operations required for renewables are already causing appalling environmental damage and dreadful human suffering throughout the world, affecting in particular fragile, unspoilt ecosystems and many of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people; the continued pursuit of Net Zero would make all this far worse.

3. It’s pointless.

For two reasons:

(i) It’s absurd to regard the closure of greenhouse gas (GHG) emitting plants in the UK and their ‘export’ mainly to SE Asian countries, commonly with poor environmental regulation and often powered by coal-fired electricity, as a positive step towards Net Zero. Yet efforts to ‘decarbonise’ the UK mean that’s what’s happening.

(ii) Most major non-Western countries – the source of over 75% of GHG emissions and home to 84% of humanity – don’t regard emission reduction as a priority and, either exempt from or ignoring any obligation to reduce their emissions, are focused instead on economic and social development, poverty eradication and energy security. As a result, global emissions are increasing and are set to continue to increase for the foreseeable future. The UK is the source of less than 1% of global emissions – perhaps 1.5% if ‘exported’ emissions are somehow included – so further emission reduction cannot have any impact on the global position.

In other words, the Net Zero policy means the UK is legally obliged to pursue an unachievable, disastrous and pointless policy – a policy that would probably result in Britain’s economic destruction.

Robin Guenier – April 2024