Important debate emerging on the meaning of “net zero” and whether the risks of it being debased as a prompt for climate action mean we need a new language / objective. My view – having worked on the UK legislation – is that it’s worth fighting for, for three reasons.
First, net zero (rather than absolute zero) is the right objective. Absolute zero is not plausible in areas like aviation/agriculture – and it’s good that we have an incentive for development of negative emission technologies so we can reduce CO2 concentrations further in future.
Second, no matter what the terminology / objective, the problem that some people / orgs will try to debase the term, or present insufficient action as compliant with it, isn’t going away. So saying we have to be e.g. compliant with 1.5 degrees won’t solve the issue.
Third, net zero is a term that’s relatively easy to understand – and public / consumer understanding is reasonably high, at least compared to some of the other jargon we use on climate and energy.
Having said that, the risk is real that the “net” in net zero acts as a mask for inaction or delay. The fundamental issue (per @ketanjoshi), is that there is no good definition of what an “essential emission” which can’t be reduced actually is.
I increasingly think there could be an argument for national legislation to place limits on how much negative emissions can be used in comparison to actual reduction – would force transparency on how much we are relying on negative emissions techs versus actual action today.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Ahead of Budget – my piece on why we’re having the wrong debate about fuel duty, and should be worrying more that £30bn of revenue is going to go in the next 15 years. Urgent need to focus on the alternatives, particularly road pricing. (1/) @InstituteGC institute.global/policy/we-need…
Fuel duty raises about £30 billion a year – and as well documented, hasn’t risen since 2010. Revenues are £10 billion lower, and carbon emissions up to 5% higher, as a result. (2/)
The rise of EVs means that c1/3 of the car fleet could avoid fuel duty by 2030 - meaning we lose £30bn revenue, increase congestion, and target motoring costs on the least able to pay. (3/)
New @institutegc report out today: “UK Net Zero Strategy – the 11 questions it must answer” – building on my experience from the last 3 HMG climate strategies (in particular the Clean Growth Strategy with @claireclimate@guynewey and others). (1/n) institute.global/policy/uks-net…
The UK has committed to a net zero strategy this year – great opportunity to set a template which the rest of the world can follow. But it’s not going to be easy. UK needs to cut emissions by 40% in ten years. If you think that sounds a lot – that’s because it is a lot. (2/n)
But the time is right: net zero can be central to our post-Brexit international role; businesses and the public are demanding action; costs are coming down; and net zero will define the 21st century economy. The work of @theCCCuk@ChiefExecCCC provides the basis. (3/n)
Great that the government is considering a strengthened approach to carbon pricing - but it's not a silver bullet. My thoughts: (1/4) @institutegcinstitute.global/policy/carbon-…
But tackling this is fraught with risk – I have less than fond memories of the “green crap” flurry in 2013… and gillets jaunes movement shows the risks of voter backlash. (3/4)