On net-zero, the @OBR_UK chapter is a really detailed and nuanced look at the costs, benefits and risks of (not) acting on climate change, over 69 dense pages
Notably, the @OBR_UK highlights the costs of **not** acting on climate change as being "much larger" than the cost of reaching net-zero
In a "stylised" scenario of unmitigated warming, it says public debt could "spiral" to nearly 290% of GDP, up from today's level of around 100%
Here's the @OBR_UK scenario showing the UK fiscal impact of unmitigated warming
(It is open about the uncertainties: "These figures are based on extremely broad-brush assumptions, but do serve to highlight the magnitude of the fiscal costs that might be avoided")
Turning to costs of net-zero, the @OBR_UK bases its analysis on estimates from @theCCCuk
This OBR chart is near-identical to the CCC's
It shows that net-zero by 2050 entails early investment in power + buildings, offset by savings from vehicles
Taken together, the @OBR_UK shows @theCCCuk estimates the costs to the UK of reaching net-zero as £1.4tn, offset by savings of £1.1tn, with an overall net cost of £321bn over 30 years
(Anyone pointing to the costs, but not the savings, is being disingenuous)
This is a good moment to reiterate the point made by @ChiefExecCCC:
"We can certainly afford to do Net Zero – I would argue we can’t afford *not* to do Net Zero."
Moreover, the @OBR_UK says reaching net-zero by 2050 after delaying action for a decade "could double the overall cost" for the UK
The @OBR_UK has another helpful chart breaking down the costs and benefits of net-zero by sector
It's clear the large majority of costs are the power sector (electricity) and buildings (heat, insulation), whereas most savings are from transport (EVs)
In terms GDP, the @OBR_UK says the UK economy in 2050 would be very slightly smaller if it reaches net-zero emissions, compared to if it doesn't (and ignoring the impacts of warming)
Instead of reaching ~158% of today's GDP, it'd be more like 156.6% (1.4% less)
Notably, this 1.4% hit to GDP comes from the @bankofengland & is measured "below a (purely hypothetical) counterfactual path in which there are no additional headwinds from climate risks"
The Bank estimates a hit of 7.8% to UK GDP, without climate action
(@theCCCuk said a very small hit to GDP was the worst-case scenario for meeting net-zero; the @IEA recently said net-zero would *raise* global GDP this decade)
The @OBR_UK takes things a step further to answer the Q, what might net-zero mean for UK public spending & public sector net debt as a % of GDP
Its central "early action" scenario says debt would be 21% higher with net-zero by 2050, which it compares to the impact of Covid
Crucially, however, a huge chunk of this higher debt from meeting net-zero is due to lost revenue from fuel duty and road tax, according to the @OBR_UK
In an alternative scenario, where the UK reaches net-zero while maintaining public spending and holding car tax revenues steady, public sector debt is actually *lower* than in the @OBR_UK baseline pathway
("early action" vs "investment included & motoring maintained")
I'll leave it there for now but as ever, I've prob forgotten something and may well come back to this thread later / tomorrow
/ENDS
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
FACTCHECK: Almost all the headlines on Tony Blair / net-zero are *wildly* inaccurate
REALITY:
1️⃣Net-zero is *only way* to stop warming
2️⃣Blair calls for tech to "turbocharge our path to net-zero"
3️⃣He categorically *does not* say "net-zero is doomed to fail"
🧵 1/6
Blair says a "strategy based on either 'phasing out' fossil fuels in the short term or limiting consumption is a strategy doomed to fail"
This is logically & categorically not the same as saying "net-zero is doomed to fail"
(If you can't see why, I can't help you) 2/6
Nor does Blair say "current net-zero policies are doomed"
Because literally no govt in the world has a current net-zero policy to "phase out fossil fuels in the short term or limit consumption"
Instead, world's govts agreed at COP28 to "transition away from fossil fuels" 3/6
NEW: Official advisers CCC say UK shld cut emissions 87% by 2040
⚖️Net cost of net-zero 73% less than thought
💷Total cost to 2050 = £108bn (~£4bn/yr, 0.2% GDP)
🏡🚗H’hold energy/fuel bills to fall £1,400
🔌Electrification is key
THREAD: New UK govt contract with Drax biomass power plant
* 4-yr contract 2027-2031
* £113/MWh (2012 prices – £155 in today's money)
* Output cap of 6TWh (<2% of UK supplies, cf recent yrs 12-15TWh)
* CfD cost ~£500m/yr
* 100% of fuel must be "sustainable", up from 70% 1/5
UK govt says the contract helps security of electricity supplies, but gives Drax a "much more limited role than today" ie it's limited to run at roughly 25% of its max output
This means it's mainly going to be running when it isn't windy
Drax has had issues with existing 70% sustainable sourcing rule, but as it'll need less than half the fuel it has been buying to date, the new 100% rule looks more achievable
Notably, new contract terms allow govt to reclaim subsidy if rule not met
UK electricity generation from fossil fuels has more than halved in a decade, falling to 91TWh in 2024 – the lowest level since 1955 and making up the lowest ever share of the total, just 29%
Meanwhile, renewable output has more than doubled, up 122% since 2014 to 143TWh 2/9
The UK has cut gas-fired electricity generation by 13% in a decade – even as it was phasing out coal power – thanks to rising renewable output (mainly wind), along with lower demand + higher imports
UK opened the world's first coal power plant in 1882 on London's Holborn Viaduct (pic)
⛰️ Since then, UK coal plants have burned 4.6bn tonnes of coal, emitting 10.4GtCO2
🌍 That's more CO2 than most countries have ever emitted, from all sources (!)
But the UK was the world's first "coal-fired economy" – and that started long before coal-fired power
🥤Coal fuelled pumps to drain mines to get more coal
📈And as steam engines got more efficient, it got cheaper to use and extract ever more of the fuel, inspiring "Jevons paradox"