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
NEW: UK climate advisers now "more optimistic" net-zero goals can be met
🎯Net-zero "possible" + "good for economy"
📉CO2 halved vs 1990
📈More "credible" policies
🚘🏡EV/heat pumps soaring
But…
⚡"Critical" to cut power prices
✈️Flight CO2 "risk"
1/9
For the first time I can remember, the CCC says its progress report is "optimistic" about UK climate goals being hit. Interim chair Prof Piers Forster says he is "more optimistic" than last yr due to last govt's policies starting to deliver + changes since Labour took office
2/9
Another notable change is that the CCC seems to be getting less prescriptive…
CCC has faced (inaccurate) charges that it has, in effect, set govt policy. But it's now being clearer than ever that it only offers advice – and policy is up to govt.
IEA: Oil still on track to peak by 2030; oil for fuel to peak in 2027
"annual growth slows…to just a trickle over the next several years, with a small decline expected in 2030, based on today’s policy settings and market trends"
Here are some of the most striking charts 🧵 1/8
In recent years, global oil demand has been almost entirely driven by growth in China…
…and that party is now over
Equally, US "dominance" of rising oil supply is also a thing of the past 2/8
Since last year, the IEA has raised its oil demand outlook for the US, due to EV rollbacks etc, but it has simultaneously cut its outlook for China by the same amount
So global demand in 2030 is right where the IEA thought it would be last year 3/8
In Q1 of 2025, the clean-energy driven drop in power sector CO2 outweighed small increases in other sectors of China's economy, driving a 1.6% fall year-on-year overall
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