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: 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"
Let's begin with the facts. Andrew doesn't say so, but I am going to assume he is (correctly) quoting data from Montel Analytics, showing that UK electricity imports were 18.9TWh in H1 2024, up 82% from H2 2023