Major new @OBR_UK report today on "fiscal risks" to UK has a big chapter on net-zero

OBR estimates net cost of net-zero by 2050 at £321bn

Crucially: "Unmitigated climate change would ultimately have catastrophic economic & fiscal consequences"

THREAD

obr.uk/frr/fiscal-ris…
The OBR identifies three "potentially catastrophic" sources of fiscal risk to the UK

These are the pandemic, unmitigated climate change & public sector debt

("the fiscal costs of reducing net emissions to zero…could be significant but not exceptional")

obr.uk/frr/fiscal-ris…
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

I'd encourage you to read it

obr.uk/frr/fiscal-ris…
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."

(read the whole thread if you haven't already)

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)

obr.uk/frr/fiscal-ris…
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

bankofengland.co.uk/stress-testing…
(@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
 

Keep Current with Simon Evans

Simon Evans Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @DrSimEvans

2 Jul
Today's Times frontpage is reporting govt plans to (consult on & then maybe) include heat & transport fuel in the UK's emissions trading scheme

A few thoughts

1/

thetimes.co.uk/article/gas-an…
We currently only pay for CO2 emissions from electricity generation & industry

This is…bonkers

Domestic gas use gets an effective *subsidy* of ~£100/tCO2

(Air travel is even worse – and look at road vs rail!)

HT @EnergySysCat, scribbles are mine

2/

es.catapult.org.uk/comment/carbon…
So as a matter of principle, it would make sense to have a CO2 price on gas and (all!) transport fuels

(Economists often bang on about harmonised economy-wide carbon pricing for optimum "efficiency")

✅Polluter pays
✅Shift fiscal incentives towards electricity

But…

3/
Read 12 tweets
24 May
In its WEO 2008 the IEA "reference scenario" suggested coal power would reach 12,000TWh by 2020

In reality, coal was 25% lower (-3,000TWh, equiv of overall EU demand)

Solar output was 8x higher than expected
Wind nearly twice as high

What else was different?

1/

HT @KetanJ0
Gas, hydro, wind and solar all significantly outperformed the IEA's reference scenario expectations from 2008, whereas nuclear and coal were lower

Demand overall was lower than expected, too

2/
There are at least two ways to read this

A) yah boo, the IEA got it wrong on renewables (again)
B) the world implemented a lot of new climate policy since 2008, beyond the static view of the 2008 "reference scenario" (pic)

…but really it's (C), a mixture of both

3/
Read 6 tweets
18 May
THREAD

So many remarkable things in today's @IEA net-zero by 2050 report. Here are a few:

⛏️ immediate end to new fossil fuel extraction
🏭 unabated fossil energy plummets

-98% coal
-91% oil
-88% gas

🌞 solar becomes largest energy source

1/

carbonbrief.org/iea-renewables…
IEA boss Fatih Birol calls the net-zero scenario "the energy future we all need to focus on"

Not hard to see why:

🌡️ avoids 1.5C
⚡️ universal energy access
😷 2m fewer premature pollution deaths
💵 increases global GDP

2/

carbonbrief.org/iea-renewables…
There's one big problem…

The world's currently on track for 2.7C (STEPS)
Even all the net-zero goals mean 2.1C (APC)

…leaving a 22GtCO2 ambition gap in 2050 to stay below 1.5C (NZE)

"[the] gap between rhetoric and action needs to close"

3/

carbonbrief.org/iea-renewables…
Read 8 tweets
23 Apr
The UK govt has formally issued draft legislation, making its 78% by 2035 climate goal into law

legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2021/978…
It does not (yet) legislate to include international aviation and shipping in the budget, but additional regulations on that will follow

legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2021/978…
for reference, here's Article 30 of the Climate Change Act under which international aviation and shipping will be included

legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/27/…
Read 9 tweets
23 Apr
How big are the new climate pledges from the US, UK, EU, Canada & Japan?

I reckon they could cut emissions in 2030 by roughly an extra 2bn tonnes of CO2e

That's quite a lot…

…but still tiny compared with the 12-32GtCO2e "emissions gap" to 1.5 or 2C

carbonbrief.org/unep-net-zero-…
This is very much a back-of-the-envelope number and depends what you assume would have happened, before the new pledges.

We can expect to see more sophisticated estimates from @climateactiontr & @UNEP
@climateactiontr @UNEP Also – this assumes the new ambitions are turned into reality

That's very much a big "if"
Read 4 tweets
22 Apr
We've now had four big new climate goals announced

UK -68% below 1990
EU -55% below 1990
US -52% below 2005
JP -46% below 2013

Who is most ambitious?

Depends on the baseline…

1990 UK>EU>US>JP
2005 UK>US>EU>JP
2013 UK>US>EU>JP
2018 US>UK>EU>JP
For those that prefer ugly spreadsheet tables…
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(