Thread by @7Kiwi

The CCC recently dropped a supplementary analysis of their 7th Carbon Budget, doubling down on past errors. They claim Net Zero costs less than the 2022 fossil fuel price spike & delivers a "net benefit" to society. Let's dismantle the ivory tower claptrap. A thread (1/13)

They also claim achieving Net Zero is “more cost-effective” than continued reliance on fossil fuels in all scenarios (2/13)

To support this, they’ve added “co-impacts” — cleaner air, warmer homes, active travel, “healthier diets” and carbon savings. Sounds impressive… until you examine the numbers and assumptions. (3/13)

Their whole analysis compares their “Balanced Pathway” to a “no further action” baseline. What’s missing? Any scenario that unwinds Net Zero mandates, scraps EV/heat pump subsidies, ends renewables subsidies, restarts North Sea drilling or lifts the fracking ban (4/13)

Sensible, affordable energy policy is simply beyond their imagination. The biggest flaw? Wildly optimistic renewable electricity costs. They assume prices far below real auction results — AR7 prices ~2.5X higher for offshore wind & roughly double for solar. (5/13)

Most of their claimed “savings” come from EVs running on this supposedly cheap renewable electricity instead of petrol. If electricity isn’t as cheap as they assume, those operating cost savings disappear (6/13)

Their EV cost-parity forecasts (2026-28) have already failed. A basic VW ID.3 is still 23-35% more expensive than a comparable petrol Golf — even after subsidies (7/13)

CCC relies on Levelised Cost of Energy (LCOE) models using low Green Book discount rates (3.5%) instead of real-world hurdle rates (7.6–11.4%). They ignore commercial risks and the fact that renewables only get built because of heavy subsidies and higher CfD strike prices (8/13)

New “co-benefits” are weak. Air quality was already improving fast before Net Zero — NOx and particulates are well below 2029 targets. Further cuts will be smaller and harder. Walking in the rain and swapping steak for insects as “healthier”? Debatable at best (9/13)

Their star number: £2.7 trillion (undiscounted) in “carbon savings” to 2050. They achieve this by using absurdly high carbon prices (£281/t rising to £409/t) to justify measures that would otherwise be uneconomic. They're claiming to save a number they simply made up. (10/13)

These supposed benefits assume massive global action — yet global emissions are still rising (up more in 2024 than the UK’s entire annual total). The UK is only ~0.8% of global emissions. Our efforts are a rounding error (11/13)

Conclusion: The CCC’s Seventh Carbon Budget is claptrap built on fake renewable costs, fictional savings, weak co-benefits & phantom global carbon savings. When Parliament debates CB7 later this year, it should be rejected outright. Time for a realistic energy policy. (12/13)

If you enjoyed this thread please like and share. You can sign up for free to read the full article on the link below (13/13)
davidturver.substack.com/p/more-climate…

Hi @threadreaderapp unroll please.