Are we ready for net zero?

Many campaign groups are eagerly awaiting the second reading of the Climate and Nature Bill (CAN) due to take place in the Commons on 24 January. They are more than ready for a ‘joined-up strategy’ to address the climate and environmental crisis, but are they ready for net zero? Dee Williams takes a look.

The Climate and Nature Bill (CAN) is a private members’ bill, originally proposed by Caroline Lucas but now moving forward via Roz Savage and backed by over 180 MPs, which should be a sufficient number to see it pass through to the next stage.

The Bill itself is rather lacking in detail but effectively enshrines in law the ambition for the UK to reach net zero ‘as rapidly as possible’ before the 2050 deadline. It stipulates that a citizen-led Climate and Nature Assembly will represent the many campaign groups while members of the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) will steer the debate and have the final say on how the strategy is formulated.

(4) Working together, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) must— (a) review the Assembly’s recommendations under subsection (3) and relevant expert advice; and (b) publish a joint proposal for measures to be included in the strategy, including all recommendations by the Assembly that have the support of 66% or more of its members unless, in the opinion of either the CCC or the JNCC, there are exceptional and compelling reasons, which must be stated, not to implement those recommendations.  (p3)

The CCC and JNCC are described as ‘independent bodies’ but CCC members are appointed by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and the JNCC is under the wing of the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). As such, members are unlikely to deviate from government policy.

The proposed Bill makes the UK responsible not just for carbon dioxide emissions on our own soil but also global emissions where they relate to UK travel and imports.

In this Act— “the United Kingdom’s total emissions of carbon dioxide” means— (a) all territorial emissions of carbon dioxide from the United Kingdom, and (b) all emissions of carbon dioxide generated by the United Kingdom’s share of international aviation and shipping, emitted between 2020 and 2050; “emissions of carbon dioxide in respect of imports to the United  Kingdom” means emissions of carbon dioxide generated outside the United Kingdom by the production of goods that are imported to the United Kingdom, and by the provision of services overseas that are received in the United Kingdom; (p6)

Someone has done the calculations to create a global carbon budget that will keep the world from warming past the significant 1.5C cut-off. The UK must not exceed its share of these CO2 emissions.

“remaining global carbon budget” means 400 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide;

“proportionate share of the remaining global carbon budget” means the share of the remaining global carbon budget in proportion to the United Kingdom’s share of the global population, averaged over the 5 period 2020 to 2050, using United Kingdom forecast population data from the Office for National Statistics and global forecast population data from Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 1; (p6/7)

The UK carbon budget could be further reduced to an individual carbon credit target per person. The Bill is not clear on what that would actually mean for UK citizens but a research programme funded by the UK Government called UK FIRES gives an insight into how things are likely to change between now and 2050 in their Absolute Zero Report. 

UK FIRES is a research programme sponsored by the UK Government, aiming to support a 20% cut in the UK’s true emissions by 2050 by placing Resource Efficiency at the heart of the UK’s Future Industrial Strategy. Industry is the most challenging sector for climate mitigation – it’s energy efficient and there are no substitutes available at scale for the energy-intensive bulk materials – steel, cement, plastic, paper and aluminium. UK FIRES is therefore working towards an industrial renaissance in the UK, with high-value climate-safe UK businesses delivering goods and services compatible with the UK’s legal commitment to zero emissions and with much less new material production. (p1)

The Absolute Zero report provides an overview on pages 6/7, aspects of which can be seen below.

Net zero targets

All movement by air and sea will end by 2050. We will become more reliant on the electrified rail network as road transport will be reduced to 60% of current levels.

Gas power will cease and all appliances will be run on electricity at 60% of current usage. With all fossil fuels phased out, electricity will be generated by wind and solar (with no mention of nuclear fuel).

Quite a lot of changes for a growing population to absorb. Is it possible to achieve such radical change in just 25 years?

Need to improve green energy technology

Figure 1.7 from the report shows that fossil fuels currently generate at least 50% of our electricity needs. Solar, wind and hydro are little more than bit players and will have to increase significantly to secure our energy needs.

Wind power turbines are not entirely ‘green’. They utilise 850-900 cubic yards of concrete to secure the base. Then each turbine requires 1,400 litres of oil with an oil change required every 9 to 16 months. The turbines themselves have a 20-year life-span and cannot currently be recycled. In terms of the environment, there are issues of disturbance to marine life for off-shore turbines and direct harm to bird life for those on land.

Most solar panels are made of silicon which is an abundant material but converting sand into high-grade silicon comes at a high cost and is an energy intensive process. Solar panels have a life-span of 25 to 30 years but decrease in productivity as they age. Heavy metals such as lead and cadmium can leach into the soil.

A major drawback with renewable energy is that we currently have no effective means of storage and if the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow the country will grind to a halt without a back-up source of energy.

Transport

On page 18 data has been gathered to demonstrate the need to end flights if the UK is to keep within its carbon budget.

“Fig. 2.5 demonstrates the opportunity for energy saving through adjusting the way we travel. The figure shows both the energy and emissions consequences of a person travelling a kilometre by different modes: these two figures are closely correlated except for flight, where the *emissions at high altitude cause additional warming effects. The figure underlines how important it is to stop flying – it’s the most emitting form of transport and we use planes to travel the longest distances.”  (*contrails, largely made up of water vapour).

This will clearly impact travelling for leisure but as we currently import 46% of our food it is difficult to see how it would get to us in an edible state without flight transportation. Also, if we give up farmland for rewilding projects or solar farms then our carbon budget could take a hit from increasing imports from abroad cancelling out any benefit.

Follow the science

Science tells us that CO2 currently makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere with just 3% within our control by reducing man-made CO2.  Is there any evidence to suggest that reducing to net zero will actually have a positive impact on climate change?  A research article published in 2021 looked at the effects of the 2020 global lockdown.

“…while carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions fell by 5.4 percent in 2020 compared to the previous year, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continued to grow at about the same rate as in preceding years. While the drop in emissions was significant, the growth in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 was within the normal range of year-to-year variation caused by natural processes. Also, the ocean did not absorb as much carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as it has in recent years, probably due to the reduced pressure of carbon dioxide in the air at the ocean’s surface.”

Could there be a natural balance at play resulting in other factors simply compensating for the loss of man-made CO2? If the UK manages to achieve its net zero target by 2050 we will have reduced global CO2 by 0.0004%. Is the pain worth the gain?  Your opinion is most welcome.

Also in: Environment

HBC backs Climate and Nature Bill »