News that the Conservative Party plans to drop the party’s commitment to net-zero by 2050 is an alarming step in the wrong direction and sends completely the wrong message at a time when we have the chance to make real inroads into sustainable working practices.
While they are currently in opposition and therefore not in a position of power as such, floating such headlines is not helpful to the green cause which should be driving our agenda, regardless of party politics.
It is not my place to convince voters of one set of ideologies over another, but I had started to hope that the benefits of environmentally friendly strategies for success were winning the day across the political spectrum.
This climate crisis which affects us all is too big a deal to fall victim to in-fighting and cost-cutting measures.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said the commitment was “impossible” to achieve and “catastrophic” for the UK economy.
I would argue that a far greater economic threat in the long term is to downgrade the importance of net zero.
Badenoch said: “Net-zero cannot be achieved without a significant drop in our living standards, or worse, by bankrupting us.”
Experts argue that stalling net-zero in the UK would be ‘indisputably costlier than action’ and I wholeheartedly agree.
The Government’s own climate advisory body, the Climate Change Committee (CCC), has stated that a well-managed transition could be delivered with 1% of GDP or less.
Experts at the CCC have consistently provided advice on closing policy gaps, in annual progress reports to Parliament and advice on setting carbon budgets which make clear that the transition is possible, with the right policy support.
Badenoch indicated that the Conservative Party would not immediately commit to a new net-zero target date, stating that input would be sought from various perspectives, including those who disagree with the Party.
She said: “I’m not going to do is rush out and say it should be by 2051 or by 2049. Why is it 2050 in the first place? No one knows.”
The 2050 net-zero target is based on IPCC research, which shows that to limit global warming to 1.5–2C under the Paris Agreement, global emissions must reach net-zero by the early 2050s or 2070s respectively. Keeping warming to 1.5C would result in far less widespread destruction of, and disruption to, lives and livelihoods than 2%.
‘Britain accounts for 1% of global emissions’
Badenoch rehearsed the well worn argument against the UK achieving net-zero emissions, stating that the UK contributes only 1% of global emissions and that its efforts would be futile unless other countries decarbonise at the same pace.
Yet, this 1% figure only covers the UK’s territorial emissions, which includes the emissions within its borders. In reality, the UK’s true carbon footprint was nearly twice that in 2016.
Additionally, even at just 1% for territorial emissions, the UK is still amongst the top emitting countries, ranking number 15 in 2017 and 2018.
According to the Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), nearly a third of global emissions comes from countries whose territorial emissions are each 1% or less of the global total, underscoring the urgency for the UK to play its part in the global transition to a low carbon world.
Badenoch also repeated a familiar argument from climate sceptics like Donald Trump claiming that net-zero policies increase other countries’ dependence on China.
“Ten years ago, we were heavily dependent on China for all key components. Today, we’re even more dependent. Look at the top dozen makers of solar panels—they are nearly all Chinese,” she stated.
The UK imports these components primarily because it currently lacks the domestic manufacturing capacity. So wouldn’t it make more sense to focus on improving our own capabilities in this area with focused investment, still driven by net zero objectives?
At an Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) evidence session in January, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband noted that the Government is working to align its 2030 clean energy target with industrial strategy reforms to stimulate job creation and local economic growth. A ten-year industrial strategy will be published by this summer.
Badenoch argued that by taking the lead on net-zero, the UK is making itself “less safe, less secure, and less resilient.” I fundamentally disagree. The geo-political situation right now surely means we would be more secure without over-reliance on old ways of working.
Failing to pursue net-zero also exposes the UK to significant climate risks. Research from the Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU) found that the global climate crisis threatens £8bn worth of UK food security. Ultimately, the only viable path forward is to accelerate climate action.
Michael Liebreich, former advisor to the UK Board of Trade (2020-2023), added: “Of course the UK could reach net-zero in 2050 without destroying our standards of living or going bankrupt. True words I hope are picked up more widely in the corridors of power and beyond.
“If we stopped confusing costs with investments, investments with asset replacements and gas imports with exports – and if we understood the cost of fossil price volatility to the UK economy – we would understand that net-zero done right would be a huge economic win for the country.”
Will Walker, UK policy Lead at climate solutions charity Ashden, said: “Badenoch’s announcement that the Conservatives will abandon the 2050 net-zero target — a target introduced by Theresa May and supported across party lines — is a reckless step backwards that flies in the face of public sentiment, economic sense, and Conservative values.
“Polls consistently show broad public backing for net-zero. Moreover, this decision will only shorten the fuse on the Conservative party’s ticking time bomb: a loss of support among young people.”
Rachel Solomon Williams, executive director at the Aldersgate Group, said: “Net-zero can be achieved, and it can be done in a way that benefits the public and boosts the economy; this requires certainty, decisive policy measures, and consistent ambition in order to crowd in private investment.
“While further progress is needed, now is not the time to back away from the challenge. The opportunities on offer with the right approach, and the risks associated with inaction, are significant.”
Dr Amy McDonnell, campaign director at Zero Hour, said: “Badenoch’s demand to abandon the net-zero target shatters a decades-long political consensus on climate and environmental action.
“Her remarks signal a shift toward a divisive, Trump-style politics that stalls progress on emissions reductions, falsely claiming it will ease financial burdens.
“This reckless pivot not only undermines the Conservatives’ economic credibility but also jeopardises Britain’s national energy security at a critical moment.”
Stew Horne, head of policy at the Energy Saving Trust, said: “We’re disappointed that the UK political consensus on the need to reach net-zero by 2050 has broken. The repercussions of failing to reduce carbon emissions to net-zero will be irreversible… the CCC has shown that the cost of not achieving net-zero will cost us all more in the future.
“Progress towards a lower-carbon economy also comes with significant economic opportunities. The cost of electricity is high in the UK because it’s tied to the price of volatile international fossil fuels, on which we over-rely. In contrast to what we’ve heard today, renewable energy will improve the UK’s energy security, reduce energy bills and insulate people from future energy shocks. Energy bills are also high because of the UK’s inefficient housing stock. Upgrading people’s homes, through measures including insulation, draught proofing and low -carbon heating, will make them warmer and more affordable to heat, whilst bringing significant economic benefits.”
Achieving net zero will cost money, undoubtedly, but not as much as some scaremongers would have us believe. And the cost of not pursuing it with vigour and speed? Far, far greater.
You must be logged in to post a comment.