A report from the Committee on Cliimate Change (CCC) – the independent body advising the Government on climate change – has urged a much more ambitious programme of emissions reduction, to ensure the UK arrives at net zero emissions by 2050. Envirotec rounds up a selection of industry opinion.
The long-awaited report Net Zero – The UK’s contribution to stopping global warming was published on 2 May with many commentators noting the obvious uptick in the level of ambition. Main author Chris Stark told the BBC its new target “would have been absolutely inconceivable just a few years ago”, and suggested David Attenborough, Extinction Rebellion and Greta Thurnberg had all played a part.
Previously requested by the UK, Scottish and Welsh Governments, it reflected a need to make updated calculations in line with the 2015 Paris Agreement and the IPCC’s Special Report released in late 2018.
It emphasised that the UK appears to be in a strong position to meet the new net-zero target, and that the needed policies and approaches are already active or under development – although much more is needed. Low-carbon electricity, for example, will have to quadruple its contribution by 2050. Electric vehicle usage is receiving support, but will have to be the only option after 2035 or earlier. The UK has also made progress with carbon capture, usage and storage (CCUS), and the prevention of biodegradeable waste going to landfill – but, again, these will have to ramp up hugely.
The cost of the new target is estimated at tens of billions of pounds per year, and may reach 1-2% of GDP by 2050. But this doesn’t include the obvious economic benefits that might accrue from things like cleaner air and water.
Can the UK afford it? The report said the costs were manageable, but must be fairly distributed. What’s needed is rapid reduction in the cost of technologies like offshore wind and batteries for electric vehicles. The authors concluded that “a net-zero greenhouse gas target can be met at an annual cost of up to 1-2% of GDP to 2050”.
While it was encouraging that the report suggests the new target can be achieved using existing or known technologies, the IMechE’s head of engineering Jenifer Baxter added a caveat. “We know that many technologies exist that can speed up the reduction in GHG emissions, but technologies that are clean are not always pollution-free themselves.”
She continued: “Decisions on which technologies to support should be based on the outputs the technology brings and the full life cycle analysis – they should not be based on ideology or popularity. In order to deliver long term change, it is important that we ensure that our new low-carbon lives are a true improvement on the current infrastructure.”
Baxter welcomed the announced targets while acknowledging their ambition. “Achieving UK net zero emissions will require every tool at our disposal, including technologies that enable negative emissions. In particular, the report highlights how crucial CCUS will be to achieving this goal. Whether for hydrogen production or to decarbonise heavy industry, the CCC are correct in saying that ‘CCS is a necessity not an option’”
Biomass beef?
Environmental campaigners were worried about some of the approaches given support. Although the report appeared to underline concerns about the importation of biomass, the importance attached to CCUS methods such as biomass with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), was “badly misguided” said Almuth Ernsting from Biofuelwatch. “If BECCS was to ever work, it would suck up billions of subsidies urgently needed for true climate solutions, and lead to yet more trees being burned for less energy.”
Sasha Stashwick, Senior Advocate at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the UK’s ongoing practice of burning biomass at large scale was “a clear and present threat to any last gasp we have of avoiding the worst consequences of climate change.” She said “the UK needs to reverse course and end its multi-billion pound subsidy programme for wood-fired electricity generation.”
The Natural Resources Defense Council urged the Government to redirect funds towards “energy efficiency and conservation, genuinely zero-emission renewable energy like wind, wave, and solar power, and smart resources, such as electricity storage.”
The report said that “policies will have to ramp up significantly for a ‘net-zero’ emissions target to be credible, given that most sectors will need to cut emissions to zero by 2050. This could be achieved “at acceptable cost” but this would depend on “the introduction without delay of clear, stable and well-designed policies across the emitting sectors of the economy.” Government must set the direction of travel and urgency level, and “the public will need to engage if the transition is to succeed”.
Roz Bulleid, Head of Climate & Environment Policy at Make UK, the manufacturers’ organisation said: “The CCC’s analysis of the scale of change needed to meet a net zero target, and the potential costs for industry, makes for a sobering read.” She said that if the government acts on the advice presented then “it must ensure greater UK ambition is used to leverage further action from other countries too.”
The report stated that “if other countries follow the UK” then “there’s a fifty-fifty chance of staying below a 1.5ºC temperature rise by 2100. A 1.5ºC rise is considered to be the threshold beyond which dangerous climate change will occur.
Others need to follow
Bulleid said international cooperation “is important from both an environmental perspective and in ensuring energy intensive UK industries are not left paying much higher regulatory costs than overseas competitors, disincentivising future investment.” Up till now, she said, “much of the sector has viewed climate change policy as something that adds costs, directly or via their electricity bills, rather than delivering the ‘first mover advantage’ promised when the original 2050 target was agreed. We can’t have more of the same.”
She went on: “The key issue for manufacturers will be the policies and support mechanisms put in place to meet any net zero target, particularly how they ensure continued international competitiveness and spur innovation and investment in low-carbon technologies.
She said she was pleased to see the report acknowledge that Government support would be needed to facilitate industrial decarbonisation, and its “call for a broad Treasury-led review of the costs of decarbonisation and where these should fall.”
