The New Scientist has reported:
|
Adam Vaughan, New Scientist
|
|
The UK government has refused a freedom of information request submitted by New Scientist to explain why its estimated cost of reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 is tens of billions of pounds more than its independent advisers found. New Scientist writes: “Last summer, shortly before the UK enshrined the net-zero target in law, a leaked letter from Phillip Hammond, the then chancellor, warned that the transition to a zero-carbon economy was likely to be ‘well in excess of a trillion pounds'. New Scientist attempted to use freedom of information legislation to obtain the evidence supporting the bigger net-zero price tag, but BEIS declined to release the information. Following an appeal, the UK's Information Commissioner's Office last week ruled in favour of BEIS withholding the explanation.”
|
I wonder why?
What are they worried about?
In the meantime, I will go with £1 trillion....nothing suggests it is less to me, based on all the estimates I have seen.
Hat tip: David Lowry
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Formatting has gone adrift on this Richard. Right hand margin has slipped.
“In the meantime, I will go with £1 trillion….”
Ah, but shouldn’t there be a return on the process of getting there in terms of the economic activity involved. Or are you taking that into consideration?
Sorry – I copied the frames in haste
Will have to try to put right later…
Re the £1 trillion – I assume that’s the capital required
There will be a return, of course
“estimated cost of reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2050”. This statement is worth unpacking.
One of the actions needed to reduce emissions is growth of renweables. For on & off-shore wind (UK and EU) most projects have a business case because the price at which they deliver electricity is less than average wholesale electricity prices. It is unclear where “cost” in the sense of “costs more” applies.
PV in the Iberian peninsular – recent auctions were delivering sub Euro20/MWh prices – far less than wholesale. Companies such as Iberdrola make green electricity PPAs with companies such as Heineken to deliver 100% green elec to their operations. Societal costs? Any costs? I don’t see any. But I do see business cases.
Insulating homes. Up-front investments needed, but if the work is well done a household is looking at a warm comfortable home with lower heating bills for 50 years. Cost? or a benefit? How to quantify the benefit? All in cash terms? or does a comfy home have a value that is difficult to put a cost on?
Some facts: the fatberg/tory party is funded by, amongst others, the oil & gas fanboys. In that context, BP, Shell & others could be considered a fatberg funding mechanism (with a dishonourable mention for the “houses built of ticky-tacky”-sector who also keep the fatberg party show on the road). Using less energy (or different energy) does not keep the the oil&gas guys happy & by extension is unlikely to keep the fatberg party funded. As for the reneweable players, & asking them for a bung/party donation, it would be regarded as akin to asking them to sell their kids into slavery.
BP and its “green”?? announcement of last week? Oh please, this is a forum for adults – not a Marvel Comic discussion group.
So theTory gov meme is that the energy transition has “costs”. It is the only way to keep the oil&gas and fatberg funding shows on the road. (& finally who does spreadsheet Phil now work for?)
This might be the investment cost
As Andy has asked, ‘what’s the return’ is a question not considered
You rightly raise it as well
And at a macro level economic multipliers are not being considered either
This isn’t purely about the cost of Climate Change, but it does relate to this year’s crucial COP26 Conference in Glasgow, so it’s not entirely off-topic.
The future of the Conference’s location is currently stalled in a stand-off between the UK Gov and the Scottish Gov over the costs of policing, with the UK Gov threatening to move the Conference to England on the grounds of a supposed over-estimate of policing costs of c£100k by the Scottish Gov. This may simply be a spurious diversion to discredit the Scottish Gov and remove the event from Scotland as a signal that Westminster is all-powerful and can dictate to Scotland at will.
On the other hand, it may be yet another a display of ignorance by UK Gov about the facts of life in Scotland. The simple fact is that the police in Scotland are better paid than in England & Wales. The starting salary for a police constable in Scotland is £26,037, which is 24.7% higher than the England & Wales equivalent of £20,880 (https://news.gov.scot/news/policing-in-scotland), so, if UK Gov has based its assertion of overspend on English policing costs, it has committed a glaring “Primary 1” error.
Ken, with this shower of **** of a government, who knows whether the motive is malevolence or incompetence? A desire to ‘have a go’ at the Scottish government, or the fact that following Claire Perry’s sacking (itself down to the facr Johnson didn’t like her apparently), the COP26 project is rudderless and Johnson/Cummings don’t know or care how to proceed.
Or as you say, they don’t even know that Scottish police are better paid than those in E&W. Surely not. I thought Prime Minister Cummings has a passion for statistics and science in general?
sickoftaxdodgers says:
“…. following Claire Perry’s sacking (itself down to the fact Johnson didn’t like her apparently), the COP26 project is rudderless and Johnson/Cummings don’t know or care how to proceed….”
It would probably be no loss to Scotland (except for loss of petty cash income) to have COP26 convene in London given that Johnson and Co will do their best to scupper it. Better perhaps that it does not become labelled as anything to do with Glasgow (?)