After the wildfires and floods: should we reassess climate change?
Partners:
In Reform UK and the Conservatives, the UK now has two mainstream parties opposed to Net Zero, while Andy Burnham has signalled Labour will adopt a more pragmatic approach to drilling for North Sea oil and gas. This ‘vibe shift’ on Net Zero is certainly welcome to those who have pointed out that the UK accounts for less than one per cent of global emissions. Whatever success we might have in reducing domestic emissions, some argue that our efforts will not seriously affect the global climate.
With the UK facing some of the highest electricity prices in the world, has Net Zero become a form of self-flagellation with little practical effect? The parties of the Right are arguing that the UK should instead prepare itself to adapt to a changing climate and avoid mitigating policies that respond to externally imposed targets that may damage economic growth. The Tories have pledged to reverse an effective ban in air-conditioning units and flirted with reopening the door to controversial shale gas extraction. Reform has pledged to scrap what it calls ‘net stupid zero’ policies, and is also open to fracking, drilling for oil and ambitious plans for building new reservoirs rather than saving water through hosepipe bans.
Yet, at the same time, a summer of extreme weather with serious consequences – including wildfires, another poor harvest, drought and now a catastrophic flash flood in Nepal – has prompted renewed introspection over the long-term costs of climate change. The Telegraph’s Tim Stanley has triggered fierce online debate by arguing that climate change is real, and that those on the Right need to get serious about tackling it rather than slipping into what some would call climate-change fatalism: declaring that there is nothing Britain can do, so it may as well pursue cheap energy however it comes.
Certainly, when Net-Zero sceptics appear instinctively opposed to almost every form of clean-energy development, from new solar farms to wind turbines, they leave themselves open to accusations of rigid ideological dogma rather than the energy pragmatism they claim to champion. Such a stance may also cause problems come election time, with farmers already bearing some of the heaviest costs of a changing climate despite traditionally forming a constituency associated with political conservatism.
Given that there are some less-contentious options – such as nuclear energy, which can both lower carbon output and power economic development – is the choice between Net Zero and cheap energy really as stark as it is often presented? Is there a third way – one that takes the problems of climate change seriously while protecting prosperity, energy security and living standards? Or is that thinking naïve, and should we instead stop demonising fossil-fuel resources and start doing everything we can to reduce energy prices?
