{"id":3498464,"date":"2023-09-26T16:58:41","date_gmt":"2023-09-26T16:58:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/?p=3498464"},"modified":"2023-09-26T16:58:41","modified_gmt":"2023-09-26T16:58:41","slug":"in-depth-qa-what-do-rishi-sunaks-u-turns-mean-for-uk-climate-policy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/stories\/2023-09-26\/in-depth-qa-what-do-rishi-sunaks-u-turns-mean-for-uk-climate-policy\/","title":{"rendered":"In-depth Q&A: What do Rishi Sunak\u2019s U-turns mean for UK climate policy?"},"content":{"rendered":"

In a shock announcement, UK prime minister Rishi Sunak\u00a0revealed<\/a>\u00a0earlier this week plans to abandon or delay core parts of his government\u2019s climate strategy.<\/p>\n

Under Sunak\u2019s \u201cnew approach\u201d, a 2030 ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars has been delayed by five years, the 2035 phaseout of gas boiler sales has been loosened and landlords will not be obliged to insulate their rental properties to higher standards.<\/p>\n

The U-turns have been widely condemned by\u00a0hundreds<\/a>\u00a0of companies,\u00a0climate leaders<\/a>\u00a0and politicians from across the political spectrum.<\/p>\n

Although the prime minister has rejected accusations of \u201cwatering down\u201d climate policies, his actions will undoubtedly throw the UK even\u00a0further off course<\/a>\u00a0from its legally binding emissions targets.<\/p>\n

With Sunak\u2019s Conservative government trailing in the pre-election polls, the rollbacks were framed as an \u201chonest\u201d approach to net-zero that removed \u201cunacceptable costs\u201d from \u201chard-working British people\u201d.<\/p>\n

Yet some of his changes will cost consumers billions. His speech was full of misleading statements, often tapping into talking points popular among right-wingers in his party.<\/p>\n

In this article, Carbon Brief explains the context of the prime minister\u2019s speech and factchecks his new announcements.<\/p>\n

What was the context behind Rishi Sunak\u2019s speech?<\/h3>\n

On 19 September,\u00a0BBC News<\/a>\u00a0said \u201cmultiple sources\u201d had confirmed that Sunak was \u201cconsidering weakening some of the government\u2019s key green commitments in a major policy shift\u201d in \u201cthe coming days\u201d.<\/p>\n

Among the measures set to be delayed were flagship net-zero policies such as the 2030 ban on new petrol and diesel car sales and the phaseout of gas boiler sales by 2035, according to the report.<\/p>\n

The resulting flurry of media coverage saw Sunak release a scrambled\u00a0statement<\/a>\u00a0confirming the plans and, subsequently, formally confirm the details in a\u00a0speech<\/a>\u00a0the following day.<\/p>\n

In that speech, the prime minister came with what he described as a \u201cnew approach\u201d to tackling climate change based on \u201csensible, green leadership\u201d. He characterised his actions as a pragmatic response to net-zero, telling the audience:<\/p>\n

\u201cNo one in Westminster politics has yet had the courage to look people in the eye and explain what\u2019s really involved.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Sunak said those who wanted stronger climate policies were gripped by an \u201cideological zeal\u201d, adding that they want to do more \u201cno matter the cost or disruption to people\u2019s lives\u201d.<\/p>\n

Yet the government\u2019s own climate advisers have\u00a0repeatedly<\/a>\u00a0warned<\/a>\u00a0that the government is not doing enough to meet its legally binding climate goals.<\/p>\n

Even areas in which the UK has historically performed well, such as building offshore wind turbines, have been\u00a0faltering<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, the\u00a0EU<\/a>\u00a0and the\u00a0US<\/a>\u00a0have announced large investments in low-carbon technologies to boost their economies, respond to the\u00a0global energy crisis<\/a>\u00a0and compete with rivals such as China.<\/p>\n

Sunak\u2019s Conservatives are polling\u00a0far behind<\/a>\u00a0the Labour party and are widely expected to lose the general election that is likely to take place next year. As a result, the government has been facing\u00a0pressure<\/a>, from the right wing of its own party and the right-leaning media, to roll back parts of its net-zero strategy. (See: Why did Sunak make this speech?)<\/p>\n

All of this took place as world leaders gathered at a UN \u201cclimate ambition\u201d summit in New York. Conservative leaders from the UK\u00a0neither attended<\/a>\u00a0the summit nor signed up to a newly launched statement pledging ambitious action.<\/p>\n

What policy changes did Rishi Sunak announce?<\/h3>\n

Cars<\/h4>\n

Sunak confirmed that the 2030 ban on the sale of new internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles \u2013 petrol and diesel cars, plus vans \u2013 will be pushed back by five years to 2035.<\/p>\n

He said the upfront cost of EVs was still too high, charging infrastructure needs to be \u201ctruly nationwide\u201d and that the auto industry needs to be \u201cstrengthened\u2026so we aren\u2019t reliant on heavily subsidised, carbon intensive imports, from countries like China\u201d.<\/p>\n

Sunak is pushing back the deadline by five years. The previous deadline was\u00a0set in 2020<\/a>, after the then-prime minister Boris Johnson brought the ban forwards by five years from 2035 as part of his\u00a0Ten Point Plan<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In his speech, Sunak went on to note that \u201ceven after [2035], you\u2019ll still be able to buy and sell them second-hand\u201d. This does not represent a change from the previous ban on new ICE vehicles from 2035.<\/p>\n

After some initial confusion, the government has now confirmed that the\u00a0zero emissions vehicle (ZEV) mandat<\/a>e will\u00a0remain in place<\/a>. Speaking to\u00a0BBC News<\/a>, business secretary Kemi Badenoch was among the ministers to confirm that the ZEV mandate is unchanged.<\/p>\n

As such, from January 2024, the mandate was due to require 22% of vehicles sold to be electric, rising to 80% in 2030. If manufacturers fail to hit that target, they could be hit with a fine of up to \u00a315,000 a car.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n

The Department of Transport is yet to respond to its\u00a0ZEV consultation<\/a>, which closed in May. The mandate will still need to be\u00a0voted on<\/a>\u00a0in the House of Commons, before it comes into force in just over four months.<\/p>\n

Heating<\/h4>\n

In another major policy U-turn, Sunak also announced that the ban on the sale of oil, liquid petroleum gas (LPG) and new coal heating for off-gas-grid homes will be pushed back to 2035. The phase out had previously been set at 2026 for these mostly rural properties.<\/p>\n

This change will ensure homeowners do not have to pay around \u00a310-15,000 to upgrade their homes in just three years\u2019 time, Sunak claimed.<\/p>\n

(In fact, only those replacing their oil boilers would have needed to install a new system\u00a0\u2013 and they would have been eligible for government support to do so.)<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n

Other bans to fossil-fuel boilers, such as the 2025 ban on using them in new homes and the wider 2035 ban remain in place. However, there will now be exemptions to the latter for \u201chouseholds who will most struggle to make the switch to heat pumps or other low-carbon alternatives\u201d, Sunak said.<\/p>\n

(In his speech, he falsely claimed that some homes \u201cwill never ever be suitable for a heat pump\u201d. Government-funded fieldwork has\u00a0concluded<\/a>: \u201cThere is no property type or architectural era that is unsuitable for a heat pump.\u201d)<\/p>\n

He said the new exemption was expected to cover about a fifth of homes, including off-gas-grid homes, which will need either the most expensive retrofitting or a very large electricity connection.<\/p>\n

It\u00a0remains very unclear<\/a>\u00a0how this exemption would work and which homes it would apply to. The government\u00a0remains committed<\/a>\u00a0to implementing its clean heat market mechanism (CHMM), set to require a rising share of heating sales to be zero-emissions from 2024, in a similar way to the ZEV mandate.<\/p>\n

Sunak said:<\/p>\n

\u201cWe\u2019ll never force anyone to rip out their existing boiler and replace it with a heat pump. You\u2019ll only ever have to make the switch when you\u2019re replacing your boiler anyway and, even then, not until 2035. [This was already the case under previous policy.] And, to help those households for whom this will be hardest, I\u2019m introducing a new exemption today so that they\u2019ll never have to switch at all.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The ban on oil boilers was set to affect around 1.7m homes in predominantly rural areas. It has been a popular\u00a0talking point<\/a>\u00a0in some right-leaning newspapers, with former environment minister George Eustice\u00a0likening it<\/a>\u00a0to a \u201crural Ulez\u201d (a reference to London\u2019s Ulez air-pollution scheme).<\/p>\n

At the beginning of August, Eustice put forward a\u00a0proposal<\/a>\u00a0to the energy bill \u2013 within which the ban was set to be legislated \u2013 calling for it to be amended.<\/p>\n

There has been widespread recognition that the 2026 date was exacting, with the Climate Change Committee (CCC), for example,\u00a0recommending<\/a>\u00a0that, instead, the installation of new oil boilers should be phased out by 2028 in homes and 2025-26 in commercial properties.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n

The 2026 deadline for the sale of new oil, LPG and new coal heating had been set following a 2021\u00a0consultation<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Sunak announced an increase to the grant available through the\u00a0boiler upgrade scheme<\/a>. This currently sits at \u00a35,000 for air-source heat pumps, \u00a36,000 for ground-source heat pumps (including water-source heat pumps and those on shared ground loops) and \u00a36,000 for a biomass boiler.<\/p>\n

This will now be increased to \u00a37,500 to support households to switch from an oil or gas boiler. Whether the overall funding for the scheme will increase was not specified.<\/p>\n

Sunak stated that \u201cthis is one of the most generous schemes of its kind in Europe.\u201d. According to a\u00a0report<\/a>\u00a0from the\u00a0European Heat Pump Association\u00a0<\/a>(EHPA) earlier this year, the proposed level of subsidy is higher than many European countries, with Norway, for example, offering just \u20ac1,000 for ground-source heat pumps.<\/p>\n

However, it is still well below the level seen in countries such as Lithuania (\u20ac14,500), Germany (\u20ac15,000-\u20ac18,000), France (\u20ac15,000) and five Swiss cantons (\u20ac22,320), according to the EHPA.<\/p>\n

Energy efficiency<\/h4>\n

Sunak also announced that he was scrapping planned regulations on minimum energy efficiency standards for rental properties.<\/p>\n

Previously,\u00a0rules<\/a>\u00a0around the minimum energy efficiency standards (MEES) meant that rental properties had to meet an energy performance certificate (EPC) rating of E or above from 2025.<\/p>\n

However, if the cost of improving the energy efficiency to meet EPC E was above \u00a33,500, landlords could register for an \u201call improvements made\u201d\u00a0exemption<\/a>.<\/p>\n

There were additional\u00a0proposals<\/a>\u00a0that all existing privately rented properties should increase this to an EPC rating of C or above by 2028.<\/p>\n

Sunak said that \u201cwhile we will continue to subsidise energy efficiency, we\u2019ll never force any household to do it\u201d.<\/p>\n

He pointed to the \u201cGreat British insulation scheme\u201d, which started in\u00a0April 2023<\/a>. Last week, the government launched\u00a0\u00a31bn<\/a>\u00a0worth of grants under the scheme, which can be used by those in lower council tax bands with less energy efficient homes.<\/p>\n

Installing roof, loft or cavity wall insulation could cut annual energy bills by an average of between \u00a3300 and \u00a3400, the\u00a0government<\/a>\u00a0suggests.<\/p>\n

Citizens Advice<\/a>\u00a0analysis found upgrading Great Britain\u2019s\u00a0inefficient homes to EPC band C<\/a>\u00a0would save consumers \u00a324bn on their energy bills by 2030.<\/p>\n

Carbon Brief<\/a>\u00a0analysis in 2023 found that energy bills were nearly \u00a310bn higher than they would have been if climate policies, such as energy efficiency support, had not been scrapped over the past decade.<\/p>\n

Separate\u00a0analysis<\/a>\u00a0from the\u00a0Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit<\/a>\u00a0found that delaying the implementation of the MEES to 2030 would cost bill payers more than \u00a31.4bn under a medium gas price scenario.<\/p>\n

According to a\u00a0report<\/a>\u00a0from\u00a0Institute for Public Policy Research<\/a>, almost all of England\u2019s 24m homes need to be upgraded with either energy-efficiency measures, low-carbon heating or both. However, the UK government has been falling \u00a32.6bn short of its energy efficiency manifesto commitment.<\/p>\n

Carbon budgets<\/h4>\n

The process for signing off carbon budgets will be changed, said Sunak. The last carbon budget was debated for \u201cjust 17 minutes\u201d in the House of Commons, he claimed, and was voted through with \u201cbarely any consideration given to the hard choices needed to fulfil it\u201d.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt was the carbon equivalent of promising to boost government spending with no way to pay for it,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n

There is in fact already a\u00a0detailed process<\/a>\u00a0in place for agreeing carbon budgets, under which the government has to seek the advice of the Climate Change Committee (CCC) and take into account matters including the economic, fiscal and social circumstances.<\/p>\n

The most recently set sixth carbon budget was set by the government only after it had taken\u00a0CCC advice<\/a>, which included hundreds of pages of analysis on the \u201chard choices needed to fulfil it\u201d. The budget was also subject to a government\u00a0impact assessment<\/a>\u00a0considering different levels of ambition.<\/p>\n

Nevertheless, there was some support for the idea that carbon budgets be subject to more extensive parliamentary debate before being signed off.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n

Adam Bell<\/a>, director of policy at consultancy\u00a0Stonehaven<\/a>\u00a0and a former senior energy official, tells Carbon Brief that Sunak could be intending for future carbon budgets to be debated within the full parliament chamber, rather than in \u201cdelegated committee<\/a>\u201d as previously.<\/p>\n

Plans for how to meet the carbon budgets will now need to be seen at the same time as parliament votes on the budget itself, said Sunak. It is unclear what this would mean, given previous budgets were already voted on in light of CCC proposals on how to meet them.<\/p>\n

Energy infrastructure<\/h4>\n

Sunak announced that \u201ccomprehensive new reforms to energy infrastructure\u201d will soon be released by the chancellor and the climate and energy-security secretary, Claire Coutinho.<\/p>\n

Currently, it can take \u201c14 years\u201d to build new grid infrastructure, slowing down the rollout of energy technologies such as offshore wind and nuclear, he said.<\/p>\n

This will include plans to speed up the \u201cmost nationally significant projects\u201d and ending the<\/p>\n

\u201cfirst-come-first-served approach to grid connections by raising the bar to enter the queue and make sure those ready first, will connect first\u201d.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Challenges around grid infrastructure have been flagged by the energy industry for years. In May, National Grid set out its recommendations in a report called \u201cDelivering for 2035: Upgrading the grid for a secure, clean and affordable energy future<\/a>\u201d.<\/p>\n

These build on previous efforts to reduce grid-connection times, including a transmission entry capacity register\u00a0amnesty<\/a>\u00a0launched in 2022 and\u00a0targeted reforms<\/a>\u00a0announced in June to speed connection up by 10 years.<\/p>\n

Additionally, Sunak said the government will set out the \u201cUK\u2019s first-ever spatial plan for that infrastructure\u201d, in order \u201cto give industry certainty and every community a say\u201d.<\/p>\n

This would mean\u00a0planning out<\/a>\u00a0in advance the types of heating, transport and industry expected in different neighbourhoods in the future \u2013 and planning and developing the energy infrastructure that that will require.<\/p>\n

Additional changes<\/h4>\n

Beyond these elements, Sunak announced a new, \u00a3150m \u201cgreen future fellowship\u201d, which will support at least 50 scientists and engineers to develop \u201creal, breakthrough green technologies\u201d, he said.<\/p>\n

This will build on the \u00a31bn invested as part of the \u201cnet-zero innovation portfolio<\/a>\u201d, which was announced when Sunak was chancellor.<\/p>\n

Beyond these core changes, Sunak promised further details around protections for nature. He said:<\/p>\n

\u201cWe can\u2019t tackle climate change without protecting nature; and vice versa. Just the loss of forests alone accounts for the equivalent of ten times the global emissions of the entire United Kingdom.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u201cAnd, in the coming weeks, ahead of my attendance at COP28, I will set out the next stage in our ambitious environmental agenda.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Factcheck: How \u2018honest\u2019 was Sunak\u2019s speech?<\/h3>\n

Sunak\u2019s speech was pitched as a frank attempt to go beyond the normal bluster and duplicity of Westminster politics. He said there was a need to be \u201chonest with the public\u201d about net-zero, calling for a \u201cmore honest debate\u201d and \u201chonesty, not obfuscation\u201d.<\/p>\n

Yet, in reality, the prime minister\u2019s speech was full of statements that were at best exaggerated and at worst deceptive.<\/p>\n

Sunak said he was not \u201cabandoning any of our targets or commitments\u201d. He subsequently objected when multiple\u00a0journalists<\/a>\u00a0said he had \u201cwatered down\u201d the UK\u2019s climate plans, yet experts are\u00a0clear<\/a>\u00a0that this is the case.<\/p>\n

He also said he did not want the UK to be \u201creliant on expensive, imported energy from foreign dictators like Putin\u201d and wanted to avoid \u201cunacceptable costs on hard-pressed British families\u201d.<\/p>\n

But cutting energy-efficiency measures in homes and slowing down the transition from\u00a0fossil-fuelled cars<\/a>\u00a0and boilers will leave people more exposed to the high costs of imported fossil fuels. Tenants are now set to face\u00a0higher energy bills<\/a>\u00a0and consumers will likely experience a\u00a0more costly<\/a>\u00a0transition to EVs and heat pumps.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n

Broadly, Sunak repeatedly described net-zero policies as a \u201cburden\u201d, emphasising \u201ctough choices and sacrifices\u201d.<\/p>\n

This stands in stark contrast to the rhetoric of US president\u00a0Joe Biden<\/a>\u00a0or European Commission president\u00a0Ursula von der Leyen<\/a>, who have focused on the advantages of a rapid net-zero transition. The government\u2019s former \u201cnet-zero tsar\u201d Chris Skidmore has\u00a0called<\/a>\u00a0net-zero \u201cthe economic opportunity of the 21st century\u201d.<\/p>\n

The prime minister also framed net-zero policy as \u201clacking in debate and fundamental scrutiny\u201d. This was ironic, given his decision to announce such major changes came during a parliamentary recess rather than directly addressing MPs \u2013 a move\u00a0strongly objected to<\/a>\u00a0by House of Commons speaker, Lindsay Hoyle.<\/p>\n

Among Sunak\u2019s comments were claims that he had \u201cscrapped\u201d proposals ranging from taxes on meat to enforced carpooling, which are not and have never been government policy.<\/p>\n

These comments were met with widespread\u00a0derision<\/a>\u00a0from journalists and commentators. Many pointed out that it is impossible to scrap a proposal.<\/p>\n

Nevertheless, they have been central to the government\u2019s messaging around the new plans, appearing on social media\u00a0posts<\/a>\u00a0and the\u00a0frontpages<\/a>\u00a0of government-supporting newspapers.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n

Sunak made much in his speech of the UK\u2019s past successes in tackling climate change.<\/p>\n

He said the country had \u201cmassively over-delivered on every one of our carbon budgets despite continuous predictions we\u2019d miss them\u201d. (This is largely due to weak economic performance as a result of government policy, the global financial crisis and Covid.)<\/p>\n

Echoing a favoured climate-sceptic\u00a0talking point<\/a>, Sunak stressed that UK emissions had fallen far more than France, China or the US \u2013 and that the UK only makes up 1% of global emissions. He also said the UK\u2019s targets were more ambitious than any other major economy. (Number 10 released a\u00a0set of charts<\/a>\u00a0alongside the speech, to highlight this point.)<\/p>\n

It is true that the UK has some of the most ambitious climate targets and has cut emissions faster than many other comparable nations.<\/p>\n

However, such rhetoric ignores some important realities. The UK government has been warned\u00a0over<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0over<\/a>\u00a0again<\/a>\u00a0by its climate advisers the\u00a0Climate Change Committee<\/a>\u00a0(CCC) that it does not have policies in place to meet those climate targets. (See: How will this affect the UK\u2019s progress to net-zero?)<\/p>\n

Most of the cuts in UK emissions so far have come from phasing out coal and scaling up gas and renewables in the power system. The nation must now decarbonise high-emitting sectors such as transport and buildings \u2013 both of which have seen key emissions-cutting policies withdrawn by Sunak.<\/p>\n

Moreover, despite hailing \u201crapid technological advances\u201d, which have helped bring the cost of offshore wind down by 70% allowing the industry to surge, the prime minister failed to mention that the most recent\u00a0government auction<\/a>\u00a0for offshore wind secured no contracts at all. This was widely regarded as a result of Sunak\u2019s government\u00a0ignoring<\/a>\u00a0calls for industry to raise strike prices to reflect inflation levels.<\/p>\n

Sunak framed the 2030 ban on new petrol-and-diesel car sales as unfair, given the EU and others are aiming for a 2035 ban.<\/p>\n

This ignores the fact that the target was previously seen as the UK going further than the EU and aiming to attract post-Brexit investment. At the time, the government\u00a0said<\/a>, following public consultation, that an earlier ban was \u201ccentral to UK economic growth\u201d.<\/p>\n

Then-secretary of state Grant Shapps said that bringing forward the ban \u201ccould create 40,000 extra jobs\u201d.\u00a0Analysis<\/a>\u00a0by consultancy\u00a0Cambridge Econometrics<\/a>\u00a0that year concluded that the early ban could provide a \u00a34.2bn boost to the economy.<\/p>\n

The prime minister also emphasised the high cost of buying electric cars and heat pumps.<\/p>\n

Analysis<\/a>\u00a0by the\u00a0Social Market Foundation<\/a>\u00a0(SMF) has highlighted the money that people save when they own electric cars\u00a0\u2013 despite higher upfront costs\u00a0\u2013 due to lower costs of fuel and maintenance. It emphasised that Sunak\u2019s changes mean EVs are \u201cnow likely to remain expensive for longer\u201d amid market uncertainty in the UK.<\/p>\n

As for heat pumps, Sunak said:<\/p>\n

\u201cWe\u2019ll never force anyone to rip out their existing boiler and replace it with a heat pump.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

While this is often a\u00a0turn of phrase<\/a>\u00a0used in right-leaning newspapers, there has never been a government plan to make people \u201crip out\u201d their boilers. The plan was for no new gas boilers to be sold beyond 2035.<\/p>\n

As with electric cars, the loosened measures mean fewer people will benefit from the\u00a0cost savings<\/a>\u00a0of running a heat pump. The UK\u00a0already has<\/a>\u00a0some of the lowest installation rates in Europe, while trade body Energy UK\u00a0notes<\/a>\u00a0that policy changes \u201cwould be creating an unfavourable and uncertain investment landscape\u201d.<\/p>\n

Sunak described his decision not to require rental properties to be better insulated as beneficial to tenants. He said that \u201csome property owners would\u2019ve been forced to make expensive upgrades in just two years\u2019 time\u201d, adding:<\/p>\n

\u201cAnd, even if you\u2019re only renting, you\u2019ll more than likely see some of that passed on in higher rents. That\u2019s just wrong.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Yet\u00a0many<\/a>\u00a0assessments<\/a>, including\u00a0the government\u2019s own<\/a>, have concluded that such measures would collectively save tenants billions of pounds in energy bills, not to mention providing them with warmer homes. An E3G\u00a0analysis<\/a>\u00a0from January this year concluded that upgrading tenants to EPC C properties would save them, on average, \u00a3570 per year.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n

Sunak also listed a range of \u201cunnecessary and heavy-handed measures\u201d that he claimed to have \u201cscrapped\u201d.<\/p>\n

A \u201cmeat tax\u201d and a\u00a0frequent flyer levy<\/a>\u00a0to discourage people from engaging in high-emitting activities are both ideas that have been mooted for years. But, crucially, while they have been popular within\u00a0NGOs<\/a>\u00a0and some\u00a0thinktanks<\/a>, they have not featured in any government policies.<\/p>\n

In fact, all net-zero policies seeming to target behaviour change have been strongly opposed by successive Conservative governments. Former prime minister Boris Johnson rejected such \u201cnanny state<\/a>\u201d actions and explicitly\u00a0ruled out<\/a>\u00a0a meat tax.<\/p>\n

The government\u2019s own\u00a0food strategy<\/a>\u00a0recommends a 30% reduction in meat consumption by 2031, but even this does not recommend a tax on meat.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, the government\u2019s \u201cjet-zero\u201d plan<\/a>\u00a0for decarbonising planes sees UK air passenger numbers increase 70% by 2050. It contains no measures to discourage flying.<\/p>\n

A government-commissioned report on behaviour change, including possible actions to cut flying and meat consumption, was even\u00a0deleted<\/a>\u00a0from the government website shortly after being published alongside the net-zero strategy. (An archived version can be viewed\u00a0here<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

In the end, the government\u2019s March 2023\u00a0net-zero strategy<\/a>\u00a0said the goal would be to \u201cgo with the grain of existing behaviour and trends\u201d.<\/p>\n

Sunak also mentioned scrapping plans to \u201cinterfere in how many passengers you can have in your car\u201d. Again, this does not refer to an existing policy measure in the UK.<\/p>\n

There is a\u00a0mention<\/a>\u00a0of \u201cincreasing average road vehicle occupancy\u201d as a measure to be \u201cconsidered\u201d in the March 2023\u00a0delivery plan for net-zero<\/a>. It says the proposal \u201crequires further development\u201d.<\/p>\n

In 2021, the UK\u2019s\u00a0transport net-zero strategy<\/a>\u00a0mentioned ridesharing as a way to cut emissions, although primarily as a business opportunity.\u00a0Guidance<\/a>\u00a0for local authorities from 2022 also suggests councils could promote \u2013 non-compulsory \u2013 lift sharing schemes.<\/p>\n

Finally, there was a pledge to stop people being \u201cforced\u201d to have \u201cseven different bins\u201d for recycling in their homes. This appears to be based on a section of the government\u2019s\u00a02021 environment act<\/a>\u00a0that could have required local governments in England to collect six separate \u201crecyclable waste streams\u201d, plus household waste, subject to being activated by the secretary of state and with the option for councils to apply for an exemption.<\/p>\n

However, even this would not have meant every household receiving seven bins, something acknowledged in\u00a0guidance<\/a>\u00a0sent out by the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra):<\/p>\n

\u201cWhilst it was never the case that seven bins would be needed by households, this new plan ensures it.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

<\/div>\n

How will this affect the UK\u2019s progress to net-zero?<\/h3>\n

In snap\u00a0analysis<\/a>\u00a0published on the day of Sunak\u2019s speech, Carbon Brief illustrated the potential scale of emissions savings put at risk by his U-turns (see chart below).<\/p>\n

The analysis concluded that the rollbacks could put the UK\u2019s legally binding carbon budgets out of reach, as well as its international pledge made under the Paris Agreement.<\/p>\n

(Despite early hints that the government might consider weakening the UK\u2019s climate targets, Sunak insisted in his speech that he remained committed to all of them.)<\/p>\n

The chart below, taken from the analysis, shows how UK emissions have already changed since 1990 (black line).<\/p>\n

The country\u2019s legally binding climate goals under five-yearly carbon budgets are shown with grey shading. These are interim goals on the way to the target of net-zero emissions by 2050.<\/p>\n

Progress in cutting emissions under the 2021 net-zero strategy, according to the government\u2019s own numbers, are shown with the light blue line, with the March 2023 update shown in dark blue.<\/p>\n

The red line shows the aggregated emissions savings from policies which are now at risk as a result of Sunak\u2019s climate policy rollbacks, based on the government\u2019s\u00a0March 2023 estimates<\/a>.
\n\"\"
\nHistorical UK emissions (black line) in millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e); five yearly UK carbon budgets starting with the first from 2008-2012 (grey shading), including \u201cheadroom\u201d for emissions from international aviation and shipping (IAS), which will be fully incorporated into the UK\u2019s targets from sixth carbon budget (2033-2038, CB6); expected emissions under the government\u2019s 2021 net-zero strategy (light blue line) and its March 2023 update (dark blue), as well as a trajectory from there onwards to net-zero by 2050; policies at risk under Sunak\u2019s climate policy rollbacks (red line). Source: Carbon Brief analysis. Chart by Simon Evans for Carbon Brief using Highcharts.<\/em><\/p>\n

Some of the policies at risk identified in the chart above have now been backed by the government \u2013 the ZEV mandate, for example. However, given the mandate is yet to be firmly implemented and remains subject to parliamentary approval, in a hostile media environment stoked by Sunak\u2019s rhetoric, the emissions savings it embodies still remain at risk. Even though some of the policy changes have turned out to be more limited than Sunak\u2019s speech suggested, the confusion he created for consumers \u2013 and the uncertainty for investors \u2013 could have long-lasting impacts.<\/p>\n

This could affect the attractiveness of the UK as a place to make low-carbon investments, the pace of consumer uptake of key low-carbon technologies and, ultimately, the speed of resulting emissions cuts.<\/p>\n

Even before Sunak\u2019s speech, the UK was off track for its targets. The government\u2019s\u00a0own figures<\/a>, published in March 2023 and shown in dark blue in the chart, showed its quantified policies would not be enough to meet the 2030 Paris pledge or the legally binding sixth carbon budget covering 2033-2037.<\/p>\n

Moreover, the CCC had\u00a0said in June<\/a>\u00a0that the updated March net-zero strategy \u201cworsened\u201d the chances of the UK meeting its targets. It said there were only \u201ccredible\u201d policies in place to make one-fifth of the emissions cuts needed over the next decade.<\/p>\n

In its progress report, the CCC had urged the government to \u201cstay firm on existing commitments and move to delivery\u201d. The government has done the opposite.<\/p>\n

Responding to Sunak\u2019s rollbacks, CCC interim chair Prof Piers Forster said in a\u00a0statement<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\u201cWe need to go away and do the calculations, but today\u2019s announcement is likely to take the UK further away from being able to make its legal commitments. This, coupled with the recent unsuccessful offshore wind auction, gives us concern.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Forster added that \u201cmore action is needed\u201d and said the CCC would wait for the government\u2019s new plan for meeting its targets. The government had been due to respond to the committee\u2019s progress report in mid-October, but has given itself until 31 October.<\/p>\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

The government\u2019s March 2023 net-zero strategy was already facing legal challenges over its failure to adequately address risks to the delivery of its policies.<\/p>\n

Now, the\u00a0Good Law Project<\/a>\u00a0has\u00a0written to the government<\/a>\u00a0asking to see how it still expects to meet its targets in light of the changes Sunak announced.<\/p>\n

The government has a legal duty under section 13 of the\u00a0Climate Change Act 2008<\/a>\u00a0to have \u201cpolicies and proposals\u201d in place that will enable the carbon budgets to be met.<\/p>\n

Interviewed on BBC Radio 4\u2019s Today programme the day after his speech, Sunak insisted that his government had looked at this and was confident the duty was still met:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe secretary of state on behalf of the government under the current law has an ongoing responsibility to ensure that we do have policies and proposals in place that will allow us to meet all our international and domestic obligations, which we remain committed to. We have absolute confidence and belief that we will hit them\u2026we are confident, absolutely confident, in our position. We\u2019ve been through all the numbers, we\u2019ve looked at the range of policies we have in place.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Good Law Project letter asks the government to disclose the analysis referred to by Sunak \u201cas a matter of urgency\u201d.<\/p>\n

The government is\u00a0likely<\/a>\u00a0to face fresh legal challenges over its net-zero strategy in light of Sunak\u2019s speech, where the numbers attached to his rollbacks \u2013\u00a0and the likelihood of being able to still meet UK targets\u00a0\u2013 would be tested by the courts.<\/p>\n

The government\u2019s original 2021 strategy was ruled unlawful by the High Court last year.<\/p>\n

Why did Sunak make this speech?<\/h3>\n

The speech comes at a difficult time for Sunak and his Conservative party.<\/p>\n

Trailing in the\u00a0polls<\/a>, the Conservatives will face a general election within the next 15 months in which they are\u00a0likely<\/a>\u00a0to be beaten by Labour, a party that has\u00a0pledged<\/a>\u00a0to spend \u00a328bn a year to support low-carbon jobs and industry.<\/p>\n

According to the\u00a0Guardian<\/a>, the government\u2019s strategy team has identified climate policy as a key battleground in the coming months:<\/p>\n

\u201cWith the prime minister\u2019s electoral options narrowing, there is a desire to attack the opposition\u2019s \u00a328bn of spending on supporting the transition to net-zero.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Sunak\u2019s speech suggests he is seeking to emphasise his support for \u201chard-pressed British families\u201d facing the additional cost of net-zero policies during an economic downturn.<\/p>\n

Opponents of climate policies have consistently portrayed net-zero as \u201cexpensive for ordinary people\u201d. This is in spite of\u00a0analysis<\/a>\u00a0consistently showing that the average household ultimately stands to save thousands of pounds due to net-zero policies.<\/p>\n

Sunak\u2019s new approach also ties in with pre-existing sentiments of many on the right wing of the Conservative party.<\/p>\n

Conservative backbenchers, as well as climate sceptics such as\u00a0David Frost<\/a>, have\u00a0pushed hard<\/a>\u00a0for the 2030 petrol and diesel car ban, in particular, to be delayed. The imminent ban on new oil boilers in rural areas has also been strongly opposed. The party\u2019s supportive newspapers, such as the Sun, Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail, have also campaigned relentlessly on these issues.<\/p>\n

Polling\u00a0tends<\/a>\u00a0to show broad support for a net-zero target across the country, including among\u00a0Conservative members<\/a>.<\/p>\n

However, when polls drill down into the policies required to achieve net-zero, there is more dissent. One recent YouGov\u00a0poll<\/a>\u00a0found that half of voters supported a delay to the petrol and diesel car ban, while one-third opposed it. (Although other\u00a0polls<\/a>\u00a0have shown larger majorities in favour of keeping the 2030 ban.)<\/p>\n

Among Conservative party members, 82% opposed the 2030 ban altogether, according to a self-selecting Conservative Home\u00a0poll<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Nevertheless, overall, the British public appears to support more climate action from the government.<\/p>\n

Polling<\/a>\u00a0conducted by political consultancy\u00a0More In Common<\/a>\u00a0in the week of Sunak\u2019s speech concluded that, by a 49-18 point margin, the public would prefer the government to do more rather than less to reach net-zero.<\/p>\n

Another snap\u00a0assessment<\/a>\u00a0found that 41% of people are \u201cless likely\u201d to vote Conservative if the government does not stick to the climate commitments it has made.<\/p>\n

What has been the reaction to the announcement?<\/h3>\n

Sunak said misleadingly at the start of his speech that \u201cwe\u2019ve stumbled into a consensus about the future of our country that no one seems to be happy with\u201d.<\/p>\n

Yet the response to the announcement suggests that many are not happy with the new political divide he is trying to form.<\/p>\n

A range of politicians have decried the move, ranging from those in the UK, such as\u00a0Ed Miliband<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Caroline Lucas<\/a>, through to international figures, such as\u00a0Al Gore<\/a>\u00a0and the UN climate chief\u00a0Simon Stiell<\/a>, who have criticised the \u201cshocking and really disappointing\u201d changes.<\/p>\n

Numerous Conservatives have also criticised the move including\u00a0Boris Johnson<\/a>,\u00a0Sir Alok Sharma<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Simon Clarke<\/a>, while\u00a0Zac Goldsmith<\/a>\u00a0dubbed this \u201ca moment of shame\u201d and called for a snap general election.<\/p>\n

Thinktanks, charities and other organisations, such as\u00a0Greenpeace<\/a>, the\u00a0Trade Union\u2019s Congress<\/a>\u00a0and the\u00a0Conservative Environment Network<\/a>, have slammed Sunak\u2019s changes as \u201cincoherent<\/a>\u201d climate politicking.<\/p>\n

Similarly, much of the industry has voiced its opposition to the changes, including\u00a0Ford<\/a>,\u00a0Vaillant<\/a>,\u00a0EV England<\/a>,\u00a0Eon<\/a>\u00a0and others, who argue they will reduce industry confidence, putting\u00a0investment at risk<\/a>\u00a0and, ultimately, cost consumers money.<\/p>\n

Former\u00a0Siemens UK<\/a>\u00a0CEO Juergen Maier\u00a0said<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s just chaos, isn\u2019t it? It beggars belief\u2026I\u2019m honestly angry. Everybody [industry] is now sitting and wobbling and wondering. And I tell you what, they won\u2019t be investing in the UK.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Over 400 companies<\/a>\u00a0and civil society groups have already signed an open letter opposing the rollback.<\/p>\n

But others have welcomed the changes, including politicians such as\u00a0Liz Truss<\/a>,\u00a0Jacob Rees-Mogg<\/a>,\u00a0Suella Braverman<\/a>, and newly appointed minister for energy security and net-zero\u00a0Claire Coutinho<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Speaking to the\u00a0BBC Today programme<\/a>, Braverman said:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe costs of achieving some of these arbitrary targets has to be taken into account. These goals are just that, goals, not straightjackets and we need to ensure that we work towards those goals in a sustainable way, a mature way, a pragmatic way.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In contrast, right-leaning climate-sceptic lobby groups, such as the\u00a0Countryside Alliance<\/a>,\u00a0Institute of Economic Affairs<\/a>, and\u00a0Net Zero Watch<\/a>, were among those to welcome the delays to oil-boiler bans and the end to the sale of new petrol and diesel cars.<\/p>\n

The media reaction has included a wide range of editorials and comments pieces, expansive coverage of which can be seen in Carbon Brief\u2019s two most recent Daily Briefing email newsletters (21 September<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a022 September<\/a>).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In a shock announcement, UK prime minister Rishi Sunak\u00a0revealed\u00a0earlier this week plans to abandon or delay core parts of his government\u2019s climate strategy.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":128238,"featured_media":3498479,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[79716,213529,79718],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3498464","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-energy","category-energy-featured","category-environment"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3498464","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/128238"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3498464"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3498464\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3498479"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3498464"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3498464"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3498464"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}