The public still isn’t being told the full, horrifying truth about the net zero permanent revolution

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/09/the-public-still-isnt-being-told-the-truth-about-net-zero/

What is it with bureaucrats and their five-year plans? The Soviets went through 12 of them, devised by Moscow’s infamous Gosplan; the Chinese are currently on their fourteenth, firmly focused on achieving geopolitical supremacy. Unbeknown to most voters, the central planners have also been unleashed on Britain ­ not to maximise the production of widgets, but to make sure we reach net zero.

A green nomenklatura now yields immense power. Tories, Labour, Lib Dems: all have signed up to legally binding five-year plans, known as “carbon budgets”, which stipulate a detailed programme to re-engineer society to cut emissions by a specific amount. Scandalously, what the electorate thinks of these grossly under-scrutinised plans matters little.

Did you know, dear reader, that we are now on our fourth such carbon budget, valid from 2023 to 2027? Did you realise that the next two ­ up until 2037 ­ have already been enshrined in law, making a mockery of the next two or even three general elections? Were you aware that all of the consumer-facing changes ­ in 18 months, no newly built home will be fitted with a gas boiler, in seven years’ time, it will be illegal to buy new petrol cars, in 12 years, you will no longer be allowed to replace your existing boiler like-for-like ­ have been accounted for in the plans, gravely limiting room for political manoeuvre? Did you realise that any significant deviation from these carbon budgets could trigger legal action from pressure groups?

As energy secretary, Ed Miliband pushed through the Climate Change Act in 2008, committing to cut emissions by 80 per cent on 1990 levels by 2050, with the support of all but five MPs. It was the equivalent of another Maastricht Treaty, a huge shift that will, in time, trigger a furious reaction from the electorate when it realises that it is no longer in control. It was apposite that, in 2019, Theresa May, fresh from sabotaging Brexit, amended the Climate Change Act by statutory instrument, increasing the target to a 100 per cent cut in emissions by 2050.

That distant date has lulled many into a false sense of flexibility. Why can’t we delay the ban on combustion engines to 2035 or even later, naive souls ask, and still meet net zero on time? The reality is that it could well be unlawful because cuts to emissions must be phased in according to a strict timetable.

The Government is obliged to set binding, five-year carbon budgets that cap the maximum amount of emissions allowed during each period; each budget is much tougher than the previous one. Meeting them is no joke: they need to be legislated 12 years in advance and be accompanied by credible policies to deliver them in full. Miliband’s Act created the Climate Change Committee (CCC), a ridiculously influential quango which advises the Government on the level of each budget and how much of a contribution each sector should make.

Through a combination of a recession, continued deindustrialisation, insufficient house and infrastructure building and the shift towards renewable energy, the UK met its first (2008- 2012), second (2013-2017) and third (2018-2022) carbon budgets without needing to try too hard. We are now into our fourth budget, requiring a 52 per cent fall in emissions compared with 1990; this, too, could be manageable, partly because of stronger than expected sales of electric cars. But the pain is starting, and the backlash ­ from landlords, from motorists ­ is beginning.

Real, Brexit-intensity political warfare will undoubtedly break out ahead of the fifth budget (2028-2032) and especially sixth (2033-37), which will include aviation and shipping, coincide with the ban on new petrol cars and all new gas boilers, a massive, hugely costly insulation drive and require a cumulative 77 per cent cut in emissions.

The Government has very little leeway if it wishes to continue to accept the strictures of the Climate Change Act. This is like membership of the EU, albeit entirely self-imposed. As we saw with Ulez, the public is greatly supportive of decarbonisation, but only if their pocket isn’t visibly picked and only if their quality of life doesn’t decline. Voters will furiously oppose many of the looming changes, and will demand to take back control when they are told that MPs are powerless to do anything about them.

For all of Rishi Sunak’s recent messaging, anti-car policies that go beyond the ban on the combustion engine are already baked into the carbon budgets. One policy requires “increasing average road vehicle occupancy” (even with electric cars) and another “high annual investment in cycling and walking infrastructure” (Low-Traffic Neighbourhoods are one way of doing this).

So much for democracy: it may be possible to delay the ban on petrol cars to 2032, the last year of the fifth budget, a proposal which the head of the CCC has already approved, but it is hard to see how the deadline could slip further. Any extra emissions in one area must be met by an equivalent reduction in another. It’s a zero sum game.

Crucially, the CCC doesn’t believe that technology alone will get us to net zero. Electric cars aren’t enough; we will still have to drive less. We will need to fly less, even with sustainable fuels. We will need to eat 20-35 per cent less dairy and meat.

The CCC remains little-known, but it is an extremely powerful agency, probably second only to the Bank of England, hence why at least 60 candidates have applied to be its next chairman. Mr Sunak is set to announce his pick in November. It will be a key moment: will the PM appoint an evangelist for tech solutions who supports the consumer society and freedom, or will he plump for another identikit member of the Blobocracy keen to stick to command and control?

Yet hiring a sensible chairman isn’t enough. Net zero is on autopilot, and the deadline too tight to avoid crippling restrictions, a huge increase in the national debt and rolling blackouts. We need a shadow CCC with alternative models. Ultimately, however, given that Britain accounts for only 1 per cent of global emissions, the only real solution is to amend or scrap the Climate Change Act, and inject more flexibility into the decarbonisation timetable. It may be that we cannot ever reach net zero, or that it will take longer; what is clear is that the current course is dangerously lacking in democratic legitimacy.