net zero

I think it was Tony Blair that proposed that Government should be about setting targets.

Initially it seemed like a good idea. Rather than trying to micromanage everything, Government could just set a target and leave delivery up to those that know what they’re doing. The problem is that this idea has grown into a horrible monster.

For too long, Government has realised it can give the appearance of doing something by simply setting a target. No longer does it need to think up plausible policy to meet the target, let alone do the hard work of actually delivering anything, or even funding its delivery. And when a target becomes inconvenient, it can be quietly dropped.

For example, the target that all new homes would be zero carbon by 2016, was dropped in late 2015. Today, this has probably added around £1000 p.a to each new home buyers’ energy bills.

Governments quite like making policy announcements, (sometimes simply re-announcing previous policies) However, these policies are often inadequate to meet the target. As the Committee on Climate Change pointed out last year, only 39% of the emissions savings needed to meet the Net Zero target, are backed up by credible plans or policies.

Policies are also frequently contradictory, for example opening new coal mines and licensing more offshore oil wells, while claiming to be decarbonising.

Increasingly “delivery” has been delegated to local councils, while simultaneously reducing their funding and powers. This is unjust, ineffective and deeply frustrating.

Despite many people facing real hardship because of energy prices, Government has made it very difficult for a council to give planning permission for a new wind farm, even though it’s the cheapest source of power, and widely supported.

Increasingly, councils have to compete with each other for tiny grants, often at short notice, making efficient delivery impossible.

As Lord Deben pointed out at a Climate Seminar in Cambridge the other day, as everyone now agrees on the bare minimum climate targets, we need to move on from focussing on targets, to focussing on delivery.

This is why the recently released Skidmore Review on how to deliver Net Zero could be very useful. Former Energy Minister Chris Skidmore was appointed during Liz Truss’s brief time as PM, and he has clearly framed his report to appeal to the Right. Nevertheless it endorses everything the Climate Committee (and Labour) have been saying.

It points out strongly that Net Zero is “the growth opportunity of the 21st century”. Among other things it calls for more onshore wind, a “rooftop revolution” in solar energy, and a switch to heat-pumps. It also calls for Local Government to be empowered and funded to deliver.

Let’s just hope Central Government is listening.

First published, Cambridge Independent, 1 February 2023

The other day I met a young climate activist, outraged that one of the funders of the Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership (CISL) was involved in unsustainable activities. As CISL’s “partners” include Heathrow, I can see their point.

However, although it is absolutely right to challenge greenwash, I also think we need to be thoughtful about the ways in which we push for change. No individual and certainly no organisation is entirely “pure”. Change takes time and CISL is in many ways an exemplar of an organisation that’s trying to do the right thing, both itself (for example the superb Entopia building) and in its help for others.

That said, greenwash is increasingly common. Businesses realise that customers, employees and investors want to see them reducing carbon emissions. While some are taking real action, others are disguising their inaction with a generous coating of greenwash. This can take the form of distraction, omission, or in the worst cases, outright deception.

Oil and gas firms are prolific greenwashers so, in an example of distraction greenwash, BP’s website proudly highlights their relatively minor investments in renewables, while hardly mentioning the word “oil”. They say they aim to be Net Zero by 2050, but this is only by omitting the impact of the carbon emissions from the oil and gas that they sell to others. What puts their greenwashing in the worst category, is that they’re not just doing too little, they’re also working hard to get gas accepted as a low carbon fuel (which it isn’t, particularly once the leakage of methane is taken into account)

In 2019, Heathrow were proudly promoting their use of local renewable woodchips to heat the building, while ignoring the impact of the flights that their business depends on!

Sign celebrating use of renewable woodchips to heat Heathrow’s Terminal 2 in 2019

Companies are increasingly getting into trouble because of greenwash

In October, in a landmark ruling, The UK Advertising Standards watchdog banned HSBC’s advertising campaign as misleading, because it focussed on tree planting and didn’t mention their financing of fossil fuel projects and links to deforestation.

Offsetting is another common form of distraction greenwash. However, at the recent COP27 climate meeting, the UN’s High Level Expert Group confirmed that companies can’t pretend to be on a path to Net Zero by buying cheap carbon offsets without reducing their underlying carbon emissions.

It’s right for customers and regulators to challenge greenwash, but it’s also generating a new phenomena of “Greenhushing” where companies have sound Net Zero plans, but don’t talk about them. This can be either because they don’t want to be accused of greenwash, or because they don’t want trouble if they miss their targets.

This all makes it quite difficult for consumers to know where to spend. However good advice is firstly to consider whether you need to buy at all. And if you do need to buy, but are confused about which option is genuinely more sustainable, “go smaller, local, and independent.”

First published, Cambridge Independent January 2023

It’s about delivery

Greenwash, or greenhush?