Britain to adopt ambitious new climate target: comment

"In the heat of the debate, the critical point that politicians will likely miss out is why net zero in the first place. It was British scientists who described the need to stop adding ever more emissions to the atmosphere, to reach net zero emissions in order to bring our climate back into balance and stop climate change.  As the UK has just confirmed to have had its first 'megafire’ [2], three of the worst harvests in England occurring in the past five years [3] and with experts predicting the mercury could now hit 45C in the UK [4], unless the world hits net zero all of this continues to get much worse for us.

“Progress has been slower than it could have been, but China's emissions look to have now peaked [5] and the UK is more than halfway to reaching net zero. Around 84% of the global economy is covered by a commitment to net zero [6] meaning it's not just science, it's an economic megatrend. Of large economies only Iran and the US don’t. [7] Net zero means burning less oil and gas and so with the backdrop of a second crisis spawned by the US bombing of Iran, British people are increasingly choosing net zero technologies like solar, EVs, heat pumps and home batteries to insulate themselves from volatile prices, doing their bit to cut emissions at the same time.”

Recent polling found that on net zero, two-thirds (68%) of voters said they thought the UK should at least try or be doing everything we can to hit its 2050 target [8]. British physicist Professor Sir Jim Skea, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said recently about net zero that “it’s chemistry and physics that if you want to stop global warming, you have to achieve net zero emissions, and that isn’t a political choice.” [9] 

Dr Ella Gilbert, a climate scientist formerly of the British Antarctic Survey said: "The science is clear: dramatic emissions cuts to achieve net zero are essential. The world is heating at an accelerating rate, driving up food prices and insurance risk, and delivering extreme events that are devastating communities across the world.

"Here in the UK we are on the verge of breaking records for May temperatures that were last set in 1944. And every fraction of a degree of climate heating pushes the likelihood and severity of these extremes ever upwards.

"Something needs to change, and the government must level up its ambition - the best time for ambition was when the science was first communicated. The next best time is now."

Dr Pauline Heinrichs, Lecturer in Climate and Energy Security at the Department of War Studies, King's College London said: "As the Climate Change Committee and the high costs associated with fossil fuel crises have repeatedly shown: every delay in reaching net zero today will be more expensive in the future and it will be taxpayers who will bear the costs of government inaction.

"Delaying net zero at a time at which people have to manage yet another fossil fuel crisis means directly investing in the sources of our insecurity. It is time that we address the sources of insecurity rather than treat the symptoms."

Gaurav Madan, Research Scientist at the National Centre for Atmospheric Science at the University of Reading said: "Net zero is not just a policy target; it is a safeguard for the future of the British Isles. The AMOC, the Atlantic circulation that transports heat northward and helps moderate our climate, is projected to weaken in a warmer world. That weakening could have serious consequences for food security, livelihoods, energy demand and biodiversity. The difficulty is that the ocean responds slowly. By the time the full consequences are visible, much of the damage may already be locked in. That is why delaying net zero is not caution - it is risk accumulation."

Dr Duo Chan, Lecturer in Climate Sciences at the University of Southampton said: "Every tonne of carbon dioxide we emit adds to the long-lived stock of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and part of its warming effect persists for centuries. Delaying net zero is therefore not harmless: the later we act, the more warming we lock in. The UK is not a bystander in this global problem. Our emissions contribute to the same atmosphere, and we are exposed to the consequences, from worsening heat and flooding to the risk of pushing parts of the climate system closer to critical thresholds.

"A particularly UK-relevant example is the Atlantic overturning circulation, which transports heat into the North Atlantic and helps maintain our relatively mild climate. There is scientific uncertainty about how likely a collapse is, and when it could occur, but even the risk of a major weakening or collapse is not a small regional concern. It could profoundly disrupt the climate conditions the UK has built its homes, farming, water management and infrastructure around, with consequences for winter temperatures, rainfall extremes, coastal sea level and storm tracks. The rational response is not to treat uncertainty as permission to gamble. It is to cut emissions steadily and reach net zero as soon as possible."

Laura Anderson, Environmental Scientist, said: “The Government’s decision to accept the Climate Change Committee’s Seventh Carbon Budget is a significant and welcome moment for the UK’s climate response. At a time of growing climate impacts, global instability and volatile energy prices, it sends an important signal that the UK remains committed to following the science and providing long-term certainty on the path to net zero.

“Carbon budgets are a legally binding part of the UK’s climate framework under the Climate Change Act and play a crucial role in guiding investment, infrastructure and decision-making across the economy. Accepting this budget helps provide confidence for businesses, communities and industries planning for the future.

“Reaching net zero is not just about cutting emissions, it is also about strengthening energy security, reducing exposure to volatile fossil fuel markets and building a more resilient economy. Recent global crises have shown the risks of continued dependence on oil and gas prices driven by wars and geopolitics. Expanding clean, homegrown energy and accelerating the transition to low-carbon homes, transport and industry is one of the clearest ways to protect households from future shocks while creating jobs and economic opportunities across the UK.”

Professor John Barrett, Priestley Centre for Climate Futures, University of Leeds, said: "The UK Climate Change Committee’s 7th Carbon Budget highlights the importance of decarbonisation, rather than emitting now and cleaning up later. This means not relying on expensive and emerging technologies, such as hydrogen power or “direct air capture” – essentially huge machines that filter carbon from the air. Instead, electric vehicles, heat pumps for both households and industry, and the rapid expansion of solar and wind power are expected to drive emissions reductions. Although these technologies are already available, they still need to be deployed at scale.

"The CCC’s analysis confirms that the upfront investments of acting now on net zero will balance the expense from the late 2030s and into the future. However, transitioning to net zero now is likely to be more lucrative, as the CCC’s analysis does not factor in the financial losses associated with the effects of climate change if we “do nothing”, including extreme weather. These losses could be substantial.

"The effects of climate change could shrink global GDP by 50% between 2070 and 2090 (Institute and Faculty of Actuaries). When combined with the additional benefits of climate action, it’s clear that a “do nothing” approach is simply not an option. Consideration of the social transformation that examines how we travel and what we buy, will allow us to fully unlock the benefits of net zero."