Rebranding net-zero as energy independence has strong appeal in the UK
The Johnson Government is rebranding its policy on net-zero as a quest for energy independence from Putin’s Russia, writes Derrick Wyatt. This is leading to a short-term emphasis on domestic fossil fuel production, but increased focus on nuclear and renewables. This blog is a short and amended version of one posted by the LSE’s British Politics and Policy Blog on 1 April.
In a previous blog I have pointed out that in the UK some MPs are net-zero objectors who express their misgivings by criticizing the costs of net-zero, and others, including the Chancellor Rishi Sunak, who are worried about the costs of net-zero full stop.
Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has injected energy independence into the equation. Policies designed to achieve net-zero are also policies to promote energy independence from discredited foreign suppliers like Putin’s Russia, and Saudi Arabia for that matter. Such dual-purpose policies include support for nuclear energy and renewables, as well as for home insulation and even heat pumps.
Another complicating factor for net-zero objectors is that some renewable sources of energy have become cheaper than fossil fuels. In 2020 the UK Government forecast that onshore wind and solar power would be half as costly as gas in 2025, but already by mid-2021 new onshore wind power was costing less than half that from existing gas plants.
This is consistent with a much broader picture,
“For years models and projections from energy institutions such as the IEA [International Energy Agency] have vastly underestimated how quickly renewable energy costs would fall, and how much capacity would increase.”
That is the assessment of the Sustainable Development Team at Lombard Odier, a Swiss private bank specialising in wealth and asset management.
All this has put green energy in the forefront of the Government’s efforts to boost UK-sourced energy, as well as speeding the transition to net-zero. This amounts to rebranding climate change policy as energy independence policy. For the UK, an obvious route to energy independence is via increased investment in nuclear, wind and solar power, and this seems to be the Government’s plan.
It is true that solar and wind power need alternative energy generation as backup to cover dull and windless days, pending availability of more electricity storage capacity. Nuclear power has potential in hybrid nuclear/renewables systems, using intermittent input from standard reactors, or modular units. The Government has already invested in a Rolls Royce venture to produce small modular nuclear reactors.
In April 2022 the UK Government announced plans which could mean up to 95% of the UK’s electricity coming from low carbon sources by 2030. This could involve up to 8 new nuclear reactors, and 50 gigawatts (GW) of energy from offshore windfarms.
Energy storage technology to support renewables is developing quickly, for example by way of factory scale lithium-ion battery storage or technology beyond lithium-ion of various kinds. Wholly new methods of electricity storage promise increased efficiencies and cost savings.
Net-zero objectors tend to support energy independence. One of their favoured options is indeed nuclear energy. Another is shale gas production.
There are two problems with restarting shale gas production. One is that it would be unlikely to reduce the price of energy in the UK. Another is that shale gas production produces earthquakes. The enthusiasm of net-zero objectors for domestic shale gas production may not be shared by the public at large, and opinion polls have shown little support for fracking.
That said, some shale gas production might be feasible in the UK, and a government committed to net-zero would not be bound to rule shale gas out as a transitional fuel en route to the decarbonization of UK energy supplies.
The quest for energy independence offers the UK Government a pretext for being more flexible about transitional recourse to fossil fuels than would the case if global warming were the only consideration. Boris Johnson has certainly been reported as referring to “a transition with more hydrocarbons”. This might be seen by some as a chance to mitigate some of the costs of net-zero and reassure those in Conservative ranks who are uneasy about those costs, including the Chancellor Rishi Sunak.
None of this need prejudice the UK’s obligations under the Paris Agreement, which allows national governments considerable leeway to design their own commitments to achieve net-zero.
The UK would not be an outlier if it slowed transition from some fossil fuels in the name of energy independence, in the aftermath of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Germany for example is considering slowing its transition from coal. To put this in a broader context, China will in any event be “phasing down” coal until 2060, and India plans to burn coal until 2070.
There is considerable support in the UK for net-zero policies. But the public has some reservations. A recent poll showed majority support for a number of net-zero policies, but that those majorities disappeared when people were made aware of the lifestyle changes required – such as being unable to buy a gas boiler. The public may support net-zero, as long as the Government will cushion them and their families from the personal costs and inconvenience involved. That is not a completely unreasonable position to take. Intergenerational equity is for today’s citizens, as well as tomorrow’s.
The Government’s blending of its climate change policy with its policy on energy independence is likely to appeal to a broader base than would its climate-change policy alone.
By Derrick Wyatt, QC, Emeritus Professor of Law, University of Oxford, and former barrister specialising in litigation before the EU Courts. He has advised government bodies and businesses on legal issues relating to the environment and climate change. He is a Member of the International Academic Council of Fundacion Fide, an independent and non-partisan Spanish think-tank.