The Guardian view on net-zero carbon emissions: sooner is better

The Guardian    
Opinion
The Guardian view on net-zero carbon emissions: sooner is better
Editorial

Government advisers have explained how to erase the nation’s carbon footprint. Science dictates that we do it as fast as we can

Thu 2 May 2019 18.29 BST
Last modified on Fri 3 May 2019 07.12 BST

Shares
136
Comments
624
A protester holds a placard saying ‘There is no planet B’ during a Climate emergency protest in Parliament Square on 1 May.

By the end of this year we should expect UK law to mandate net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Thursday’s report by the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), which advises the government, sets out not only why this new target is needed, but how it can be achieved. Last year the UN warned of greatly increased dangers if countries do not stick to the lower end of the 1.5-2C of global warming mandated by the Paris agreement. Experts highlighted sea level rises and risks to insect and coral species among problems likely to be seriously exacerbated by an additional 0.5C rise.

This is the reason for governments to set new, tougher targets in advance of upcoming UN climate talks, at which they will be held to account and forced to decide what happens next. At the same time, dramatic falls in the cost of renewable energy and battery storage mean that cutting emissions has become cheaper. The CCC believes it is possible to eliminate the UK’s carbon footprint altogether without investing more than already planned: that is, between 1% and 2% of GDP. So there is some good news, along with the bad.
Sign up to the Green Light email to get the planet's most important stories
Read more

Costs are concentrated in the power and construction sectors. New energy sources such as hydrogen need infrastructure, while wind and solar must be scaled up. New technologies such as carbon capture and storage require trials. Buildings must become energy-efficient as gas boilers, 1m of which are installed each year, are phased out. Huge numbers of trees need planting, with one-fifth of all agricultural land turned over to forests, peatland or energy crops. People should be encouraged to make different choices, eating less beef, lamb and dairy. The report suggests a target of 2030 for ending the sale of petrol and diesel cars, but then wrongly settles for 2035. Currently, transport emissions are still going up.

As well as a practical and moral case for action, the report makes a strategic one. The UK was a pioneer in climate legislation. Where one country leads, others will follow and such leadership brings power as well as prestige. Without a new target the UK will soon be overtaken (France has a 2050 target for net-zero, although not yet a law; Sweden and Norway have earlier deadlines but less strict rules). Since climate chaos will bring political chaos, limiting it is in the national interest.

A “green new deal” has become popular currency on the progressive side of politics in the UK, US and Spain. This idea usefully links technological and environmental change with the prospect of a renewed social contract and the questions of justice often emphasised by environmentalists. The CCC’s report must have been all but complete before most people had heard of Extinction Rebellion, or seen pictures of the Swedish activist Greta Thunberg with environment secretary Michael Gove. But the extraordinary success of protesters over recent weeks, both in raising awareness and materially altering the climate debate, makes it more likely that targets will be further strengthened, as they have been before and should be again. The 2050 target is not ambitious enough.

A government that purports to accept climate science but promotes aviation, road-building and fracking, while making onshore wind all but impossible and cutting back on subsidies for green energy, deserves to be exposed. To this end, as well as that of helping to shift public opinion, it is crucial that activists, including those opposing airport expansion, as well as politicians, continue their work.

About one thing Extinction Rebellion was absolutely right: people must be told the truth. The brave new world of 2050 need not be a dystopia, even if some damaging effects of warming are now inevitable and the prospect of a second Trump term gives cause for alarm. But if we are to avoid the most dangerous consequences of a warmer world, we must find ways not only to limit and mitigate the risks of physical changes; but also to make political ones. The kind of long-termism that climate change requires is not a good fit with modern electoral cycles – or 24-hour news. Finding ways to counter this, and build the future into our politics, is a challenge not just for politicians, environmentalists and civil society groups, but for human civilisation as a whole.
At this critical time…

… we can’t turn away from climate change. The Guardian’s environmental coverage reports the scientific facts, social consequences and political choices that are shaping the fate of our planet. As the world's leaders turn their backs on the environment, we are at a crisis point. Individual consumer choices are important, but we need collective action to achieve the systemic change that will really make a difference. Our pioneering and our fearless reporting on the environment can play a vital role in that. But we need our readers’ support.

More people are reading and supporting our independent, investigative reporting than ever before. And unlike many news organisations, we have chosen an approach that allows us to keep our journalism accessible to all, regardless of where they live or what they can afford.

The Guardian is editorially independent, meaning we set our own agenda. Our journalism is free from commercial bias and not influenced by billionaire owners, politicians or shareholders. No one edits our editor. No one steers our opinion. This is important as it enables us to give a voice to those less heard, challenge the powerful and hold them to account. It’s what makes us different to so many others in the media, at a time when factual, honest reporting is critical.

Every contribution we receive from readers like you, big or small, goes directly into funding our journalism. This support enables us to keep working as we do – but we must maintain and build on it for every year to come. Support The Guardian from as little as $1 – and it only takes a minute. Thank you.
Support The Guardian
Accepted payment methods: Visa, Mastercard, American Express and Paypal
Topics

    Climate change
    Opinion

    Michael Gove
    Extinction Rebellion
    Fossil fuel divestment
    Fossil fuels
    Energy
    Greenhouse gas emissions
    editorials

    Share on LinkedIn
    Share on Pinterest
    Share on WhatsApp
    Share on Messenger

comments (624)

This discussion is closed for comments.

    Guardian Pick

        About one thing Extinction Rebellion was absolutely right: people must be told the truth

    Yes. On both sides.

    We need to be told the truth about the effects of climate change: the facts, as we know them. We also need to be told the truth about what it will cost us: financially and in terms of changing lifestyle. And most important of all, we need to be told the truth about what is possible.

    For example, we know that getting a wind farm from idea…

    Jump to comment
    graun
    2d ago
    21 22

Most popular

    Environment
    Climate change
    Wildlife
    Energy
    Pollution

    Contact us
    Complaints & corrections
    SecureDrop
    Work for us
    Privacy policy
    Cookie policy
    Terms & conditions
    Help

    All topics
    All writers
    Digital newspaper archive
    Facebook
    Twitter

    Advertise with us
    Search UK jobs
    Dating
    Discount Codes

Support The Guardian
Available for everyone, funded by readers
Contribute
Subscribe
Back to top
© 2019 Guardian News & Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.