#net zero

Reaching net zero would cost about £4bn a year, the CCC found, or close to £100bn by 2050, which was roughly equivalent to the energy-related costs of the fossil fuel shocks that followed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The findings contradict widespread claims made by rightwing thinktanks and populist politicians including the Reform party that net zero would represent a crippling cost of £9tn to the UK’s economy. As well as exaggerating costs, these estimates failed to take into account the cost of paying for the fossil fuels needed for energy if we do not reach net zero. Nigel Topping, chair of the CCC, said the real costs were not only manageable but offered protection against future fossil fuel supply crunches and against the impacts of the climate crisis. “In light of current world events, it’s more important than ever for the UK to move away from being reliant on volatile foreign fossil fuels, to clean, domestic, less wasteful energy,” he said.

[...]

Renewable energy is much more efficient than fossil fuels, as well as being more difficult for foreign governments to interrupt. People will also benefit from warmer homes, cleaner air, more active travel and healthier diets, with less red meat – representing about £2bn to £8bn in savings a year to the NHS and individuals. Each pound invested in reaching net zero yielded between £2 and £4 in benefits, the CCC found. The saving on avoiding some of the impacts of climate breakdown would be worth as much as £130bn by 2050, according to a report published on Wednesday to supplement its advice to ministers on the seventh carbon budget.

This video focuses a lot on the UK, but the same strategies are used by politicians in many other countries to sell the idea that Net Zero is unrealistically and irresponsibly costly.

Strategies like:

Using outdated estimates that overestimated the cost--sustainable technologies have become way cheaper over time and will almost certainly continue to do so

Implying that the entirety of the cost would be borne by the government and thus the taxpayers, when in reality in most cases the majority would be covered by the private sector

Ignoring the money that is already being spent on non-sustainable alternatives

Ignoring the operational savings of sustainable technologies that don't require expensive fossil fuel inputs in perpetuity--often the changes would almost pay for themselves in the long term

Omitting other cost-saving benefits from sustainable technologies (ex. reduced health costs from disease caused by air pollution)

Omitting the massive financial costs of not addressing climate change

Almost always the motivation for messaging that it's basically impossible to stop climate change now or that climate solutions will be terribly damaging is to delay climate action for the benefit of fossil fuel interests.

And elsewhere …

Remember all that alarmist guff about Antarctica sea ice recording lower levels in winter a couple of years ago? Yeah, well it turns out that was all bullsh*t!

Read More: https://thefreethoughtproject.com/environmental-news/mainstream-media-ignores-massive-recovery-in-antarctica-sea-ice

Political elites are out of step with the public appetite for net zero, according to analysis that identifies rightwing media narratives as fuelling a false backlash against climate action. Media coverage of net zero is more than twice as likely to be negative than public attitudes and is driving a false perception that net zero policies are unpopular with voters, the analysis found. This echo chamber of elite opinion, the analysis says, has led to a situation where MPs significantly underestimate public support for climate policies and overestimate public opposition to local clean energy infrastructure projects. Becca Massey-Chase, the head of citizen engagement at the Institute for Public Policy Research, who coauthored the analysis, said the research showed claims of a voter backlash against net zero were “largely a political myth”. She said: “The British public continues to support climate action, and politicians risk fighting the wrong battle if they assume otherwise. The real danger is not public opinion – it is elite division and media narratives creating a false sense of risk.” The analysis, jointly prepared by the IPPR, a progressive thinktank, and Persuasion UK, a non-profit that researches influences on public opinion, noted that the UK’s increasingly assertive far right caricatured net zero as a threat to UK sovereignty.

Global electricity generation from solar will quadruple by 2030 and help to push coal power into reverse, according to Carbon Brief analysis of data from the International Energy Agency (IEA).

The IEA’s latest World Energy Outlook 2024 shows solar overtaking nuclear, wind, hydro, gas and, finally, coal, to become the world’s single-largest source of electricity by 2033.

This solar surge will help kickstart the “age of electricity”, the agency says, where rapidly expanding clean electricity and “inherently” greater efficiency will push fossil fuels into decline.

As a result, the world’s energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions will reach a peak “imminently”, the IEA says, with its data indicating a turning point in 2025...

The report says that the path to 1.5C is “increasingly narrow, but still achievable”.