UK Climate Policy Changes Impact Assessment

The United Kingdom faces a more challenging path to achieving its climate targets due to recent policy changes by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, according to warnings from the government’s advisers. While the Prime Minister framed his review of green commitments as prioritizing the “long-term interests of our country,” the Climate Change Committee (CCC) has expressed concerns about the “relaxation” of crucial climate policies, which it believes counter recent progress in other areas.

The government maintains its confidence in the UK’s ability to meet its climate commitments, despite the CCC’s caution. The committee also raised alarms about the potential repercussions of the government’s “reduced ambition” on consumer confidence and investment. It noted that some of the changes introduced by Mr. Sunak could lead to increased bills for households.

The CCC urged the government to reestablish “strong British leadership on climate change,” a position it believes has been eroded. This evaluation of the UK’s progress toward its climate goals comes in the wake of several policy adjustments announced by the Prime Minister in September. These changes included postponing the ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 to 2035 and altering the rules governing the phasing out of gas and oil-fired boilers.

Of particular concern to the CCC is a commitment by Mr. Sunak that one in five homes will not be required to transition from fossil fuel boilers. This exemption could result in a significant number of UK households still emitting carbon dioxide (CO2) from their heating systems by 2050, the legally-binding deadline for the UK to reach net zero emissions. Achieving net zero means that the country does not add additional greenhouse gases like CO2 to the atmosphere. While Mr. Sunak has affirmed his commitment to the 2050 net zero target, the CCC warns that these exemptions will make it “considerably harder to achieve.”

The committee also expressed concerns that these changes would introduce uncertainty for consumers and disrupt supply chains. In an attempt to promote the transition away from fossil fuel boilers, the government increased the grant for home heat pump installations from £5,000 to £7,500. However, the CCC noted that the overall budget did not increase, potentially limiting the number of homes benefiting from the scheme.

Delaying the ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles, the CCC argues, will have only a minor impact on emissions. This is because the government has confirmed that car companies will still need to meet stringent quotas for electric vehicle sales under the Zero Emission Vehicle mandate. According to this mandate, 80% of new cars sold in the UK by 2030 must have zero emissions.

Despite Mr. Sunak’s assertion that these climate policy changes aim to take a “more pragmatic, proportionate, and realistic approach” and save families money, the CCC’s assessment suggests that some of the Prime Minister’s adjustments may “likely increase both energy bills and motoring costs for households.”

The CCC praised certain areas of progress, including a deal to support the electrification of Tata-owned steelworks in Port Talbot and the introduction of a stricter carbon emissions cap for specific sectors. However, it criticized the government for lacking transparency in providing information about the impact of policy announcements, making it difficult to assess the full consequences of these changes.

The UK government maintains that the country is a global leader in climate action, cutting emissions more rapidly than any other G7 nation since 1990. Nevertheless, Professor Piers Forster, chair of the CCC, expressed concerns that the UK’s leadership on climate action is being questioned following the recent policy changes. He urged the UK to exhibit strong leadership in the run-up to the critical COP28 climate summit in Dubai at the end of November. This leadership, he suggested, is essential to ensure that other nations do not use the UK’s policy shifts as an excuse to backtrack on their climate commitments.