“Net zero,” the professed goal of governments worldwide to eradicate their carbon output, is at risk of failure. A growing backlash against the rising costs should prompt policymakers to rethink their approach.
Just over 90 percent of global GDP (and 88 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions) are now covered by national net-zero targets, a monumental feat of climate diplomacy. Yet only 10 percent of nations with such targets have detailed plans in place (and only half have even incomplete plans).
Add to this “say-do” gap a growing public wariness. Across the developed world, polls generally show that most people see climate change as a significant threat. But voters have legitimate questions about net-zero policies: How much will they cost? What benefits will they bring? Will they actually work as advertised?
Such skepticism is already changing politics, from the recent losses suffered by Germany’s Greens to the fall of the Dutch governing coalition, which was partly fueled by farmers’ anger over forced reductions in nitrogen-oxide emissions. Even some avowed environmentalists — such as the governor of New Jersey and the leader of the UK’s Labor Party — have lately been siding with voters who feel aggrieved at the costs of environmental policies.
Britain, an early leader in emissions reductions and a global advocate on the topic, is likewise feeling the pressure. Its legally binding policy of carbon neutrality by 2050 had long enjoyed a bipartisan consensus and public support. But slow growth and rising costs have changed the political calculation. The current government has announced new oil and gas production licenses, effectively lowered the price of carbon in its emissions trading scheme (reducing the incentive for green investment), and promised to review environment-related driving restrictions. There’s no longer talk of the “green revolution”; the new watchwords are “pragmatic and proportionate.”
This shift has a certain logic. As former Prime Minister Tony Blair recently noted, the sacrifices of a country contributing only 1 percent of global emissions aren’t going to have much impact on climate change generally. China and other fast-growing developing nations have a much bigger role to play. Voters aren’t crazy to ask why they need to bear endless new costs for such little benefit.
How should governments respond? Hollowing out net-zero pledges would be a mistake; the stakes are too high for further inaction. But policymakers need to demonstrate tangible benefits from the green transition, while distributing costs fairly and transparently.
That starts with simple competence. The UK plans to install 600,000 heat pumps a year by 2028, but so far it has the worst record in Europe for actually doing so. If the government is going to ban the sale of gas boilers in 2035, as it says, it will need to make sure that cheaper alternatives are available. Likewise with a planned ban on new gas and diesel cars: It’s a fine goal, but it won’t go anywhere unless consumers have compelling incentives, charging infrastructure can meet demand and the government has otherwise laid the needed groundwork. If lagging upgrades and planning constraints mean new offshore wind and nuclear power can’t easily reach communities, consumers won’t feel the benefits.
Above all, what’s needed is leadership. Decarbonisation can drive economic growth, create jobs and bring substantial benefits to the environment and public health. But it must be done purposefully and strategically. If voters can’t see the advantages or find the costs too burdensome, all those fine pledges will go up in smoke.
The Editors are members of the Bloomberg Opinion editorial board. Views are personal and do not represent the stand of this publication.
Discover the latest Business News, Sensex, and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!
