Yesterday, the Prime Minister delivered a speech on net zero policy which intended to signal a change in direction and a new, more pragmatic, approach to tackling climate change. A review of the content however suggests the Government is either struggling with its grasp of its own climate and environmental policies or is deliberately setting out to mislead the public. This is a clear cause for concern from a Government trying to engender a sense of trust and pragmatism on both climate and nature.

The UK has a legally binding target to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, and an interim target to reduce emissions by 78% by 2035. The changes outlined yesterday by the Prime Minister included a delay to the phase out date of new petrol and diesel cars, from 2030 to 2035; new exemptions for around 20% of households to the phase-out of gas boilers from 2035; and the scrapping of requirements for landlords to adhere to minimum energy efficiency requirements in their rental properties.

The suggested changes will increase UK emissions and make the 2050 net zero target more difficult to achieve. The Climate Change Committee will deliver updated analysis on the exact effects of the changes in due course.

There is also plenty of analysis which suggests these changes will make household energy bills higher, the opposite of what is being claimed by No.10.  Today, the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit issued calculations that estimate an £8 billion increase in household energy costs over the next ten years from the announced changes to landlord requirements alone.  This scale of increase matches previous analysis, including from Carbon Brief, showing that the removal of previous climate policies by the Cameron Government - including energy efficiency incentives and the net zero homes standard - directly led to an increase in energy bills of £2.5 billion; an average of £150 per household per year.

In a bizarre twist in his narrative, the Prime Minister also announced his intention to ‘scrap’ a number of policies that don’t exist. Rishi Sunak listed taxes on meat consumption, taxes to discourage flying, a proposal for every household to have seven bins, and a proposal to require a certain number of passengers in cars; at the end of each stating “I’ve scrapped it”.  None of these proposals is an existing or planned policy.  The proposal for ‘seven bins’ (for recycling) looks to have originated from a Daily Mail article.  At best, this was a sign of confusion about what is and isn’t included in current net zero proposals.  At worst, it was a gesture meant to mislead the public on the burdens being placed on them.

The Prime Minister also then made suggestions that he was announcing ‘new’ policies, all of which are already in place. Examples included the 2035 date for phasing out gas boilers, new licenses for oil and gas in the North Sea, and the speeding up on consenting for nationally significant infrastructure projects. There was confusion about carbon budgets; the Prime Minister complained about the lack of ability to debate the measures needed to meet each budget. Yet Parliament is given a full, detailed assessment of proposed actions to meet each carbon budget when they are presented by the Climate Change Committee; there is nothing to stop MPs debating those policies.

The Prime Minister repeatedly stated a desire to remove measures which ‘force’ households to make changes. Other than the former EPC provision for landlords, none of the previous policies ‘forced’ people to install heat pumps, improve energy efficiency, or to buy EVs.

The speech as a whole illustrated confusion on basic economics of Government policy. Departments make decisions every day on where to apportion the costs of different policies and how to support households accordingly, especially those on lower incomes. Yesterday’s speech repeatedly made claims about the unacceptable cost burden placed on the public, but announced little additional financial support to enable more people to take part in the net zero transition, or to apportion costs away from households. The same cost increases placed on households from policy decisions we’ve seen before will happen again. For example, the cost burden on energy bills will transfer from landlords to renters who are least able to pay. Only one measure was announced to support households to move away from fossil fuels; an increase from £5,000 to £7,500 in the Boiler Upgrade Scheme.

This confusion on the facts is being repeated in other areas of environmental policy. The Government’s proposals to scrap nutrient neutrality, blocked by the House of Lords last week, included claims that 100,000 homes were being held up from development due to water pollution requirements.  This is not true; in fact, 70% of the proposed new homes affected by nutrient pollution rules now have identified appropriate mitigation in place, in some cases thanks to schemes developed with The Wildlife Trusts, paving the way to construction. Just as with the Government’s approach to net zero, it is the environment that will bear the brunt of this misleading approach and in the case of nutrient neutrality, it would mean more pollution in our rivers and streams.

In the midst of an almost comedic speech, other global heads were meeting to discuss raising ambition against a backdrop of extreme and growing global damage being caused by climate change. Thousands of lives and millions of hectares of habitat and wildlife have been lost this year. We have witnessed countless climate records being broken, from summer land and sea temperatures to Antarctic sea ice.  The UK will not be immune from these impacts, which are getting steadily worse.

The Prime Minister hinted at an approaching nature policy speech to be delivered before the next UN climate conference in December. We will pay close attention to fact-checking that speech.