In this newsletter:
1) Britain’s next PM likely to have weaker commitment to Net-Zero (if any)
Bloomberg, 12 July 2022
2) Tory leadership hopeful Kemi Badenoch brands Net Zero ‘unilateral economic disarmament’
The Independent, 12 July 2022
3) The Tory green consensus is breaking: This leadership contest could spell the end of Net Zero
Helena Horton, The Guardian, 12 July 2022
4) Tory leadership contenders vow to scrap green energy measures needed to hit Net-Zero targets by 2050
iNews, 11 July 2022
5) Boris's Net Zero legacy: Schools in England warn of teaching staff cuts as energy costs bite
Financial Times, 12 July 2022
6) ESG unlikely to survive in its current form, Net Zero Watch warns
Money Marketing, 11 July 2022
Money Marketing, 11 July 2022
7) Melanie Phillips: Sri Lanka's collapse shows the danger of green dogma and Net Zero
The Times, 12 July 2022
8) Mehreen Khan: Central banks running out of allies in their mad fight against climate change
The Times, 12 July 2022
The Times, 12 July 2022
Full details:
1) Britain’s next PM likely to have weaker commitment to Net-Zero (if any)
Bloomberg, 12 July 2022
Bloomberg, 12 July 2022
The UK’s next prime minister is likely to have a weaker commitment to achieving net-zero carbon emissions than Boris Johnson.
The outgoing British leader made cutting emissions a priority and sought leadership on the global stage by hosting the COP26 summit in Glasgow in November. But in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis caused by rising fuel and food prices after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, his party’s dedication to climate action is wavering before the nation even gets on track to reach its carbon goals.
Among the 10 contenders, Attorney General Suella Bravermen and former equalities minister Kemi Badenoch have signaled they would ditch the emissions target, arguing it’s to blame for high energy prices. Chancellor of the Exchequer Nadhim Zahawi has said families shouldn’t have to pay the bill for green policies. Even Tom Tugendhat, who is seen as more centrist than many of his rivals in political terms, is backing renewable and nuclear energy without explicitly endorsing net-zero.
“There’s a hesitancy for any of the candidates to be seen as the green candidate,” said Ted Christie-Miller, head of carbon removals at BeZeroCarbon. Climate policies aren’t seen winning the votes of Conservative Party members, who will ultimately pick the new prime minister, he said.
Voting for the candidates hasn’t yet started, and new rules setting a minimum threshold of support may weed out some of the fringe candidates, but greener Tories are already sounding the alarm.
On Monday, Zac Goldsmith, minister for the international environment, and Chris Skidmore, chairman of parliament’s all-party group on the environment, issued a warning to their colleagues that ditching net zero would be “electoral suicide.” Writing in the Daily Telegraph newspaper, they said climate change is a priority among voters in the so-called Red Wall, an area of the north of England that switched from Labour to Tory at the last election.
Fuel-Tax Cuts
The bookmakers’ favorite Rishi Sunak, who until last week was Chancellor of the Exchequer, has sometimes been a reluctant backer of Johnson’s green policies. He also cut fuel duty for drivers for the first time in a decade and has sought ways to encourage investment in new oil and gas fields. Launching his leadership bid on Tuesday, Sunak didn’t mention the net-zero goal.
Trade minister Penny Mordaunt, the second-favorite, has indicated she would repeal the 2030 ban on new petrol and diesel cars introduced by Johnson, and promised to introduce an immediate 50% cut in value added tax on road fuel. On Tuesday, Mordaunt said she was committed to keeping the net-zero pledge, but provided no details on how she’d meet it.
Foreign Secretary Liz Truss, currently the bookmakers’ third-favorite to be the next leader, has previously aligned herself with net-zero skeptics and the US Republican Party.
Conservatives want the contest to be as speedy as possible, and are keen to whittle down the candidates to a final two before Parliament goes on its summer recess on July 21. They will campaign for party members’ votes over the summer, and a new leader and prime minister will be announced on Sept. 5.
Whichever candidate wins, they may find that significantly weakening climate pledges would be tough, and less politically popular with the wider British public than among the narrow membership of the Conservative Party.
Repealing the 2050 net-zero target would overturn one of the manifesto pledges from the 2019 election, which Johnson won with a large majority. They’d also have to convince more than 100 MPs that make up the Conservative Environment Network, who have called on the new leader to make fighting climate change a priority.
“We absolutely need to see from candidates, not just the overarching commitment to net-zero but a plan to get there,” said Sam Hall, director of the Conservative Environment Network.
Even if the net-zero target remains in place, it could become less of a priority. Issues such as tax cuts, defense spending or gender identity have dominated the leadership race so far, with little to no mention of the climate even as the country experiences an intense heatwave.
“The target itself isn’t at risk, but there is a significant risk of it going on the back burner,” said Joshua Marks, a researcher at the center-right think tank Bright Blue.
5) Boris's legacy: Schools in England warn of teaching staff cuts as energy costs bite
Financial Times, 12 July 2022
The outgoing British leader made cutting emissions a priority and sought leadership on the global stage by hosting the COP26 summit in Glasgow in November. But in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis caused by rising fuel and food prices after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, his party’s dedication to climate action is wavering before the nation even gets on track to reach its carbon goals.
Among the 10 contenders, Attorney General Suella Bravermen and former equalities minister Kemi Badenoch have signaled they would ditch the emissions target, arguing it’s to blame for high energy prices. Chancellor of the Exchequer Nadhim Zahawi has said families shouldn’t have to pay the bill for green policies. Even Tom Tugendhat, who is seen as more centrist than many of his rivals in political terms, is backing renewable and nuclear energy without explicitly endorsing net-zero.
“There’s a hesitancy for any of the candidates to be seen as the green candidate,” said Ted Christie-Miller, head of carbon removals at BeZeroCarbon. Climate policies aren’t seen winning the votes of Conservative Party members, who will ultimately pick the new prime minister, he said.
Voting for the candidates hasn’t yet started, and new rules setting a minimum threshold of support may weed out some of the fringe candidates, but greener Tories are already sounding the alarm.
On Monday, Zac Goldsmith, minister for the international environment, and Chris Skidmore, chairman of parliament’s all-party group on the environment, issued a warning to their colleagues that ditching net zero would be “electoral suicide.” Writing in the Daily Telegraph newspaper, they said climate change is a priority among voters in the so-called Red Wall, an area of the north of England that switched from Labour to Tory at the last election.
Fuel-Tax Cuts
The bookmakers’ favorite Rishi Sunak, who until last week was Chancellor of the Exchequer, has sometimes been a reluctant backer of Johnson’s green policies. He also cut fuel duty for drivers for the first time in a decade and has sought ways to encourage investment in new oil and gas fields. Launching his leadership bid on Tuesday, Sunak didn’t mention the net-zero goal.
Trade minister Penny Mordaunt, the second-favorite, has indicated she would repeal the 2030 ban on new petrol and diesel cars introduced by Johnson, and promised to introduce an immediate 50% cut in value added tax on road fuel. On Tuesday, Mordaunt said she was committed to keeping the net-zero pledge, but provided no details on how she’d meet it.
Foreign Secretary Liz Truss, currently the bookmakers’ third-favorite to be the next leader, has previously aligned herself with net-zero skeptics and the US Republican Party.
Conservatives want the contest to be as speedy as possible, and are keen to whittle down the candidates to a final two before Parliament goes on its summer recess on July 21. They will campaign for party members’ votes over the summer, and a new leader and prime minister will be announced on Sept. 5.
Whichever candidate wins, they may find that significantly weakening climate pledges would be tough, and less politically popular with the wider British public than among the narrow membership of the Conservative Party.
Repealing the 2050 net-zero target would overturn one of the manifesto pledges from the 2019 election, which Johnson won with a large majority. They’d also have to convince more than 100 MPs that make up the Conservative Environment Network, who have called on the new leader to make fighting climate change a priority.
“We absolutely need to see from candidates, not just the overarching commitment to net-zero but a plan to get there,” said Sam Hall, director of the Conservative Environment Network.
Even if the net-zero target remains in place, it could become less of a priority. Issues such as tax cuts, defense spending or gender identity have dominated the leadership race so far, with little to no mention of the climate even as the country experiences an intense heatwave.
“The target itself isn’t at risk, but there is a significant risk of it going on the back burner,” said Joshua Marks, a researcher at the center-right think tank Bright Blue.
2) Tory leadership hopeful Kemi Badenoch brands Net Zero ‘unilateral economic disarmament’
The Independent, 12 July 2022
The Independent, 12 July 2022
Party rising star claims climate commitment punishes ‘industries in poorer parts of this country’ and vows to axe it
Tory leadership contender Kemi Badenoch has branded the net zero climate target “unilateral economic disarmament” and vowed to axe it if elected.
The outsider but rising star took aim at existing government policies which “have overburdened our economy” and which “consume taxpayers hard-earned money”.
“Too many policies, like net zero targets, set up with no thought to the effects on industries in the poorer parts of this country,” Ms Badenoch told her campaign launch.
“The consequence is simply to displace emissions to other countries – unilateral economic disarmament. That is why we need to change and that is why I’m running to be leader.”
The comments are the starkest repudiation yet of the net zero commitment, in a leadership race that has alarmed the band of Conservative MPs passionate about it.
Suella Braverman, who is also vowing to be the candidate of the right, has also attacked the policy – while frontrunner Rishi Sunak has failed to mention it, having thwarted spending while chancellor.
Ms Badenoch also took aim at businesses whose “main priority is social justice, not productivity and profits”, calling it a “Ben & Jerry’s tendency”.
And doubling down on her opposition to the Online Harms Bill, she insisted the police should focus on crime and “not worrying about hurt feelings online”.
Ms Badenoch, who has the backing of Tory big-hitter Michael Gove, also took aim at candidates who have promised massive tax cuts, most notably Sajid Javid and Nadhim Zahawi.
“I will not enter into a tax bidding war and say my tax cuts are bigger than yours,” she promised. “The dividing line in this race is not tax cuts, it’s judgment.
“It’s time to tell the truth. For too long politicians have been saying you can have it all – you can have your cake and eat it. But I’m here to tell you that’s not the case.”
“Governing involves trade-offs and you need to be honest about that,” she said, arguing the public is “crying out for honesty” from the next prime minister, a quality she would bring.
Ms Badenoch currently has 16 declared backers, putting her well on the way to the 20 required to enter the leadership contest when nominations close this evening.
The first ballot among the 359 Conservative MPs will be staged on Wednesday, when candidates will need 30 votes to progress through to the second ballot on Thursday.
Full story
3) The Tory green consensus is breaking: This leadership contest could spell the end of net zero
Helena Horton, The Guardian, 12 July 2022
Tory leadership contender Kemi Badenoch has branded the net zero climate target “unilateral economic disarmament” and vowed to axe it if elected.
The outsider but rising star took aim at existing government policies which “have overburdened our economy” and which “consume taxpayers hard-earned money”.
“Too many policies, like net zero targets, set up with no thought to the effects on industries in the poorer parts of this country,” Ms Badenoch told her campaign launch.
“The consequence is simply to displace emissions to other countries – unilateral economic disarmament. That is why we need to change and that is why I’m running to be leader.”
The comments are the starkest repudiation yet of the net zero commitment, in a leadership race that has alarmed the band of Conservative MPs passionate about it.
Suella Braverman, who is also vowing to be the candidate of the right, has also attacked the policy – while frontrunner Rishi Sunak has failed to mention it, having thwarted spending while chancellor.
Ms Badenoch also took aim at businesses whose “main priority is social justice, not productivity and profits”, calling it a “Ben & Jerry’s tendency”.
And doubling down on her opposition to the Online Harms Bill, she insisted the police should focus on crime and “not worrying about hurt feelings online”.
Ms Badenoch, who has the backing of Tory big-hitter Michael Gove, also took aim at candidates who have promised massive tax cuts, most notably Sajid Javid and Nadhim Zahawi.
“I will not enter into a tax bidding war and say my tax cuts are bigger than yours,” she promised. “The dividing line in this race is not tax cuts, it’s judgment.
“It’s time to tell the truth. For too long politicians have been saying you can have it all – you can have your cake and eat it. But I’m here to tell you that’s not the case.”
“Governing involves trade-offs and you need to be honest about that,” she said, arguing the public is “crying out for honesty” from the next prime minister, a quality she would bring.
Ms Badenoch currently has 16 declared backers, putting her well on the way to the 20 required to enter the leadership contest when nominations close this evening.
The first ballot among the 359 Conservative MPs will be staged on Wednesday, when candidates will need 30 votes to progress through to the second ballot on Thursday.
Full story
3) The Tory green consensus is breaking: This leadership contest could spell the end of net zero
Helena Horton, The Guardian, 12 July 2022
This weekend, I received a call from a well-known green Conservative, telling me to stop using the phrase “net zero” in my articles and tweets about the leadership election. It has become too toxic, he said.
While this was shocking, it wasn’t completely unexpected. None of the leadership candidates so far have made the positive case for green jobs and cheap renewable energy. Instead, the only ones speaking out about climate change are culture warriors Suella Braverman and Kemi Badenoch, who wish to scrap net zero targets.
As a reporter who covers the space where environment and politics overlap, I’ve watched this happen with a sinking feeling, knowing my worst predictions could be coming to pass. Our net zero commitments could be abandoned without the consent of the electorate as the leadership candidate decides to ditch it.
Just three years ago, under Theresa May’s government, the policy to emit no more greenhouse gases than we absorb by 2050 was signed into law. This was championed by almost every Conservative bar a fringe few. Later on in 2019, every single MP stood on a net zero manifesto, led by Boris Johnson, who had a buccaneering vision of a green economy, and was excited to put a post-Brexit vision of Britain as a world leader on the world stage at UN environment summit Cop26 the following year.
Even those in the green space who do not vote Conservative grudgingly said that a lot of the policies put forward were pretty good. But underneath all this, there’s been a slow, creeping campaign by a nimble rightwing group of MPs who have been winning over key colleagues to the climate-sceptic cause.
Fresh from his Brexit win, MP for Wycombe Steve Baker found another cosy consensus to shatter – that of net zero. Baker, who commands the powerful ERG group credited with pushing a hard Brexit, became a trustee of climate-sceptic thinktank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation. He then, along with colleague Craig Mackinlay, set up the parliamentary Net Zero Scrutiny Group, launching it in the pages of the Telegraph and getting around [50] MPs to sign up. They said that they wanted to question net zero and argued that it was too expensive.
This rang alarm bells for me, and so in February this year my colleague Matt Taylor and I dug into it and found the group had been lobbying other MPs for months and slowly trying to chip away at climate consensus. We warned that the Conservatives were slipping into a climate culture war, similar to the one they had over Brexit.
At the time, some green activists chided me, pointing out that the majority of Conservatives at the time wanted to reach net zero, and that half of all backbenchers are in the Conservative Environment Network, a forum committed to net zero policies and targets.
But while covering the Brexit campaign, I’d seen how a small, nimble alliance of rightwing campaigners can leave a large group enjoying contented consensus in the dust.
I fear this has happened. While the anti-net zero faction has been plotting for months, finding candidates who will ditch net zero in return for support, the larger green wing has assumed that net zero is a given. As Boris Johnson weakened and fell, climate sceptics were working behind the scenes to find a successor who would ditch his green policies. But the green wing was not fighting the same battle. This weekend, I understand it was still trying to find a candidate to sign up to eco pledges that are in the 2019 conservative manifesto. Meanwhile, the conversation around climate has been dominated by Braverman and Badenoch.
While reporting on this, I have been speaking to the Braverman/Baker campaign about their tactics, to try and understand what has happened. They agree with me that the green wing has not yet put out a coherent positive message. Baker has a structure for campaigning called “why/what/how/what-if”, answering all these questions. He says his rivals are “failing because they have inadequate answers on how and just pivot back to why”, adding: “hysterics are not a survival strategy.”
He’s right. Similar to how the Remain campaign messaging was largely negative, assuming the positive case for staying in the EU was already established consensus, Conservative members and MPs have not heard much of a positive case for net zero. The language hasn’t been about better jobs and cheaper bills, rather the peril and risks of future climate change.
And the result? Net zero has been left behind. This is obvious from the way the leadership race is playing out. Michael Gove, who many think of as one of the greenest Tories, is backing Badenoch. Even he appears to have abandoned ship. Jeremy Hunt, who is supposedly one of the more centrist candidates, is running alongside Esther McVey, who is in Baker’s net zero scrutiny group.
Depressingly, the libertarian Liz Truss is being cited by many green Tories as their last hope. While she has not committed to the net zero manifesto pledge at the time of writing, she is backed by green Tories including Vicky Ford and Simon Clarke, both of whom have cited her support of Cop26 as one of the reasons they are backing her.
While Badenoch and Braverman are highly unlikely to reach the final two, candidates including Rishi Sunak will be vying for their support – and with it, the support of the MPs backing them. This is the worry. That a Tory leader might abandon climate commitments to gain power.
The green Tories should really be putting candidates in this position, falling behind one or another on the condition they back positive climate policies, and making the final two candidates fight for their support. But from my conversations with the green Conservatives, they seem incredibly disorganised and weak, and have been squabbling over whether to use the phrase “net zero” rather than putting their case to the nation.
All of this disorganisation and turmoil has resulted in a leadership campaign that could strip this country of its climate commitments and end the dream of net zero. We just led Cop26. If we fail, it could pave the way for others to follow. It is no wonder the green wing of the party is confused and terrified. The habitable future of the planet could rest on their shoulders (sic). What a scary thought.
4) Tory leadership contenders vow to scrap green energy measures needed to hit Net-Zero targets by 2050
iNews, 11 July 2022
Candidates vowed to ditch green levies on energy bills and even pause plan to hit key 2050 target for climate change action
Tory leadership hopefuls pledged to scrap a raft of green policies that are crucial if the UK is to meet its net-zero targets by 2050, in a bid to appeal to members.
The issue has once again become a key dividing line within the leadership race, with right-wing candidates vowing to cut green energy levies, while others pledging to pause the legal commitment to go carbon neutral altogether.
Nadhim Zahawi became the latest contender to try to woo the net-zero sceptics in the party by promising to scrap green taxes on energy bills for two years in a bid to lower energy costs for consumers.
He told a room of Tory MPs and activists on Monday that while he remained committed to the 2050 target, the next leader needed to respond to the cost of living “emergency” first.
“It is simply not right that families are currently having to see their bills skyrocket and they’re struggling with it and we do nothing,” he said.
“We will continue to meet our net zero target for 2050 but this is a moment of emergency and we have to act like it.”
It emerged that Home Secretary Priti Patel is poised to announce her own leadership bid on Tuesday with the explicit pledge to scrap all green levies on energy bills, but also go further and lift the moratorium on fracking.
When the new prime minister will be announced and timetable for leadership contest explained
12 July, 2022
She told a secretive hustings held by the European Research Group, a right-wing caucus of Tory MPs, that the Government needed to be “bold” on the issue of future energy sources, such as on fracking.
The hard line on environmental measures follows that of Suella Braverman, who has gone furthest to court the right of the party by vowing to “suspend the all-consuming desire to achieve net zero by 2050”.
Writing in the Express, she added: “If we keep it up, especially before businesses and families can adjust, our economy will end up with net-zero growth. We don’t want to end up like the Germans, going cap in hand to Putin for heating and power.”
While this was shocking, it wasn’t completely unexpected. None of the leadership candidates so far have made the positive case for green jobs and cheap renewable energy. Instead, the only ones speaking out about climate change are culture warriors Suella Braverman and Kemi Badenoch, who wish to scrap net zero targets.
As a reporter who covers the space where environment and politics overlap, I’ve watched this happen with a sinking feeling, knowing my worst predictions could be coming to pass. Our net zero commitments could be abandoned without the consent of the electorate as the leadership candidate decides to ditch it.
Just three years ago, under Theresa May’s government, the policy to emit no more greenhouse gases than we absorb by 2050 was signed into law. This was championed by almost every Conservative bar a fringe few. Later on in 2019, every single MP stood on a net zero manifesto, led by Boris Johnson, who had a buccaneering vision of a green economy, and was excited to put a post-Brexit vision of Britain as a world leader on the world stage at UN environment summit Cop26 the following year.
Even those in the green space who do not vote Conservative grudgingly said that a lot of the policies put forward were pretty good. But underneath all this, there’s been a slow, creeping campaign by a nimble rightwing group of MPs who have been winning over key colleagues to the climate-sceptic cause.
Fresh from his Brexit win, MP for Wycombe Steve Baker found another cosy consensus to shatter – that of net zero. Baker, who commands the powerful ERG group credited with pushing a hard Brexit, became a trustee of climate-sceptic thinktank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation. He then, along with colleague Craig Mackinlay, set up the parliamentary Net Zero Scrutiny Group, launching it in the pages of the Telegraph and getting around [50] MPs to sign up. They said that they wanted to question net zero and argued that it was too expensive.
This rang alarm bells for me, and so in February this year my colleague Matt Taylor and I dug into it and found the group had been lobbying other MPs for months and slowly trying to chip away at climate consensus. We warned that the Conservatives were slipping into a climate culture war, similar to the one they had over Brexit.
At the time, some green activists chided me, pointing out that the majority of Conservatives at the time wanted to reach net zero, and that half of all backbenchers are in the Conservative Environment Network, a forum committed to net zero policies and targets.
But while covering the Brexit campaign, I’d seen how a small, nimble alliance of rightwing campaigners can leave a large group enjoying contented consensus in the dust.
I fear this has happened. While the anti-net zero faction has been plotting for months, finding candidates who will ditch net zero in return for support, the larger green wing has assumed that net zero is a given. As Boris Johnson weakened and fell, climate sceptics were working behind the scenes to find a successor who would ditch his green policies. But the green wing was not fighting the same battle. This weekend, I understand it was still trying to find a candidate to sign up to eco pledges that are in the 2019 conservative manifesto. Meanwhile, the conversation around climate has been dominated by Braverman and Badenoch.
While reporting on this, I have been speaking to the Braverman/Baker campaign about their tactics, to try and understand what has happened. They agree with me that the green wing has not yet put out a coherent positive message. Baker has a structure for campaigning called “why/what/how/what-if”, answering all these questions. He says his rivals are “failing because they have inadequate answers on how and just pivot back to why”, adding: “hysterics are not a survival strategy.”
He’s right. Similar to how the Remain campaign messaging was largely negative, assuming the positive case for staying in the EU was already established consensus, Conservative members and MPs have not heard much of a positive case for net zero. The language hasn’t been about better jobs and cheaper bills, rather the peril and risks of future climate change.
And the result? Net zero has been left behind. This is obvious from the way the leadership race is playing out. Michael Gove, who many think of as one of the greenest Tories, is backing Badenoch. Even he appears to have abandoned ship. Jeremy Hunt, who is supposedly one of the more centrist candidates, is running alongside Esther McVey, who is in Baker’s net zero scrutiny group.
Depressingly, the libertarian Liz Truss is being cited by many green Tories as their last hope. While she has not committed to the net zero manifesto pledge at the time of writing, she is backed by green Tories including Vicky Ford and Simon Clarke, both of whom have cited her support of Cop26 as one of the reasons they are backing her.
While Badenoch and Braverman are highly unlikely to reach the final two, candidates including Rishi Sunak will be vying for their support – and with it, the support of the MPs backing them. This is the worry. That a Tory leader might abandon climate commitments to gain power.
The green Tories should really be putting candidates in this position, falling behind one or another on the condition they back positive climate policies, and making the final two candidates fight for their support. But from my conversations with the green Conservatives, they seem incredibly disorganised and weak, and have been squabbling over whether to use the phrase “net zero” rather than putting their case to the nation.
All of this disorganisation and turmoil has resulted in a leadership campaign that could strip this country of its climate commitments and end the dream of net zero. We just led Cop26. If we fail, it could pave the way for others to follow. It is no wonder the green wing of the party is confused and terrified. The habitable future of the planet could rest on their shoulders (sic). What a scary thought.
4) Tory leadership contenders vow to scrap green energy measures needed to hit Net-Zero targets by 2050
iNews, 11 July 2022
Candidates vowed to ditch green levies on energy bills and even pause plan to hit key 2050 target for climate change action
Tory leadership hopefuls pledged to scrap a raft of green policies that are crucial if the UK is to meet its net-zero targets by 2050, in a bid to appeal to members.
The issue has once again become a key dividing line within the leadership race, with right-wing candidates vowing to cut green energy levies, while others pledging to pause the legal commitment to go carbon neutral altogether.
Nadhim Zahawi became the latest contender to try to woo the net-zero sceptics in the party by promising to scrap green taxes on energy bills for two years in a bid to lower energy costs for consumers.
He told a room of Tory MPs and activists on Monday that while he remained committed to the 2050 target, the next leader needed to respond to the cost of living “emergency” first.
“It is simply not right that families are currently having to see their bills skyrocket and they’re struggling with it and we do nothing,” he said.
“We will continue to meet our net zero target for 2050 but this is a moment of emergency and we have to act like it.”
It emerged that Home Secretary Priti Patel is poised to announce her own leadership bid on Tuesday with the explicit pledge to scrap all green levies on energy bills, but also go further and lift the moratorium on fracking.
When the new prime minister will be announced and timetable for leadership contest explained
12 July, 2022
She told a secretive hustings held by the European Research Group, a right-wing caucus of Tory MPs, that the Government needed to be “bold” on the issue of future energy sources, such as on fracking.
The hard line on environmental measures follows that of Suella Braverman, who has gone furthest to court the right of the party by vowing to “suspend the all-consuming desire to achieve net zero by 2050”.
Writing in the Express, she added: “If we keep it up, especially before businesses and families can adjust, our economy will end up with net-zero growth. We don’t want to end up like the Germans, going cap in hand to Putin for heating and power.”
5) Boris's legacy: Schools in England warn of teaching staff cuts as energy costs bite
Financial Times, 12 July 2022
Schools in England have warned that they will be forced to cut back spending on building projects, maintenance and even teaching staff as energy costs continue to spiral.
An analysis by the House of Commons Library estimated that school energy bills rose by as much as 83 per cent in the first three months of this year compared to 2020-21.
The fresh concerns come as teaching unions threaten strike action over a longstanding pay dispute, and after inflation hit 9.1 per cent in May driven by rising food and fuel prices.
Separate survey results by the National Association of Head Teachers in April showed that one-third of school leaders anticipated a budget deficit as a direct result of rising energy costs, which could lead to cuts in teaching, maintenance and equipment budgets.
Rachael Warwick, executive headteacher of Ridgeway Education Trust, a partnership of four schools in Oxfordshire, said its decision to sign a 24-month energy contract would increase gas costs by 257 per cent and electricity costs by 185 per cent.
“This creates an additional unbudgeted £1mn expenditure over the next three years which will see us, for the first time ever, returning in-year deficits,” she said.
Rising bills have meant that schools have already been forced to cut back on building projects to make savings, as financial reserves are eroded to a “perilously low level”, Warwick added.
“If the situation continues into the medium term we will inevitably have to look at the staffing structure with potential impact on the quality of education offered to our young people,” she said.
Des MacPhee, business manager for Norton College in Yorkshire, said that based on recent invoices, gas costs had risen by more than 400 per cent in the past year, adding that further rises would leave the college struggling to fix its crumbling buildings.
“We’ve had conversations about making redundancies, about children being in classrooms with their coats on. We don’t think this is acceptable but if this keeps going, this is realistic,” he said.
The House of Commons analysis, using data from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, was based on weighted gas and electricity use. It showed prices for small and medium-sized companies, with roughly similar energy needs to schools.
Full story
7) Melanie Phillips: Sri Lanka's collapse shows the danger of green dogma and Net Zero
The Times, 12 July 2022
An analysis by the House of Commons Library estimated that school energy bills rose by as much as 83 per cent in the first three months of this year compared to 2020-21.
The fresh concerns come as teaching unions threaten strike action over a longstanding pay dispute, and after inflation hit 9.1 per cent in May driven by rising food and fuel prices.
Separate survey results by the National Association of Head Teachers in April showed that one-third of school leaders anticipated a budget deficit as a direct result of rising energy costs, which could lead to cuts in teaching, maintenance and equipment budgets.
Rachael Warwick, executive headteacher of Ridgeway Education Trust, a partnership of four schools in Oxfordshire, said its decision to sign a 24-month energy contract would increase gas costs by 257 per cent and electricity costs by 185 per cent.
“This creates an additional unbudgeted £1mn expenditure over the next three years which will see us, for the first time ever, returning in-year deficits,” she said.
Rising bills have meant that schools have already been forced to cut back on building projects to make savings, as financial reserves are eroded to a “perilously low level”, Warwick added.
“If the situation continues into the medium term we will inevitably have to look at the staffing structure with potential impact on the quality of education offered to our young people,” she said.
Des MacPhee, business manager for Norton College in Yorkshire, said that based on recent invoices, gas costs had risen by more than 400 per cent in the past year, adding that further rises would leave the college struggling to fix its crumbling buildings.
“We’ve had conversations about making redundancies, about children being in classrooms with their coats on. We don’t think this is acceptable but if this keeps going, this is realistic,” he said.
The House of Commons analysis, using data from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, was based on weighted gas and electricity use. It showed prices for small and medium-sized companies, with roughly similar energy needs to schools.
Full story
6) ESG unlikely to survive in its current form, Net Zero Watch warns
Money Marketing, 11 July 2022
Money Marketing, 11 July 2022
Lobby group Net Zero Watch has warned that environmental, societal, and governance (ESG) is unlikely to survive in its current form.
They told Money Marketing that ESG has become an investment risk as a result of the energy crisis.
A spokesperson for Net Zero Watch said: “Most fund managers who have been betting on the ESG agenda are losing billions of their clients’ investment as a result of the deepening energy crisis while those who are energy realists will make billions.
“The green and ESG agenda has become a huge investment risk and is unlikely to survive in its current form.”
Analyst and former fund manager Peter Cameron shares similar views.
He told Money Marketing: “A number of utility companies are planning to reopen coal plants to help lessen the reliance on Russian gas.
“Many investors have made net-zero pledges and committed to no longer funding coal, but that was before Russia invaded Ukraine.
“The situation has now changed, and I think fund managers will have to temporarily suspend their ESG/climate pledges in order to tackle the more pressing threat that is Russian aggression.”
Energy secretary Kwasi Kwarteng recently requested Drax power station in North Yorkshire to delay the closure of its coal-fired generators.
The coal plants were scheduled to shut in September but will remain available “if needed” until the end of March.
Fears over the security of Russian gas supplies have led Kwarteng to take this decision he called a “sensible precaution”.
The two houses of parliament in Germany have also voted an emergency legislation to reactivate coal-fired power plants for similar reasons.
Cameron added: “There has been a big debate within the ESG community over whether defence companies should now be investable.
“For decades, they were considered no-go areas for ESG funds, but some people are now making the case that defence is important for preserving democracy and human rights and should therefore be included in ESG.
Full story
They told Money Marketing that ESG has become an investment risk as a result of the energy crisis.
A spokesperson for Net Zero Watch said: “Most fund managers who have been betting on the ESG agenda are losing billions of their clients’ investment as a result of the deepening energy crisis while those who are energy realists will make billions.
“The green and ESG agenda has become a huge investment risk and is unlikely to survive in its current form.”
Analyst and former fund manager Peter Cameron shares similar views.
He told Money Marketing: “A number of utility companies are planning to reopen coal plants to help lessen the reliance on Russian gas.
“Many investors have made net-zero pledges and committed to no longer funding coal, but that was before Russia invaded Ukraine.
“The situation has now changed, and I think fund managers will have to temporarily suspend their ESG/climate pledges in order to tackle the more pressing threat that is Russian aggression.”
Energy secretary Kwasi Kwarteng recently requested Drax power station in North Yorkshire to delay the closure of its coal-fired generators.
The coal plants were scheduled to shut in September but will remain available “if needed” until the end of March.
Fears over the security of Russian gas supplies have led Kwarteng to take this decision he called a “sensible precaution”.
The two houses of parliament in Germany have also voted an emergency legislation to reactivate coal-fired power plants for similar reasons.
Cameron added: “There has been a big debate within the ESG community over whether defence companies should now be investable.
“For decades, they were considered no-go areas for ESG funds, but some people are now making the case that defence is important for preserving democracy and human rights and should therefore be included in ESG.
Full story
7) Melanie Phillips: Sri Lanka's collapse shows the danger of green dogma and Net Zero
The Times, 12 July 2022
Sri Lanka is a world away from Britain. But the fate of its government signals what happens when ordinary people are forced to endure the baleful consequences of an elite’s ideological fixation.
Sri Lanka has collapsed into violence and chaos. This has more relevance to Britain and the west than people might think. Thousands of protesters demanding the resignation of the Sri Lankan president, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, stormed his residence in Colombo at the weekend. They also set the prime minister’s house on fire.
The reason for the fury is that the country has gone bankrupt. It doesn’t have enough foreign currency to pay for imports. Fuel, medicines and some foods are in short supply. There have been power cuts, schools have been shut and prices have gone through the roof.
While corruption and general mismanagement have played their part, the principal cause of this crisis has been an obsession with organic farming. Last April, the government imposed a nationwide ban on the import and use of synthetic fertilisers and pesticides and ordered the country’s two million farmers to go organic.
While the impact of Covid on the economy meant the country could no longer afford to import synthetic fertilisers, Rajapaksa had made an election promise to go organic in 2019. This followed his formation in 2016 of a civil society movement committed to organic agriculture.
The results were catastrophic. Domestic rice production fell steeply, forcing a country that had long been self-sufficient in rice to import $450 million worth of the stuff. The fertiliser ban also devastated other exports. In desperation, the government last February suspended the ban for key crops including tea, rubber and coconut.
As Foreign Policy magazine has observed, this had been a “farrago of magical thinking, technocratic hubris, ideological delusion, self-dealing and sheer short-sightedness”.
Yet at last year’s UN climate change summit in Glasgow, Rajapaksa boasted of his nation’s commitment to an agricultural revolution “in sync with nature”. Soon afterwards, he fired two government officials for publicly criticising the increasingly dire food situation and fertiliser ban.
This is reminiscent of “Lysenkoism”. In the 1930s and 1940s, a Soviet agricultural scientist called Trofim Lysenko claimed he could eradicate starvation by modifying seeds before cultivation and thus multiply grain production. Tens of millions starved to death because Lysenko’s agricultural policies didn’t produce enough food. Any scientist who opposed him was shot or sent to Siberia.
There’s evidence of Lysenkoism all around us in the unchallengeable orthodoxies of green ideology. In the Netherlands, thousands of farmers have been protesting at proposals to curb nitrogen emissions. The Dutch government says nitrogen is a greenhouse gas pollutant and blames its high levels on fertiliser and cattle-produced manure. It plans to cut emissions by as much as 70 per cent in 131 key areas to reach its climate goals by 2030. The farmers say this will force them to slash livestock herds and close farms.
The UN tells us that nitrous oxide from industry and combustion is 300 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. Indeed, nitrogen is increasingly challenging carbon dioxide as the supposed destroyer of the planet. This is perhaps because, contrary to the dogma which holds that a rise in carbon dioxide inescapably heats up the atmosphere, global temperature has embarrassingly flatlined for more than seven years even as CO2 levels have risen.
Apocalyptic climate change theory is itself pure Lysenkoism. There is no evidence that anything is happening to the world’s climate that lies outside historic fluctuations. Scores of the world’s most eminent scientists have long testified to the theory’s bogus nature.
One of these is Paul Reiter, a professor of medical entomology who resigned from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change because of its false claim that global warming would increase the risk of malaria. In 2006, Reiter observed: “One of the few geneticists who survived the Stalin era wrote, ‘Lysenko showed how a forcibly instilled illusion, repeated over and over at meetings and in the media, takes on an existence of its own in people’s minds, despite all realities.’ To me, we have fallen into this trap.”
Yet anyone who contests climate change is treated as a lunatic or extremist. Scientists who challenge it don’t get grant funding. Schools teach it as “settled” science — a concept inimical to science, where no evidence is ever immune from challenge.
Now the effects are being felt. Europe’s commitment to “net zero” carbon emissions has given Putin a blackmail weapon through tighter gas supplies and soaring fuel prices. The European Commission’s vice-president, Frans Timmermans, has warned that Europe is in danger of “very, very strong conflict and strife” this winter over high fuel prices, and should head off the threat with a short-term return to fossil fuels. Fancy!
Climate change is poised to become a wedge issue in the Tories’ leadership election. With Kemi Badenoch and Suella Braverman signalling their opposition to net zero, the Tories’ green believers are scaremongering that the party would be “digging our electoral grave” by scrapping climate commitments.
On the contrary. Net zero has been a major contributor to Britain’s soaring fuel prices and the cost of living crisis, which played an outsize role in defenestrating Boris Johnson by turning the public against him.
Sri Lanka is a world away from Britain. But the fate of its government signals what happens when ordinary people are forced to endure the baleful consequences of an elite’s ideological fixation.
Sri Lanka has collapsed into violence and chaos. This has more relevance to Britain and the west than people might think. Thousands of protesters demanding the resignation of the Sri Lankan president, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, stormed his residence in Colombo at the weekend. They also set the prime minister’s house on fire.
The reason for the fury is that the country has gone bankrupt. It doesn’t have enough foreign currency to pay for imports. Fuel, medicines and some foods are in short supply. There have been power cuts, schools have been shut and prices have gone through the roof.
While corruption and general mismanagement have played their part, the principal cause of this crisis has been an obsession with organic farming. Last April, the government imposed a nationwide ban on the import and use of synthetic fertilisers and pesticides and ordered the country’s two million farmers to go organic.
While the impact of Covid on the economy meant the country could no longer afford to import synthetic fertilisers, Rajapaksa had made an election promise to go organic in 2019. This followed his formation in 2016 of a civil society movement committed to organic agriculture.
The results were catastrophic. Domestic rice production fell steeply, forcing a country that had long been self-sufficient in rice to import $450 million worth of the stuff. The fertiliser ban also devastated other exports. In desperation, the government last February suspended the ban for key crops including tea, rubber and coconut.
As Foreign Policy magazine has observed, this had been a “farrago of magical thinking, technocratic hubris, ideological delusion, self-dealing and sheer short-sightedness”.
Yet at last year’s UN climate change summit in Glasgow, Rajapaksa boasted of his nation’s commitment to an agricultural revolution “in sync with nature”. Soon afterwards, he fired two government officials for publicly criticising the increasingly dire food situation and fertiliser ban.
This is reminiscent of “Lysenkoism”. In the 1930s and 1940s, a Soviet agricultural scientist called Trofim Lysenko claimed he could eradicate starvation by modifying seeds before cultivation and thus multiply grain production. Tens of millions starved to death because Lysenko’s agricultural policies didn’t produce enough food. Any scientist who opposed him was shot or sent to Siberia.
There’s evidence of Lysenkoism all around us in the unchallengeable orthodoxies of green ideology. In the Netherlands, thousands of farmers have been protesting at proposals to curb nitrogen emissions. The Dutch government says nitrogen is a greenhouse gas pollutant and blames its high levels on fertiliser and cattle-produced manure. It plans to cut emissions by as much as 70 per cent in 131 key areas to reach its climate goals by 2030. The farmers say this will force them to slash livestock herds and close farms.
The UN tells us that nitrous oxide from industry and combustion is 300 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. Indeed, nitrogen is increasingly challenging carbon dioxide as the supposed destroyer of the planet. This is perhaps because, contrary to the dogma which holds that a rise in carbon dioxide inescapably heats up the atmosphere, global temperature has embarrassingly flatlined for more than seven years even as CO2 levels have risen.
Apocalyptic climate change theory is itself pure Lysenkoism. There is no evidence that anything is happening to the world’s climate that lies outside historic fluctuations. Scores of the world’s most eminent scientists have long testified to the theory’s bogus nature.
One of these is Paul Reiter, a professor of medical entomology who resigned from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change because of its false claim that global warming would increase the risk of malaria. In 2006, Reiter observed: “One of the few geneticists who survived the Stalin era wrote, ‘Lysenko showed how a forcibly instilled illusion, repeated over and over at meetings and in the media, takes on an existence of its own in people’s minds, despite all realities.’ To me, we have fallen into this trap.”
Yet anyone who contests climate change is treated as a lunatic or extremist. Scientists who challenge it don’t get grant funding. Schools teach it as “settled” science — a concept inimical to science, where no evidence is ever immune from challenge.
Now the effects are being felt. Europe’s commitment to “net zero” carbon emissions has given Putin a blackmail weapon through tighter gas supplies and soaring fuel prices. The European Commission’s vice-president, Frans Timmermans, has warned that Europe is in danger of “very, very strong conflict and strife” this winter over high fuel prices, and should head off the threat with a short-term return to fossil fuels. Fancy!
Climate change is poised to become a wedge issue in the Tories’ leadership election. With Kemi Badenoch and Suella Braverman signalling their opposition to net zero, the Tories’ green believers are scaremongering that the party would be “digging our electoral grave” by scrapping climate commitments.
On the contrary. Net zero has been a major contributor to Britain’s soaring fuel prices and the cost of living crisis, which played an outsize role in defenestrating Boris Johnson by turning the public against him.
Sri Lanka is a world away from Britain. But the fate of its government signals what happens when ordinary people are forced to endure the baleful consequences of an elite’s ideological fixation.
8) Mehreen Khan: Central banks running out of allies in their mad fight against climate change
The Times, 12 July 2022
The climate consensus is showing signs of falling apart as Europe undergoes a seismic energy price shock and fears recession.
Fighting climate change is not a “dilettante activity” for central bankers, the Bank of England governor told policymakers in Portugal last month. “The reason we have to take it seriously is because it is affecting our world and it will get worse,” Andrew Bailey said.
Bailey’s defence shot back at growing calls for central banks to stick to their main job of keeping inflation low and stable. With price rises at 40-year highs across western economies, central banks are being accused of “mission creep” that has led rate-setters to take their eyes off the inflation ball. Critics point to more than a decade of quantitative easing and setting up regulatory arms to oversee the banking system, as distracting monetary policy from its core task of managing inflation.
Nowhere is this criticism more potent than on climate change. Mark Carney, the former Bank governor, kick-started a focus on environmental risk as a key part of a central bank’s duty to ensure financial stability. That call has been taken up by Christine Lagarde, the European Central Bank chief, since 2019. The US Fed has, for now, remained absent from the green monetary policy revolution.
Until a few months ago, central bankers’ focus on climate change was in lockstep with growing global action. More than 130 countries have committed to cut greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050. Green parties have won rising vote shares, joining governing coalitions in Germany, Austria, and Belgium. Environmentalist politics has been adopted by centre parties across the developed world. The planet was too important to ignore.
That climate consensus is showing signs of falling apart as Europe undergoes a seismic energy price shock and fears recession. In the UK, natural gas prices will drive inflation to more than 11 per cent and put the worst squeeze on household incomes since the 1950s.
Two recent developments underscore how the energy crisis is catalysing the collapse of the fragile decarbonisation agenda.
The first is a landmark decision by the US Supreme Court this month to curtail the government’s power to force coal power stations to slash emissions. The ruling throws the Biden administration’s plans for sweeping decarbonisation into disarray and robs the world of its self-proclaimed climate leader.
The second was in Brussels last week, where the European Parliament approved natural gas and nuclear power as “green” energy sources, burying EU hopes to cut emissions by funnelling private capital into sustainable activities.
Where does this leave central banks? For the ECB, its pro-active climate policies have been justified by a legal mandate to support the “general economic policies” of the union. Since 2019, cutting emissions has been part of this goal. But with a shift to importing polluting liquified natural gas and ramping up nuclear power and its toxic by-products, green monetary policy risks being out of step with political forces.
For now, Bailey and Lagarde are showing no signs of letting up. The ECB has followed the Bank of England and will shift its corporate QE to greener companies after years funding the fossil fuel industry. The ECB has taken an extra step to limit collateral it accepts from polluting assets and is also under pressure from activists to introduce a green lending discount for banks who fund household energy-efficiency investment. The goal is to increase the cost of capital for businesses that do not meet environmental criteria.
But central banks cannot become the only game in town on climate change. Doing so would raise perennial questions, not only about their inflation focus, but broader democratic legitimacy.
Climate policies through stealth might be well-meaning, but they are neither desirable nor sustainable. In the absence of a firm democratic underpinning, the limits of green monetary policy will soon be reached.
The Times, 12 July 2022
The climate consensus is showing signs of falling apart as Europe undergoes a seismic energy price shock and fears recession.
Fighting climate change is not a “dilettante activity” for central bankers, the Bank of England governor told policymakers in Portugal last month. “The reason we have to take it seriously is because it is affecting our world and it will get worse,” Andrew Bailey said.
Bailey’s defence shot back at growing calls for central banks to stick to their main job of keeping inflation low and stable. With price rises at 40-year highs across western economies, central banks are being accused of “mission creep” that has led rate-setters to take their eyes off the inflation ball. Critics point to more than a decade of quantitative easing and setting up regulatory arms to oversee the banking system, as distracting monetary policy from its core task of managing inflation.
Nowhere is this criticism more potent than on climate change. Mark Carney, the former Bank governor, kick-started a focus on environmental risk as a key part of a central bank’s duty to ensure financial stability. That call has been taken up by Christine Lagarde, the European Central Bank chief, since 2019. The US Fed has, for now, remained absent from the green monetary policy revolution.
Until a few months ago, central bankers’ focus on climate change was in lockstep with growing global action. More than 130 countries have committed to cut greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050. Green parties have won rising vote shares, joining governing coalitions in Germany, Austria, and Belgium. Environmentalist politics has been adopted by centre parties across the developed world. The planet was too important to ignore.
That climate consensus is showing signs of falling apart as Europe undergoes a seismic energy price shock and fears recession. In the UK, natural gas prices will drive inflation to more than 11 per cent and put the worst squeeze on household incomes since the 1950s.
Two recent developments underscore how the energy crisis is catalysing the collapse of the fragile decarbonisation agenda.
The first is a landmark decision by the US Supreme Court this month to curtail the government’s power to force coal power stations to slash emissions. The ruling throws the Biden administration’s plans for sweeping decarbonisation into disarray and robs the world of its self-proclaimed climate leader.
The second was in Brussels last week, where the European Parliament approved natural gas and nuclear power as “green” energy sources, burying EU hopes to cut emissions by funnelling private capital into sustainable activities.
Where does this leave central banks? For the ECB, its pro-active climate policies have been justified by a legal mandate to support the “general economic policies” of the union. Since 2019, cutting emissions has been part of this goal. But with a shift to importing polluting liquified natural gas and ramping up nuclear power and its toxic by-products, green monetary policy risks being out of step with political forces.
For now, Bailey and Lagarde are showing no signs of letting up. The ECB has followed the Bank of England and will shift its corporate QE to greener companies after years funding the fossil fuel industry. The ECB has taken an extra step to limit collateral it accepts from polluting assets and is also under pressure from activists to introduce a green lending discount for banks who fund household energy-efficiency investment. The goal is to increase the cost of capital for businesses that do not meet environmental criteria.
But central banks cannot become the only game in town on climate change. Doing so would raise perennial questions, not only about their inflation focus, but broader democratic legitimacy.
Climate policies through stealth might be well-meaning, but they are neither desirable nor sustainable. In the absence of a firm democratic underpinning, the limits of green monetary policy will soon be reached.
The London-based Net Zero Watch is a campaign group set up to highlight and discuss the serious implications of expensive and poorly considered climate change policies. The Net Zero Watch newsletter is prepared by Director Dr Benny Peiser - for more information, please visit the website at www.netzerowatch.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment