Judge Orders Quango to Support Claim of ‘Only’ 1% of GDP to Achieve Net Zero
Tell Us the True Cost of Saving the Planet: Judge Orders Quango to Support Claim of “Only” 1% of GDP to Go Net Zero
- UK goal of achieving net zero carbon emissions must be met by 2050
- It is the centerpiece of the Prime Minister’s presidency of the United Nations climate change conference
- Critics pointed out that other countries put a much higher cost on the lens
- The 1.3% figure was released by the Climate Change Committee in 2019 and then enshrined in law.
A court has asked climate policy makers to show why they think achieving zero net carbon emissions will only cost 1% of GDP.
To be reached by 2050, the target is the centerpiece of Boris Johnson’s presidency of the United Nations climate change conference in Glasgow in November.
But critics point out that other countries have put a much higher cost on the same lofty goal.
The ambitious goal of achieving net zero carbon emissions in the UK by 2050 is the centerpiece of Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s (pictured in Aberdeenshire on Thursday) chairmanship of the UN climate change conference in Glasgow in November
The 1.3% figure was released by the Climate Change Committee in 2019 and then enshrined in law.
Since then, the panel has refused repeated requests for access to the spreadsheets behind the calculation. However, the Information Tribunal has now ruled that the data must be disclosed.
Justice Sophie Buckley said: “There is an extremely strong public interest in allowing scrutiny of the data, models and calculations that underlie the CCC’s conclusion that the goal of net zero could be achieved at an annual resource cost of up to 1 to 2% of GDP.
“Any errors in the calculations that led to the CCC’s conclusions, which in turn led to legislative change, have the potential to have a very significant impact on the lives and finances of a large number of people, on the spending of large sums of public money, and on the policies of the British government over the next 30 years. ‘
According to the CCC, the UK’s economic output will reach around £ 4.6 trillion in 2050, bringing the cost 1.3% to £ 50 billion.
The court case was brought by Andrew Montford (pictured), deputy director of the Global Warming Policy Forum
The court case was brought by Andrew Montford, deputy director of the Global Warming Policy Forum, founded by former Chancellor Lord Lawson.
Mr. Montford filed an Freedom of Information request for the spreadsheets and, when that was denied, appealed to Information Commissioner Elizabeth Denham.
The CCC said releasing the spreadsheets would take too long and “cause confusion and distract from public debate.” He also said that parts of the analysis were written down instead of being kept on his computer systems.
Ministers repeatedly said the cost would be modest, citing the CCC report.
Lord Deben, chairman of the committee, said it was “universally recognized as the most seriously touted and costliest effort”.
Lord Lawson said: “We must put this potentially ruinous engagement on hold until there has been full disclosure and full review. If the estimated cost turns out to be far too low, then the government needs to think again.
The PM accepts the “pain” of the pit towns
Downing Street yesterday refused to apologize for Boris Johnson’s remarks that Margaret Thatcher helped Britain go green by shutting down coal mines.
But, under pressure from Conservative Red Wall MPs, the Prime Minister’s spokesperson said he recognized “the tremendous impact and pain” caused by the closing of the pits after the bitter miners’ strike of 1984-85 .
Mr Johnson had said Mrs Thatcher had given Britain a “great start” in tackling climate change through her actions.
Man points over police officers ‘shoulders in 1884 miners’ strike
This drew an angry reaction from some of its MPs, who said it cast doubt on the Tories’ ‘leveling up’ agenda, as well as Sir Keir Starmer of Labor and the Welsh and Scottish leaders.
One conservative said: “Everyone says Boris doesn’t really believe [in levelling up] and this confirms it. The reason we have to level up in the first place is that these places have been so affected by deindustrialization. ‘