Why Britain is losing its way in cutting carbon

The Economist has published an article, elaborating on the various reasons that led to Britain's efforts of transitioning to green energy and reaching "net zero" carbon emission by 2050 yielding worse results than expected, as well as sheddling light on PM Sunak's role in it. Caliber.Az reprints this article.

"Stand on the cliffs above Happisburgh, a Norfolk village, and imagine the electricity to power a large city flowing beneath your feet. Some 80km offshore stand 130 turbines, each over 300 metres tall, or the height of three Big Ben clock towers stacked atop one another. Cables that emerge from the seabed pass underground between flint-clad villages, carrying energy for 1.5m homes.

That, at least, was the plan. The Norfolk Boreas was intended to be one of the largest offshore wind farms anywhere. Vattenfall, a Swedish developer, won permission to build it in 2021. The blades were supposed to start turning by 2027. No more. In July the company halted work because of spiralling costs. Other projects are in doubt. This week the results of the government’s latest renewable-energy auction are also due. In contrast to previous rounds, few if any offshore wind projects are expected to win contracts.

If so, that would be the clearest sign yet that Britain’s once-impressive progress towards net zero by 2050 is faltering. Early gains came in part because manufacturing has declined and the country was early in kicking dependence on coal. But as other countries have sped up their own transitions, progress has slowed. In June the Climate Change Committee, a watchdog, warned that Britain is trailing others’ efforts.

One problem is a studied lack of leadership on the environment from Rishi Sunak, the prime minister. In July, after a by-election victory seen as a rejection of London’s ultra-low emission zone [also called 'ulez'] for vehicles, Mr Sunak touted policies, such as the need for more oil extraction from the North Sea, viewed as provocative by environmentalists. He also hinted to ministers that net-zero policies could be watered down. On August 31 he named Claire Coutinho as his latest energy secretary, the fourth occupant of the post in just a year.

How much does Mr Sunak’s lack of interest matter? He is buffeted by others. Some in his party hope to paint Labour politicians as eco-zealots. But he must also contend with other backbenchers, including his immediate predecessor, Liz Truss, who demand more green activity. That group compelled the government to suggest, on September 5, that it would ease an effective ban on building onshore wind farms in England. Nonetheless, under Mr Sunak green progress is stalling.

Start with offshore wind, the core of recent green efforts. Over the past decade, and four rounds of auctions, the cost of electricity produced from such fields has fallen by almost 75%. Only China has more offshore turbines. Last year wind, most of it offshore, produced more than a quarter of all electricity in Britain. Boris Johnson, prime minister from 2019 to 2022, had much bolder goals, to make Britain the 'Saudi Arabia of wind', lifting capacity to 50 gigawatts by 2030—it is 15GW today.

That was always going to be difficult, requiring three or four new Norfolk Boreases each year. With other wealthy countries also keen on the technology, competition for skills and parts has become fierce. Inflation has also hurt. Vattenfall, Orsted, a big Danish wind-farm developer, and others say building costs are up by 40% from last year. Pricey steel is one problem. Overstretched suppliers, including those of boats needed during construction, are another.

Most analysts think building costs will remain high. Despite this, the government refused to increase the maximum strike price—the highest bid allowed to developers in a reverse auction—from last year. It may have worried about giving any hint of consumer bills rising to support green projects. If so, that was wrongheaded, says Jess Ralston of the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, a think-tank. With gas prices expected to remain high and no obvious alternatives, offshore wind projects still offer savings for consumers. Ministers were also probably influenced by developers crying wolf before, saying a price could not be met only to bid below it.

If few, or even no, new offshore wind projects are agreed on after the auction this week, that would create uncertainty for suppliers to the industry. Developers may drift away to other markets: Germany completed its largest auction round so far in July. And even if one or two projects win support, if prices are too low for the developers to get around to delivering them, that would mean more delays.

The outlook for onshore wind farms may seem brighter. But these are much smaller than those at sea and a big expansion is unlikely. Tight planning restrictions will remain, even if these are less arduous than the previous regime, under which a single objection from a local resident would scupper a project. In England just two onshore turbines have gone up in the past three years, both on land owned by Keele university.

Mr Johnson had talked of easing planning rules, or finding ways to reward areas hosting wind farms for doing so, but no specific proposals have yet emerged. In Norfolk, councillors grumble that locals see no gain from disruptions in the county. Other countries do a better job of dangling carrots. In Germany, for example, some developers pay communities a share of their annual profits, roughly equivalent to €2,000 [$2,145] per hectare.

Two other indicators illustrate Britain’s drift. The first concerns heat pumps to replace household gas boilers. Last year 69,000 of these were installed, whereas Germany managed to put in 236,000. A target to get 600,000 into British homes each year by 2028 is all but certain to be missed. Regulations and taxes that apply to electricity, but not to gas, discourage switching. A lack of skilled engineers to install the pumps is another constraint.

The second is the administration of Britain’s emissions trading scheme, introduced after Brexit to replace one used in the European Union. By the spring of this year, the national carbon price had started to diverge from the European one. Since July, after the government said it would issue more allowances for polluters, the national carbon price has fallen yet further. That gives investors in Britain less incentive than those in Europe to seek out green projects.

The pace has not slowed in every sector. Even if the push to decarbonise the grid is slowing, the switch to electric cars continues: one-fifth of cars bought by Britons in August were electric. It helps that electric-car prices have been falling globally, but also that Britain has stuck to its promise to end the sale of new petrol and diesel cars by 2030 and introduced a goal for manufacturers to make more vehicles electric. Some Conservatives have called for both of those to be ditched. Instead Mr Sunak listened to the auto industry—notably the Tata Group, which in July announced plans to build a battery factory in Somerset, helped by a large subsidy from the government.

More tensions will come to the fore this month, as an energy bill reaches its final stages in Parliament. Ms Coutinho faces pressure on matters such as the ending of installation of oil boilers in households [Duncan Baker, Conservative MP for North Norfolk, calls it 'the rural ulez']. If Labour were to form the next government, it says it wants all of Britain’s electricity to be zero carbon by 2030— five years before the Tories’ target. Another year of drift would leave it with a lot to do".