The sixth carbon budget: The first without consensus

It was initiated by Labour, and built on by the Conservatives, with the SNP, Greens and Lib Dems pushing only to go faster. This drove cross-party agreement to legal guardrails from the Climate Change Act which push the government to look long-term and to stick to plans. 

Things are different now. Climate policy is a dividing line, with scepticism bordering on denial from the right, and acceleration from parties on the left. Reform is on record as saying they wants to make 'anti-net zero' the new Brexit, the Conservatives have called it impossible.

Despite this fracture, after the previous government’s attempts were deemed insufficient by the courts, the Labour government must write a plan for the next carbon budget by October that is more ambitious, not less. The sixth carbon budget (CB6) is a science-backed target for the level of greenhouse gas emissions the UK can produce 2033-2037 to be on track for net zero. The technocracy is important, but so too are the politics that go with it.

Few parties these days deny the existence of climate change, wise given their voters continue to be worried by climate impacts. But instead suggest that we should slow down or leave it to someone else. Sure, climate change is a problem, but China’s not ours.

China is building new coal plants, but construction or capacity is not consumption. Coal in electricity has peaked and is dropping rapidly – and China is leaping straight to renewables without using natural gas as a bridge – and now has over half of the world’s installed offshore wind. Either way, the question to sceptics of UK action remains. If you think China, India, or Indonesia’s emissions matter most, what is your strategy to do something about that – diplomacy, trade, aid?

Carbon targets provide much needed clarity when opponents muddy the water. The UK is indeed responsible for a small proportion of global emissions, less than 1 per cent. But, if you accept climate science, you also accept every 0.01 of a degree matters. The UK’s contribution might be thing that prevents a dangerous tipping point. 

When climate advocates talk of the UK’s global leadership it isn’t about volume, it’s about direction. The UK is proving to others not just that emissions can be reduced, but that the politicians delivering those policies will be rewarded for it. If all the countries with less than one percent of global emissions reached net zero, that’s 25 per cent of the world’s total.

Where the UK goes others follow. There are now at least 25 versions of the UK Climate Change Committee globally, including big emitters like Canada, Korea and Mexico. The UK created the contracts for difference scheme that transformed the economics of offshore wind, now the European Commission is recommending it as the driving force for EU electricity markets.

Policies like the carbon budgets are a key political moment for a world of onlookers, other governments, domestic opponents, and of course the UK public. 

CB6 is when the government can show not just what its doing, but how. Through the clean power 2030 plan or the industrial strategy, government has already signalled a narrative that climate is vital to economic competition and national security. As IPPR has written before, if the UK doesn’t want to meet the surging demand for clean products and services – other countries happily will. The public are ahead of critics in recognising UK renewables remove the UK from the grip of authoritarian oil states in either the eastern or western hemisphere. 

The challenge of CB6 compared to previous years is this is when climate action becomes much more visible to the consumer – transport, heating and industry are the focus of the 2030s. Security and economic growth are strong macro arguments for climate action. But unless CB6 makes micro arguments to the households that will be affected by policy it will struggle with new politics of climate. 

But government can be confident that general, low-carbon living is just nicer for the individual. Electric vehicles mean cleaner air, and in a world of noise bring a bit of quiet. Electric bus drivers prefer electric because they no longer have headaches from diesel fumes.

Like with early action on renewables, we are swapping out technologies with high running costs but cheaper upfront, for investment in better products that save over time. As we proved with renewables, the right policies can make the decision to switch easier, whether for households or businesses. But the focus should stick to introducing support for good well in advance of regulating out bads.

There are a raft of policies that could offer proof points for the government to the public of a household-focused approach to climate.

• A social leasing scheme that could help them hire electric vehicles for a very low monthly fee, with government paying the remaining fee. Bringing VAT on public EV charging from 20 to 5 per cent (in line with home charging), is an obvious signal of fairness.
• Larger grants and overall budget for heat pump support, alongside low interest loans, where repayment never exceeds savings, could see net benefits of ~£300 per household each year.
• Build on the construction technical excellence colleges with specific support to train heating installers both for new builds and upgrading existing homes.
• Tightening the future homes and buildings standard so that new properties come with clean heat. Installing at new build is significantly cheaper and provides a clear, consistent signal to local supply chains to expand. 

None of this is to say CB6 is easy. It will be attacked by sceptics. Ahead of November’s international summit, and the developing UK-EU relationship, it will be scrutinised by international partners. And while it remains a legal requirement, monitored by the courts, it is a chance for the government to show all of them, and crucially the public – not just that net zero can be reached, but that government can be rewarded for doing so.