“The reality is that net zero is being used to license a ‘burn now – pay later approach which has seen carbon emissions continue to soar.” [James Dyke, senior lecturer in global systems at Exeter University]
“Current net zero policies will not keep warming to within 1.5°C because they were never intended to. They were and still are driven by a need to protect business as usual, not the climate. If we want to keep people safe then large and sustained cuts to carbon emissions need to happen now.” [James Dyke]
“The most effective guard against climate breakdown may not be technological solutions, but a more fundamental reimagining of what constitutes a good life on this particular planet.” [James Dyke]
“Zoning fixes, micro-mobility, electrifying bus fleets, and bike lanes can happen now without gearing up large, environmentally destructive mining operations.” [Congress for the New Urbanism]
.
Ultra-low emission zones: an electoral issue
How much of an issue is the ‘ultra low emission zone’ project in today’s byelection in Uxbridge?
The Big Issue today says ‘it’s taken over the conversation’:
Even the new Barbie film has been dragged into the discourse, with the Conservatives forced to recant a claim that Barbie’s car wouldn’t be Ulez compliant. Thursday is being sold as the Ulez election. The ‘Ulez election’? After 8 years of Boris Johnson, Uxbridge and South Ruislip has bigger problems – The Big Issue
Ross Clarke writes in The Spectator this weekend that policy-makers do indeed need to be careful pushing the Ulez project:
While the banning of petrol and diesel cars tends to steal headlines, it is less understood that part of the plan for net zero involves the outright reduction in use of road transport… Making life awkward for motorists may come to be seen as a form of preparatory work for what lies ahead – weaning the greater part of the population off their cars altogether. But motorists are not going to go quietly. Road rage: the great motorist rebellion has begun | The Spectator
Ross Clarke laments how the debate around Ulezs has become conflated with conspiracy theories – as covered here: Engaging on climate change with evidence and communication – Vision Group for Sidmouth
Electric Vehicles: from critique to climate scepticism
He has just written a book on EVs, as reviewed earlier by the Financial Times:
Clark’s argument, which will be well known to readers of his British newspaper columns, is that the UK was mad to make a legally binding pledge to cut its emissions to net zero by 2050. He says there should have been more debate about a policy fed by alarmist “hyperbole” that could cause “huge damage to our economy” while bigger carbon polluters such as China let themselves off the hook.
So far, so familiar to students of what has come to be known as “climate inactivism”, a newer breed of scepticism that no longer rejects climate science outright but questions the extent and pace of action needed. Clark is on more interesting ground when he complains that the UK’s net zero goal is impractical in a country with a “hopelessly inadequate” electric car charging network; meagre hydrogen infrastructure; insufficient energy storage and other shortcomings. Frustrated net zero advocates make similar arguments. But very few agree with the concept underpinning Clark’s thesis: even if the downsides of global warming outweigh any benefits “there is nothing coming that will be beyond our ability to cope”. Trusting that blithe prediction is, of course, a luxury most of the world cannot afford.
Notable new books on climate and the environment | Financial Times
In today’s Mail, he makes the well-known case against EVs on the grounds that the batteries need minerals resourced in very dubious circumstances, that they produce more carbon in their manufacture and that they create other types of pollution: Why your electric car is nowhere near as green as you think: the hidden eco-pitfalls of the NetZero cause’s pin-up | Daily Mail Online
As covered here: Measuring carbon footprints: old bangers vs new electric cars – Vision Group for Sidmouth and Electric cars are not carbon neutral – Vision Group for Sidmouth and How ‘green’ are electric vehicles? – Vision Group for Sidmouth
The only problem is that Ross Clarke’s points have become conflated with those very same conspiracy theories he purports to worry about – as the ‘weaknesses’ in the EV debate have been seized on by the climate sceptics:
Ross Clark on Not Zero: How an Irrational Target Will Impoverish You and Help China – YouTube who are part of the GWPF network: New paper: Impacts of Climate Change – Perception and Reality – The Global Warming Policy Foundation
Ross Clark On ‘Not Zero’: How An Irrational Target Will Impoverish You, Help China – Climate Change Dispatch who see themselves as latter-day Galileos, challenging ‘consensus science’: About Us
It was back in 2020 when another climate sceptic think tank came out with a report dismissing EVs – as reported by the De-Smog site:
“This is a grab bag of old and misleading claims about EVs [electric vehicles],” said David Reichmuth, a senior engineer in the clean transportation program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “If you want to answer this question [posed by the report’s title], you have to also look at the question of what are the impacts of the current gasoline and diesel transport system, and this report just ignores that.” Reichmuth added that this report, coming from an organization that has long worked to downplay climate risks to stave off policy responses, is not a useful contribution to the public discourse on electric vehicles and climate policy. “It’s designed to sow doubt and slow the transition [to electric vehicles],” he said. “If you’re coming from a point of view that climate change isn’t real, then maybe EVs don’t make sense, but that’s not reality.” Climate Deniers Are Claiming EVs Are Bad for the Environment — Again. Here’s Why They’re Wrong. – DeSmog
And here’s piece from last year from the think tank Skeptical Science, also sceptical of climate sceptics – which quotes David Reichmuth: Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate
Electric Vehicles: a distraction from the issues
Another way to see the debate around EVs is that it’s all a distraction: The EV industry is a distraction to prevent us from doing what is needed to save… | Hacker News
Ross Clarke is concerned about the impact of such policies on ‘ordinary folk who drive’; but perhaps we shouldn’t focus on the EVs – but on a suite of policies to encourage people to get out of their cars:
Governments champion EVs to win voter support, and corporations offer optimistic product projections to lure investors. The reality is that electric cars will be less of a solution than presently expected. They will be essential to addressing climate change, but only as one component of a suite of transportation solutions to address climate change. “Achieving this future is possible,” the report authors write, “with levers ranging from mass transit policy, to land use and zoning decisions, to regulations regarding battery size and car warranties, to streetscape planning that incorporates walkability and cycling safety.” Given the time constraints to address climate change, we won’t have enough lithium to do otherwise. Zoning fixes, micromobility, electrifying bus fleets, and bike lanes can happen now without gearing up large, environmentally destructive mining operations. Electric cars shouldn’t distract us from changes to the built environment | CNU
From Net Zero to Not Zero: it’s about the Climate, stupid!
As the UK government says: It’s the climate emergency, stupid – GOV.UK
And as have others, now for some time: Climate change is behind record-breaking heat waves, experts say – The Washington Post and “It’s the Climate, Stupid.” – Yale University Press
James Dyke, associate professor in earth system science at Exeter University, has also been saying this for some time – in his regular pieces for the i-newspaper: Is the extreme weather in Europe because of climate change? Yes, and here’s the evidence
As he said in one piece, it’s about the lost opportunities, not the techonolgy:
The opening shots in the next stage in the battle to avoid dangerous climate change were fired last month. Writing in The Sun, Conservative MP Steve Baker claimed that UK efforts to cut carbon emissions would land millions with huge costs to replace their gas boilers. He also argued that electric vehicles are too expensive and we must not rush through the replacement of petrol and diesel cars. Baker is right to highlight that transport and homes play a big role in our greenhouse gas emissions – but by focusing on the costs he completely misses the opportunities.
We could also gain a lot from simply reducing the total numbers of cars on UK roads. Analysis of the London local elections has shown that low traffic neighbourhoods are far from unpopular. That shouldn’t be surprising – rat-running roads have been transformed into spaces in which children can play and neighbours chat. By the middle of this century the UK could not only be carbon neutral, it could also be a nicer, safer place to live. So if there are so many positives, then why are we not already there? I’m often asked that by students or members of the public.
And James Dyke would agree with Ross Clarke that the idea of ‘net zero’ is in fact a very unhelpful, confusing and ultimately illogical idea:
It’s never easy to admit that you were wrong. It’s taken me years to accept that I‘ve been fundamentally misguided about our attempts to avoid dangerous climate change. I thought that net zero was a sound science-based approach that represented a breakthrough in climate politics. The reality is that net zero is being used to license a ‘burn now – pay later approach which has seen carbon emissions continue to soar. We must end our wishful thinking about net zero – James Dyke
Unfortunately, in practice it helps perpetuate a belief in technological salvation and diminishes the sense of urgency surrounding the need to curb emissions now… The time has come to voice our fears and be honest with wider society. Current net zero policies will not keep warming to within 1.5°C because they were never intended to. They were and still are driven by a need to protect business as usual, not the climate. If we want to keep people safe then large and sustained cuts to carbon emissions need to happen now. That is the very simple acid test that must be applied to all climate policies. The time for wishful thinking is over. Climate scientists: concept of net zero is a dangerous trap
And so the most effective guard against climate breakdown may not be technological solutions, but a more fundamental reimagining of what constitutes a good life on this particular planet. We may be critically constrained in our abilities to change and rework the technosphere, but we should be free to envisage alternative futures. Thus far our response to the challenge of climate change exposes a fundamental failure of our collective imagination. Climate change: Why we need a fundamental shift in how we think about this crisis | The Independent | The Independent