Days of reckoning for Net Zero
The revised UK Net Zero Strategy and the UK Government's response to the Skidmore Review are both out. We take a look.
While the Government’s latest lap around the Net Zero track, Powering Up Britain: The Net Zero Growth Plan, has provided the usual amount of media entertainment value, it could be regarded in some circles (not necessarily ours) as something of a red herring. Given it was written in response to a legal challenge in 2022 from Friends of the Earth and others that the original Net Zero Strategy was inadequate and therefore (somehow) unlawful, its appearance – together with its half-tonne of supporting documents – one day before the court-ordered deadline reminded us of those classic JIT (Just In Time) components: JIC (Just In Case) and JTL (Just Too Late).
Nonetheless, it has arrived and has attracted its due amount of comment and criticism. The Green Edge is not getting embroiled in adding to that, but we have looked at a lot of the material out there, including this rather neat piece from the FT and a whole bunch of takes on the subject from learned folk collected by Science Media Centre.
The instigators-in-law seem to have remained largely quiet so far, no doubt inwardly ruminating on whether they’re happy with the outcome. We do, however, note this slightly ominous post from the Good Law Project, saying ‘if we come to the conclusion that the Government’s new plan has once again fallen short of the mark, we will not hesitate to take further legal action...[s]o, at a first glance, it is disappointing to see that a number of the policies announced today have either been recycled from previous pledges or are not backed up with proper investment’. So, it seems there could be more legal fun to come, especially as the Good Law post goes on to say, ‘it is extremely concerning that the Government has proceeded to open a new licensing round for companies to run oil and gas exploration schemes in the North Sea’.
Opposition to more North Sea oil and gas is, of course, a common theme across the board. One quote we liked from the aforementioned Science Media Centre post comes from Prof Kevin Anderson of University of Manchester, who writes, ‘[t]he harm from repeatedly stuffing yourself with chocolate is not compensated by eating your greens. Similarly, the Government granting licenses for new oil, gas and coal developments is not compensated by expanding renewables, nuclear and other low-carbon tech.’ Neglecting onshore wind is also a common criticism, as is dependence on future technologies – in particular, CCUS – as justification for more oil and gas. Dr Friederike Otto of the Grantham Institute writes, ’[c]arbon capture is currently ineffective and an extremely costly experiment, distracting from the measures that we know are effective and can implement today. The UK government should not be investing £20 billion in a strategy that is essentially an ambulance at the bottom of a cliff when we could use the money to not go down the cliff in the first place’1.
While Chris Skidmore’s Independent Review of Net Zero is referred to throughout the Net Zero Growth Plan, what we feel has been obscured a little by all the mud flying at the Growth Plan is the Government’s actual response to the Skidmore Review. Issued on 30th March, the same day as the Growth Plan, the document comes in the form of a table of Skidmore’s original 129 recommendations, accompanied by the Gov’s response to each one. We would have liked to see Skidmore’s ‘25 for 2025’ priorities given their own section rather than being mixed up in the whole bunch, but anyway, there it is – we guess the good folk in Whitehall have all being getting writer’s cramp from all the documents they’ve had to rush out over the last few months on behalf of their political masters.
According to Chris Skidmore himself in a seminar the other day for his recently-launched Mission Zero Coalition initiative, the Government claims that it is taking forward 23 of the ‘25 for 2025’ recommendations. He was, however, careful to point out that the 25 were only the ones that need to happen as soon as possible.
In January, shortly after the publication of the Skidmore Review, we posted on the 25 key recommendations with a series of graphics indicating the timelines for each of the priority areas. We thought it might be useful, therefore, to update the graphic with our view of how far the Government has gone in adopting each of these priorities. Here’s our update - accepted recommendations are in green, rejected ones are in red and partial ones in orange…
Image: TGE. All data in this infographic has been derived and interpreted from Mission Zero (UK Gov, 2023) and should not be taken as a definitive version of the data presented in the Report.
Three recommendations not in the top 25, but with actions required for 2023 nonetheless, were those relating to skills. The responses to these, we have to say, were disappointing. Recommendation 59 (R59), which called for Government to publish an action plan and roadmap for Net Zero skills, was palmed off to the Green Jobs Delivery Group (GJDG) with a bit of arm waving about a Net Zero and Nature Workforce Action Plan coming along in 2024. At least there was also a promise of bi-annual updates from the GJDG beginning in Spring 2023, which is a relief because, to steal a slight corruption of the immortal words from Bachman-Turner Overdrive, we ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
R60 called for robust local (region/area) green jobs statistics to monitor the just transition. Government response pointed, rightly, to the work being done by ONS and a look at the latest update from ONS itself shows that this work is progressing, but slowly. We doubt that anything truly useable will come out of this in the immediate term and we’ve already found in our own work that other data sources from independents like The Data City are of much more use right now.
The response to R61 seemed to us to be the weakest of all. In reply to a call from Skidmore to increasing the flexibility of the Apprenticeship Levy and consider options for retaining talent within businesses and access to international labour, the Government simply restated its commitment to the Levy, apprenticeships and bootcamps. No mention of talent retainment or the international dimension. A trifle myopic, we feel…
…which took us back to the new Net Zero Growth Plan. Now, we appreciate we said earlier in the post that we weren’t going to add our own comments or criticisms, but when it comes to skills – which are featured in the section on Net Zero Workforce (pps 92-103) – we have a vested interest. So, what do we see?
We see recognition of the task ahead in building a Net Zero workforce but not its scale. We see some recognition of its looming complexity and work being started to address the potential scarcity of skills2, together with assertions that the skills system must deliver for Net Zero. But this is not matched by interventions and support of the scale needed.
We see that Government figures show 1 in 5 UK workers will experience shifting demand for skills. With an overall UK workforce of some 32.8 million, that’s over six-and-a-half million people. Compared to that, 10,000 training places being made available for low carbon heating and 16,000 for energy efficiency and retrofit seems low. Oh dear, way, way too low.
We see an almost naïve belief that the market and industry will be able to match the skills shortages with appropriate workforce development solutions. Targets are helpful for carbon budgets but translating them into meaningful skills is quite another thing.
We see a scramble for data and sources. DLUHC’s (new) Spatial Data Unit is mentioned, as is DfE’s (newish) Unit for Future Skills and the (developing) work being done by ONS. But we see no mention of the Migration Advisory Committee and the Office of Manpower Economics - surely they have a lot to add to understanding the labour market and its flows. For skills and competences, there are the IfATE data sets. Lightcast data gets a nod but not the aforementioonad Data City for sectors and complexity analyses around relationships and linkages. And so on.
We looked, but we couldn’t see anything about leveraging the potential of the state procurement machine to bootstrap green technology demand. Surely, here is a direct way of making and growing markets organically rather than relying on policy or funding interventions. Committing to making all public buildings net zero by, say, 2035, could drive solar, heat pumps, battery storage - all potentially creating green jobs along the green supply chain. There are a bunch of major engineering companies in the UK - Kensa, Hamworthy, the tie in with the Octopus Energy work, to mention but three – who are well placed to respond to the sort of uptick in heat pump demand that public sector buyers could generate. This, in turn, could have knock-on benefts to the domestic supply base as increased scale of production reduces unit costs and, consequently, prices. A bit of joined-up thinking here could combine the carrot of increased demand with the stick of mandatory installation of heat pumps in all new buildings of all types. But, as a recent FT editorial noted, there’s a lack of ambition and a lack of urgency.
And finally, we have to say we’re sad to see no recognition of the role of volunteer and community groups in driving energy projects and schemes in local areas. While the Government looks to entice retirees back to work, consider those who are spending all or part of their retirements in unpaid roles, directing their experience and expertise towards Net Zero. While the National Lottery is supporting such groups through contested funding schemes, we would do well to return to the previous Coalition’s Community Energy Strategy and bring such groups into the consciousness of the Net Zero strategy.
HM Gov, consider that as a free recommendation from The Green Edge. You’re welcome.
In fairness, another writer in the same post, Professor Stuart Haszeldine of the University of Edinburgh, presents an alternate view by writing: ‘[c]arbon capture and geological storage is an essential technology to decrease future carbon emissions … [g]uarantees of £20Bn provide confidence for tens of commercial investors, partnering in multiple projects, to build a climate-saving CO2 storage ambition unequalled in the world.
For example, the pilot government-industry action on the power and networks sector workforce.