The UK’s recently announced Green Day climate pledges have been met with criticism from a spectrum of stakeholders—media, industry, and politicians.

The goals, rebranded as an energy security plan, were announced in time to meet a High Court deadline set after the UK lost a case over its plans to meet climate commitments under the Climate Change Law.

The lawsuit was filed by Friends of the Earth, the Good Law Project, and ClientEarth over the government’s unlawful Net Zero Strategy.

The UK government did not appeal after the High Court ruled in favour of the environmental groups. Before the ruling, the UK government had approved permits for new oil and gas, and fracking projects. These permits were approved after the UK hosted COP26, the annual UN climate conference, in Glasgow in 2021.

After their precedent-setting win, ClientEarth reported on the verdict, stating that “the government will have to update its climate strategy to include a quantified account of how its policies will achieve climate targets, based on a realistic assessment of what it actually expects them to deliver” by March 2023.

The Green Day deal has been heavily criticised, and some believe that Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak’s government could end up in court again over the plan.

George Monbiot, writer and environmental activist, writes in the Guardian, of the Green Day plan, “Rather than announce the comprehensive change required to defend Earth systems, Rishi Sunak’s government will defend the fossil fuel industry from its competitors.”

The criticism over fossil fuels refers to the government’s commitment to maximising fossil fuel production in the North Sea. The Green Alliance published a March 2023 update to its Net Zero Policy Tracker of the UK’s progress on meeting its climate commitments. It found that, while the government had “announced policies to cover 87 per cent of all the emissions reductions required during the fifth carbon budget period (2028-32) to meet its net-zero strategy targets… only 28 per cent of this is confirmed policy.”

By sector, power had the greatest amount, in metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, of confirmed policy. Transport had the most policies under consultation.

The government’s press release announcing the plan framed the targets as a response to Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and its effect on global energy security. It mentions investments in carbon capture and storage, port infrastructure projects meant to support offshore wind generation, heat pump manufacturing, and an increase in EV charging ports.

Some journalists viewed the scheme as a response to the Biden Administration’s Inflation Reduction Act, which was sold as an economy-boosting scheme that aims to significantly green the US economy. Sunak’s energy security plan seems to do the reverse: claims to have a climate focus, when it instead focuses on economic growth and creating a more business – and investment-friendly economic environment.

However, the Green Day plan does seek to develop 50 GW of offshore wind by 2030 and increase solar power capacity fivefold by 2050 through investment incentives. It also intends to scale up nuclear energy to 24 GW by 2060 by deploying small modular reactors and incentivizing investment in electric vehicles.

The plan announced no new funding and does not mark a fundamental shift in the government’s green policy. Instead, it offers steps on how the government will take steps in the race to decarbonise the economy. The scheme has a strong focus on incentives, but subsidies are not specifically laid out, and the details may have to wait until the Autumn Budget is decided.

The Energy Security scheme has not garnered widespread support. Some of the technologies pushed by the plan, such as carbon capture, utilisation, and storage (CCUS), have been criticised by environmentalists. Research on carbon capture and sequestration has shown mixed results in terms of its ability to decarbonize, though it is often used as a way to offset future emissions.

A Stanford University researcher who published work on carbon capture technology found that it “reduces only a small fraction of carbon emissions, and it usually increases air pollution.” The results are dependent on the energy used to run the CCUS technology, but pointed to less stellar emissions reductions than are often touted.

The UK public seems more interested in major climate investments than does the government. The courts may have to intervene again if it finds that the climate commitments made under Sunak’s government still do not go far enough to decarbonize the economy.

(Photo credit: Pexbay/Commons)

Sarah Sakeena Marshall,
American University’s School of Intl Service, The Muslim News Environmental Columnist