A recent story by the local democracy reporter carried the rather depressing headline that Exeter’s Net Zero quest will be expensive – although elsewhere exactly the same story had the rather less loaded headline that a study reveals the cost of Exeter’s Net Zero quest:
A new study carried out by the University of Exeter sets out for the first time the costs associated with getting to Net Zero. If the city council keeps going as it is with its de-carbonisation initiatives it will spend £55.5million by 2031, the study says. Going above and beyond its current policies could cost up to £129million over the same time period.
The university has provided calculations for three scenarios – Business as Usual, which is the level already planned; Mid Case which escalates activity and Net Zero (Max), which is a maximum level of measures.
Under the most expensive scenario, the council’s housing stock would become fully electric, with more solar panels. It would also mean air source heat pumps on council buildings including the Royal Albert Memorial Museum, where difficult access to the historic building means installing a heat pump would cost more than £5million. The council says getting to the ‘max’ level would be ‘challenging and potentially contentious’.
It was back in 2020 when Exeter City Council announced its Net Zero Exeter 2030 Plan – but as Transition Exeter asked at the time about Exeter’s Net Zero Carbon Plan – is it up to the job? – referring to the Exeter Observer’s own question Is the Net Zero Exeter plan fit for purpose?
The report published by the Exeter Observer prompts the question whether there is still too great a focus on taking a business as usual approach. It has been 15 months since Exeter declared a climate emergency, and it seems time spent has focussed heavily on the production of policy reports and rather little on action-oriented approaches.
And that’s where we seem to be now: not much further than ‘business as usual’.
But isn’t everything costing more because of climate change? Or, as local councillor asked last year: The cost of Net Zero? How about the cost of Do Nothing?
I smiled ironically to myself when I opened a letter from my insurance company (right) telling me why my premium had gone up. Number one reason: increased severe weather.
These costs are everywhere. As a Councillor, I know for a fact that our local Council used to cut the grass six times a year, now it needs eight cuts to keep the place looking tidy (obviously there is a debate over whether such tidiness is always desirable). And then you need to factor in other issues – damage from falling trees, flood damage, gully clearing, flood defences etc, etc. And from a human point of view, health costs are rising and could rise further.
Back in 2006, Nicholas Stern suggested in his eponymous review that spending 1% of global GDP would prevent climate costs representing 5% of global GDP (he later upped the money required to 2%). Every other legitimate review has suggested similar, that the costs of change will always be much less than the costs of ‘do nothing’.
Back in 2022, the IPCC warned that doing nothing will be more expensive than investing in climate action today. And the year before they had been saying the same: Once you understand the terrible cost of doing nothing, climate action is a bargain.
Yes, we need to be listening to what the insurance market is telling us [Deloitte research reveals inaction on climate change could cost the world’s economy US$178 trillion by 2070 and The economic case for net zero is irresistible | Swiss Re]
But the point which needs to be made is that the energy transition will be much cheaper than you think. And this week, the UN secretary general António Guterres has declared we are at “a moment of opportunity: supercharging the clean energy age”.
Finally, though, people still need to be convinced – that is, Labour must create green jobs or lose voters to parties who oppose net zero – as unions warned over the weekend.
Who, then, is telling the positive stories around acting on climate change?
…