As recently as a year ago, the UK appeared to have unstoppable momentum on the march to “net zero” CO2 emissions. By the Climate Change Act of 2008, adopted under Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown, the country legally committed itself to reduce carbon emissions by 80% (from the 1990 level) by 2050. In 2019, during a Conservative government headed by Prime Minister Theresa May, Parliament amended the Act (by unanimous vote!) to make the emissions reduction/net zero mandate 100%. The next Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, also a Tory, proved to be unequalled in his zealotry for the climate campaign. The net zero mandate had both energetic support at the top of government, and the backing of an all-party consensus in Parliament.

Today, Net Zero Watch issued a press release describing the UK government as “hopelessly divided” over climate issues. (Full disclosure: Net Zero Watch is an affiliate of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, where I am a board member of the sister affiliate American Friends of the GWPF.). What has happened?

I’d like to claim that it is effective advocacy by NZW that is finally turning the tide against the net zero lunacy. But while NZW’s advocacy may be having some effect, the more important factor is that energy reality is finally asserting itself.

The 2008 Climate Change Act created something called the Committee on Climate Change, tasked with coming up with recommendations for reaching the net zero target. The Committee has come up with multiple hundred of those. Here is a nearly endless table of such recommendations from 2021. A tiny sample to give you an idea of the level of central planning hubris:

• Work with the minerals industries to develop a detailed joint plan for CO2 transport from dispersed sites.

• Commit to targets for ore-based steelmaking and cement production in the UK to reach near-zero emissions by 2035 and 2040, respectively.

• Deliver industrial carbon capture contracts (ICC) to enable final investment decisions on the first ICC projects by mid-2022.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak came into office without having made explicit commitments one way or the other on the net zero crusade. But it did not take long before some major decisions landed on his desk. In July, the issue was whether to proceed with hundreds of new oil and gas leases in the North Sea. Since the UK has banned fracking under its land, its only route to avoid complete dependence on foreign (and mostly hostile) sources for oil and gas is drilling in the North Sea. Sunak decided to proceed with the leasing program. From Politico, July 31:

The U.K. will grant hundreds of new oil and gas licenses for the North Sea as Rishi Sunak's government continues to lean on fossil fuels as part of its energy strategy. The U.K. prime minister said Monday that approving the new licenses would “bolster” energy security and create jobs, . . . [H]is plans drew an immediate backlash from green groups, and one prominent Conservative MP. The North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA) is expected to grant the first license in the fall, with over 100 set to be approved in total.

And now there has come up an issue of whether all airport expansions are to be prohibited in the UK. After all, airplanes use hydrocarbon-based fuel, with little to no prospect of that changing any time soon. More and bigger airports mean more flights and more CO2 emissions. The Climate Change Committee took the opportunity to step in, demanding a halt to all airport expansions, several of which had already received at least preliminary approval.

The Telegraph yesterday had both a news article and an editorial on the developments (likely behind paywall). The news article has the headline, “Sunak defies net zero ban on new airports.” Excerpt on the CCC recommendation:

The CCC was set up by the 2008 Climate Change Act to hold the Government to account over its efforts to reduce greenhouse gases, with its most recent five-year "carbon budget" put into law by Boris Johnson in 2021. Rejecting its recommendations would set the Government up for a major legal clash with environmental groups.

But Sunak has decided not to follow the CCC’s recommendation on this one:

Rishi Sunak will face down the Government's climate advisers over demands for ministers to halt the expansion of airports, The Telegraph can disclose. In one of the most significant moves yet of the Prime Minister's shift to approaching net zero in a "proportionate and pragmatic" way, the Government will reject the Climate Change Committee's (CCC) formal advice that all airport expansions must be halted.

The reason for the decision is that limiting airport growth would have an immediate and significant impact on the UK’s economic activity:

Ministers believe airport growth will have a "key role" in boosting the UK's global links and helping to grow the economy.

The Telegraph’s editorial is titled, “Sunak is finally standing up to the green blob.” Excerpt:

The Government is rejecting a proposed moratorium on airport expansion. The Climate Change Act must now be reformed. . . . Transport Secretary Mark Harper and Claire Coutinho, the new Secretary of State for Net Zero, should be applauded for standing up to the green Blob. They should prepare themselves for the legal challenges that this decision will inevitably face.

In the context of both these decisions, Sunak gave lip service to preserving the net zero goal. On the oil leases decision, he spoke of developing “CCUS” (carbon capture, usage and storage) projects to mitigate the impact. On the airports decision, he talked about developing “alternative aviation fuels” (maybe used kitchen grease?). Neither of these things are real, or will ever happen at scale. So in fact, both of these decisions are completely inconsistent with the supposed “net zero” goal, which will not happen. Without anyone explicitly saying so, the UK is giving up on the goal.

But for now, the UK maintains the statutory net zero mandate. Meanwhile, twenty more decisions like those over North Sea leases and airport expansions will shortly present themselves. Eventually, reality will defeat the fantasy. The only question is how much senseless damage will be done in the meantime.