Reader TTS

A court has ruled that the planned expansion of Heathrow Airport is unlawful because it does not take climate commitments into account. Last June, the Conservative government unanimously

waved through changes to the Climate Change Act which committed us to cutting greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050. Now that cavalier piece of virtue signalling has come back to

bite. Climate change activists immediately recognised the serious implications of the court ruling. Friends of the Earth said it was “an absolutely groundbreaking result for climate

justice”. Will Rundle, who was the legal lead for the campaign group, said: “This judgement has exciting wider implications for keeping climate change at the heart of all planning

decisions”. Some might question whether ‘exciting’ is the right word. Roger Harrabin, the BBC’s Environment Analyst drew the obvious conclusions: “From now on, every infrastructure spending

decision in the UK could face legal challenge if it doesn’t comply with the Climate Change Act”. HS2? Airport expansion elsewhere? Regeneration of the North? Economic growth? Frankly, it is

hard to understand how any new major piece of infrastructure spending can comply, in and of itself, with the net zero commitment. It would need to do so, not just in its development, but in

ongoing usage. When the Conservatives voted for the net zero target, they voted to make changes in how we live which will be “unprecedented in their overall scale”. These are the actual

words of the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) Report which recommended the net zero target. The report says that whereas the previous 80 per cent reduction target had the flexibility not to

pursue “some abatement options” a net-zero target requires that “_all opportunities to reduce emissions are taken”_. So here are some of the things the Conservative government has signed us

all up to, to deliver net zero. * “A 20 per cent reduction in consumption of beef, lamb and dairy . . .” (If we fall behind in other areas the report pushes this to 50 per cent.) *

“Bio-degradable waste . . . should not be sent to landfill after 2025. This will require . . . mandatory separation.” (Compulsory composting in parks?) * “Gas distribution networks . . .

will either need to be decommissioned or, if feasible, repurposed to hydrogen. Decisions will be required from the mid-2020s.” (No more cooking with gas.) * “Almost all household heating

will need to be low-carbon . . . This will involve changes to the way we heat our homes: Low-carbon heating systems will replace the natural gas boilers used in most homes today. Heat pumps,

heat networks and hydrogen boilers could be used.” (Every boiler in every home switched over? At what cost?) * “A fifth of UK agricultural land shifted from current use to tree planting,

energy crops, and peatland restoration.” (Yes — that says a fifth.) * “Afforestation to increase from current rates below 10,000 hectares per year to at least 30,000 hectares per year.”

(How? Where?) * All new car sales to be electric by 2035. “3,500 rapid and ultra-rapid chargers near motorways to enable long journeys and 210,000 public chargers in towns and cities.” * All

heavy goods vehicles switched to zero emissions. * “Carbon capture and storage (CCS) in industry . . . is a necessity not an option.” (I am not sure the technology even exists yet.) *

Industry, _in its entirety,_ required to hit net zero . . . You could say this is the stuff of fantasy. But it’s worse than that. Because it is verging on totalitarian to sign us all up to

such an unprecedented level of change; to our diets, to how we cook, to how we heat our homes, to our landscape, without consultation. Page 170 of the Climate Committee Report says:

“Achieving net-zero GHG emissions for the UK will rely on a range of speculative options that currently have very low levels of technology readiness”. That is — they don’t exist yet. They

will have “very high costs”. These options will also have “_significant barriers to public acceptability”_. But we were all signed up anyway. The report said: “There is currently no

government strategy to engage the public in the transition to a low-carbon economy. This will need to change”. There is still no sign of that. So frankly, the Heathrow decision is a wake-up

call. You can’t fault its wider logic. As a country, we now have a legal obligation to meet a 2050 net-zero greenhouse gas emissions target. We’re not even close to doing the 

_carbon-reducing _we are supposed to be doing. How can we possibly start producing more carbon? The Courts are forcing some honesty from the government. Was the net-zero commitment just

virtue signalling all along? Or are we all ready for changes in how we live which will be “unprecedented in their overall scale”?