Letters: The true cost of the green dream

Zero possibility

Sir: Katy Balls is right to conclude that the government is ‘not being upfront’ on the bill for net zero and who will pay (‘The green games’, 17 April). As the Covid pandemic has revealed, expectations need managing, and without an urgent agreement on a consistent set of policy guidelines which embrace fairness, energy security and affordability, the whole net-zero project could backfire.

Whichever way you approach the problem, the costs of transitioning to net zero by 2050 are massive, with estimates ranging from £50 billion p.a. (Climate Change Committee) to £100 billion p.a. (National Grid), and the burden falling most heavily on those who cannot afford it. So while they receive little media airtime, it is no surprise that a growing number of people are challenging the activists’ and metro-liberal assumption that the UK (which accounts for less than 1 per cent of global carbon emissions) has a ‘moral responsibility’ to lead the world towards net zero.

The UK and a very hesitant EU are the only ones among the world’s 18 largest greenhouse gas emitters to have submitted detailed emission-reduction plans ahead of COP26. Now would be good time for the government to come clean and tell it how it is: namely that for very good reasons — such as technological constraints, security of supply, industrial competitiveness and affordability — reaching the net-zero target by 2050 might not be possible.

Boris will not want to be a COP26 party pooper — but industry and consumers would breathe a sigh of relief.
Clive Moffatt
London SW1

Rod’s wrong

Sir: As Shirley Williams’s son-in-law, I have no problem at all with Rod Liddle’s views on my mother-in-law’s political career — even if I did find him comparing Shirley to Pol Pot slightly excessive (‘How I’ll remember Shirley Williams’, 17 April).