The cost of Net Zero? How about the cost of Do Nothing?
Like much of the world, we’re in the jaws of a general election here in the UK with polls opening tomorrow. One of the big frustrations for so many of us is that climate has barely featured in the campaigns and, when it has, it has largely been in terms of wrangling over the ‘costs’ of Net Zero policies of different intensities. 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’.
If we’re going to make change happen we have to turn ‘do nothing’ into a burning platform. Hopefully we can get back to a sensible debate on this after the election.