I’m finally saying what I’ve been told not to say about climate change

Veteran BBC analyst Roger Harrabin was encouraged not to ‘sap the will of the public’ by reporting the full extent of dismay among climate scientists. But Rishi Sunak’s rowback on net zero has changed all that…

Floodwaters cover a village in Kastro, central Greece (AP)

For more than three decades I have asked environmentalists if they are optimistic about tackling these vast problems: climate change, ocean acidification, nutrification of the seas, persistent chemicals, plastic waste, biodiversity, antibiotic resistance. “Yes, we’re optimistic” they would typically boast.

Over the years, that positivity has drained away in mealy-mouthed phrases, from: “I’m quite optimistic”, to “I have to be optimistic”, to “I’m still striving to be optimistic”, and “It’s very hard to remain optimistic.”

The natural world offers little comfort. Leading scientists admit that, although their temperature forecasts have been fairly accurate, they failed to predict the savagery of the weather’s response.

The recent multiple blows include the absence of Antarctic ice five times the size of the UK – described by experts as “mind-boggling”, record sea temperatures, wildfires and floods round the world, made much worse by a hotter atmosphere containing more water. Sober-minded scientists confess to actually being scared.

And remember, all this is happening with an average global temperature rise of 1.2C. What do we think it will be if we follow our current pathway towards a 3C rise?

Leaders are meeting this week in New York in an attempt to strengthen measures to clamp down on emissions. The UN’s Antonio Guterres has warned that rich nations such as the UK should aim for net zero by 2040 rather than 2050, and many scientists say even this is not fast enough.

Yet the prime minister, Rishi Sunak, has chosen this time to announce the UK is watering down its commitment.

Any vestiges of optimism among climate scientists must have drained away on the news that the 2030 car sales ban on fossil fuel cars is likely to be delayed, along with measures to curb emissions from homes and boilers. Forget optimism – despair will be the prevailing emotion for many.

We environment reporters are urged not to say this because it may sap the will of the public to take action on climate if they believe it’s too late.

But it’s hard to glean anything positive from the government’s disingenuous plan to stick to the 2050 net zero law when it appears to be planning to scrap interim targets essential for achieving the final goal.

The Climate Change Committee (CCC) was formed to map a pragmatic pathway towards 2050 to prevent prime ministers from staggering to 31 December 2049 – then crashing the deadline.

The CCC has long warned the UK was off track with targets. But progress was being made through Boris Johnson’s fossil fuel car sales ban from 2030 and a host of measures, including rules obliging landlords to insulate homes to save heating bills for poor tenants.

The Conservative Environment Network, with around 120 members in parliament, has been pressing Sunak to do more.

And, the prime minister’s chosen net zero adviser Chris Skidmore’s review confirmed that the UK would attract inward investment and drive innovation.

But another force has been at play. The Net Zero Scrutiny Group, comprising around 20 parliamentary figures, mostly from the libertarian right, has been urging the government to slow down the race to 2050.

The home secretary Suella Braverman told the Today programme that the government would put the economy and household bills first. The cost of living crisis has forced the government to make a change, she said.

Yet in the spring – when the cost of living crisis was really hurting many people – the government announced: “We welcome the Skidmore Review. [It] included 52 roundtables across industry, government and civil society and 1,800+ responses to a public call for evidence. It made 129 recommendations focused on 10 missions. We agree with the conclusion that net zero is the growth opportunity of the 21st century and could offer major economic opportunities to the UK. We are focused on unlocking the ambition of places and communities to deliver net zero by 2050.”

So what happened since March to produce a policy volte-face from the prime minister? Well, politics happened.

The Uxbridge by-election was instantly weaponised by No 10, where advisers had been seeking a wedge against Labour. News outlets were briefed that the public supports carbon-cutting measures but (surprise, surprise) prefers not to pay for them.

Right-wing papers have campaigned relentlessly against the tools of net zero – electric cars and heat pumps, without suggesting how emissions might be cut otherwise. They have successfully persuaded many people that carbon targets will harm their lives, when in the longer term clean tech should reduce bills.

So how will Labour respond? It’s a trap for Keir Starmer to choose the environment before people, and he knows it. That’s why Labour’s first response was to ridicule Tory policy chaos – but without mentioning the climate.

How will we explain this to our children and grandchildren? “We knew climate change would be devastating – but we got stuck in a row triggered by Ulez. Sorry.”

Roger Harrabin is an honorary fellow of St Catharine’s College, Cambridge, and spent 35 years reporting the environment for the BBC