select search filters
briefings
roundups & rapid reactions
Fiona fox's blog
Scientists comment on a proposed target for emission reduction, announced by the department for Energy Security & Net Zero (DESNZ).
Prof Daniela Schmidt, Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, said:
“The last week has shown us that the weather in the UK is becoming hotter, that weather patterns are harder to predict. While adaptation is important for the impacts of climate change which are already here, reducing emissions is the only way bringing us back to a climate we are all more familiar with and limiting the losses of life and impacts on health, economy and nature.
“The CCC has shown clearly that the UK for its own emissions could be on track for reaching net zero by 2050 via electrification and some behavioural changes. This emission reduction would have to change travel, buildings, food, and industry with a real potential for innovation and selling the new ways of working to others. Over this time, buildings will be created and renovated, cars will be bought – each of which is an opportunity to change how we do things. Some people will need the right information, some families and businesses incentives, barriers for uptake need to be removed.
“These reductions alone are not enough to get us to net zero as there will be continued emissions and need to be combined with strengthening nature to draw down CO2 by growing trees, restoring peatlands and coastal habitats.
“This change to the way we generate energy is not only fundamental to climate change, it would also remove our dependency on energy from other regions, and thereby provide more financial stability for businesses and families.”
Prof Steve Smith, Arnell Associate Professor of Greenhouse Gas Removal, University of Oxford and Executive Director of Oxford Net Zero, said:
“As a nation we have reduced our emissions by over 50% against the 1990 baseline already. The UK’s existing carbon targets, legislated by previous Conservative governments, aim for an 81% reduction by 2035. 87% is pretty much on a straight line from there to net zero in 2050.
“Net zero isn’t merely a catchphrase that the UK signed up to, along with 138 other countries. It is grounded in science. CO2 emissions cause global temperature to rise and stay elevated for thousands of years. So temperatures will keep rising until the point at which we reach net zero CO2 emissions – balancing a much lower level of emissions with an equivalent amount of CO2 removal from the air – alongside reducing other greenhouse gases.
“If we follow the CCC’s pathway then the UK in 2040 will be substantially off fossil fuels, headed towards fully-clean power, heat and surface transport. And the UK will be removing millions of tonnes of CO2, cleaning up the air. There is a wide range of ways to do this already, from tree planting to agricultural biochar to industrial processes that take CO2 from the air and store it underground. The UK is one of the countries at the forefront of developing this new sector, as shown by our new report also out today (https://www.stateofcdr.org/).”
Prof Kevin Anderson, Professor of Energy and Climate change, University of Manchester, said:
“The new target is, once again, defined by the limits of short-term political acceptability rather than by what is necessary to meet the UK’s Paris commitments. It fundamentally fails on 1.5°C and falls short of what is required to keep warming well below 2°C. In doing so, it further jeopardises the wellbeing of today’s children and future generations.
“Climate change is governed by physics, not political expediency. Temperatures respond to the cumulative build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. They do not care about distant net-zero dates or politically convenient targets. What matters is the total volume of emissions released over time.
“The science is clear. Limiting warming to 1.5°C has effectively been abandoned. The remaining challenge is to keep warming well below 2°C, yet current UK targets are not aligned even with that objective. Despite this, many experts continue to portray inadequate action as evidence of climate leadership.
“Strip away the political spin and the science is stark. Keeping warming below 2°C requires global emissions cuts of 8% every year starting now; three percentage points higher than the reduction achieved at the peak of the Covid pandemic – and that was for just a single year. For wealthy nations such as the UK, which repeatedly claim they will lead the transition, the rate of cuts needs to be in excess of 10% year on year. Contrast that with the UK government’s enthusiasm for widespread airport expansion!
“Many experts will publicly welcome the Government’s target, yet privately they know the numbers are incompatible with even the weakest interpretation of the Paris Agreement. Too often, influential voices have become more concerned with defending what is politically feasible than communicating what the science actually demands.
“Until we place physical reality ahead of political expediency, we will continue to fail on Paris. And failing on Paris means failing future generations.
“The maths is unforgiving.”
Prof Elizabeth Robinson, Director of the Grantham Research Institute, London School of Economics and Political Science, said:
“The easier wins in energy have largely been taken, with technology doing much of the heavy lifting.
“Reducing emissions in transport and the agri-food sector is proving much harder. Reducing emissions from food waste and excess meat consumption can contribute to both tackling climate change and improving food security, but will require considerable behavioural change, including adjustments in our diets, and what our countryside looks like. However, the potential gains, for emissions, human health, and biodiversity, are significant.”
Prof Friederike Otto, Professor of Climate Science, Imperial College London said:
“It’s not just scientists who can see the reality of climate change in the weather we are experiencing. Things are changing and the impacts will simply continue to get worse as long as we burn fossil fuels. Reaching net zero – whether here in the UK, or in other countries around the world – is both a shared responsibility and a scientific imperative.”
Prof Joeri Rogelj, Director of Research at the Grantham Institute, Imperial College London said:
“The advised 87% emissions reduction target for 2040 would place the UK broadly in line with the EU’s proposed 90% target for the same year. Whether the UK target proves marginally more or less ambitious will depend on how it is implemented in practice. If the EU makes full use of the international offsets it allows, or if its forests underperform as carbon sinks, the UK target could amount to stronger domestic action.
“By setting out a clear trajectory towards net zero by 2050, this advice marks an important step away from treating the atmosphere as an unlimited dumping ground for our emissions.”
Dr Caterina Brandmayr, Director of Policy and Translation at the Grantham Institute, Imperial College London said:
“The latest fossil fuel crisis is just another reminder of the economic imperative of transitioning towards a clean economy. Reaching net zero means building a more energy-secure Britain that is less exposed to volatile fossil fuel markets, and one that has seized the economic benefits that the technologies of the future provide. This target is ambitious, but credible. In setting out a clear trajectory towards net zero, this new milestone will promote long-term confidence for business, and ensure action so that more of us will be able to benefit from cleaner air and warmer, future-proofed homes.”
Prof Martin Siegert, Professor of Geosciences and Deputy VC, University of Exeter, said:
“I think this is very good news as a milestone to net zero at 2050. But, alongside the ambition, we need both a coherent joined-up plan to achieve it and a delivery board – independent of government, politics and the CCC – tasked with making it happen.”
On the legal stuff:
Prof Benoit Mayer, Professor of Climate Law, University of Reading:
“The government’s decision to follow the Climate Change Committee’s advice is welcome. The UK’s 87% looks lower than the EU’s new 90% target for 2040, but the comparison is misleading: the UK counts emissions from international flights and shipping, which the EU’s target largely leaves out, and it rules out buying carbon credits from abroad, which the EU permits up to a point. On a like-for-like basis the UK’s target is at least as demanding. The real challenge now is delivery in the hardest sectors—aviation, agriculture and heavy industry—where the easy savings are already gone, and to do so at the lowest economic and social cost, as the cross-party consensus on net zero frays.”
Prof Chris Hilson, Director of the Reading Centre for Climate and Justice, University of Reading, said:
“The Government’s confirmation of the CCC’s recommendation of a target of 87% reductions in GHG emission by 2040 is not unexpected – governments have routinely followed the Committee’s carbon budget levels advice in the past. Neither is the target excessively ambitious: the EU has set a higher 2040 target of 90% (albeit allowing 5% of that to be met by international credits). And it’s obviously necessary if the UK is to achieve its legally mandated target of net zero by 2050, as required both by the Climate Change Act 2008 and the UK’s international commitments under the Paris Agreement.
“What is increasingly clear is that it’s stupid not to commit to net zero and to this 87% staging post to get us there. The 87% target will require electrification of the economy, including a huge shift in home heating and road transport to heat pumps and EVs. That has massive advantages in helping UK consumers to escape the fossil fuel volatility which has been pushing up household bills. It’s not net stupid zero, it’s fossil stupid fuels.
“This transition will involve up-front costs. But, like buying an air fryer to avoid the high cost of using the oven, those costs will lead to a cheaper and less volatile future where households can be expected to save hundreds of pounds on their heating and vehicle bills. Of course, heat pumps and EVs cost more than an air fryer – and those on low incomes will need financial support from government to make the transition a just one. But the UK cannot afford to be left behind in the electrification race. Our future growth depends on it. An 87% target will be an abstraction to many people. The real story behind it is electric though.”
Declared interests
Dani Schmidt: “No competing interests”
Kevin Anderson: “Other than my University position, I declare that I have no financial interests relevant to the content of this submission.”
Joeri Rogelj: “served as a member of the European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change responsible for the formulating the advice on the EU’s economy-wide emission reduction target for 2040.”
Steve Smith: “Steve is funded through a combination of UKRI and philanthropic grants. He is a Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society and currently holds unpaid advisory positions with the Green Finance Institute, ClimeFi and Residual. He worked previously in the CCC and in the government department for energy & climate (BEIS).”
Benoit Mayer: “None”
Chris Hilson: “None to declare”
Elizabeth Robinson: “Climate Change Committee Chair of Economic Advisory Group for the UK’s CCRA4; IPCC AR7 Lead Author WG III Chapter 4 Sustainable development and mitigation; Resource Resolutions Global Advisory Council member; Nuffield Council on Bioethics Working Group: Solar Radiation Management.”
Martin Siegert: “Nothing to declare.”