When it comes to net zero, the government has a concrete problem

Capture investment opportunities created by megatrends

When it comes to net zero, the government has a concrete problem

22 October 2021 Clean energy investing 0

The writer, a former head of the Number 10 Policy Unit, is a Harvard senior fellow

We can deliver net zero “without so much as a hair shirt in sight” proclaims Boris Johnson, trying to reassure nervous backbenchers and voters who want action on climate change, but not sacrifice. Environmentalists learnt years ago that pessimism stalls progress. So finally, we have a subject on which the prime minister’s boosterism could be an asset, as the UK government launches a welter of reports in advance of the COP26 climate summit.

The government’s net zero strategy is literally weighty, at 368 pages. And it contains some bold pledges: to make the electricity supply green by 2035, and to ban combustion-engine sales by 2030. It is by no means a fail-safe path to net zero: with too few details on nuclear power, home insulation and hydrogen, among other things. But it is significant in its ambition, and in the subtle change in tone from the UK Treasury.

Historically deeply sceptical of green spending, the Treasury’s Net Zero Review acknowledges that many green projects pay for themselves more than twice over, and could boost UK productivity. Behind the grudging tone is an implicit admission that it makes economic sense to act early, rather than let China and others steal an even bigger march in new technologies.

That should encourage those Conservatives who want to forge ahead, even as others worry about the cost burden that net zero could impose. The protests by Insulate Britain are a stark reminder of the hardship that rising energy bills impose on ordinary families. But this is an argument for the state to help insulate homes to make them cheaper to heat — rather than doing nothing.

Chancellor Rishi Sunak has waged a valiant battle to restrain Johnson’s spendthrift tendencies. But when it comes to tackling climate change, emphasising costs plays into the hands of those who want to delay the move away from fossil fuels. As the clock ticks on towards global warming of 1.5C, it makes sense to act now. If we don’t, future generations will pay the price: which makes it odd for the Treasury to insist that borrowing would be unfair to them.

It is very hard to put a cost on net zero, because things are moving so fast. In most parts of the world, renewable energy is now cheaper than that from new fossil fuels. Analysis from the Oxford Martin School suggests that it could be cheaper than we imagine to decarbonise the global energy economy.

Compared to continuing with a fossil-fuel-based system, researchers conclude that a rapid green energy transition could bring overall net savings of as much as $26tn, if the use of solar photovoltaics, wind, batteries and hydrogen electrolysers continues to exponentially increase. The International Energy Agency forecasts that world energy costs will actually fall by 2050, if net zero is achieved, despite an increase in demand. This in itself would drive growth.

We can’t “build back greener”, however, if policies are contradictory. Postponing a decision on a new nuclear power station makes no sense, given the urgent need for more reliable domestic supply. And it is simply bizarre to emphasise the importance of reducing carbon emissions from buildings, as the UK strategy does, while overlooking the vast, looming problem of concrete.

While the government talks of installing heat pumps and improving insulation, it is simultaneously planning a slew of new hospitals, wind turbines, railway stations and other buildings. If they are made of concrete, we will be locking ourselves into fossil fuel use for decades to come. For concrete is made of cement. If the cement industry were a country, it would be the third largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world, behind China and the US.

The world is forecast to build more than 2tn square feet of floor space in the next 40 years. That’s the equivalent of adding an entire New York City every month. So urgent action is needed.

Luckily, the market is already presenting an alternative: timber. Modern laminated timber is more stable than the old stuff: the world’s tallest timber building, in Norway, is 85 metres high. And it’s green, as long as the wood comes from sustainable forests. Moreover, many wood structures can be dismantled and moved, if and when climate change makes certain places uninhabitable.

“Non-circular buildings made with concrete and steel today run a higher risk of becoming stranded assets by 2050”, says Mathew Vola, project director at Arup, which has designed what will be the world’s largest wood-hybrid office building near Amsterdam. Vola thinks that “governments will increasingly regulate for circular buildings to meet the Paris agreement”. Some already are. Japan has been promoting the use of wood in public buildings for over a decade and has been joined by France and the Canadian province of British Columbia.

It’s an incredible thought that, just as oil approaches its sell-by date, so the steel and concrete towers which were a hallmark of the 20th century could become white elephants. Switching to timber offices won’t require a hair shirt: I worked out of one many years ago and loved its airy, healthy feel. The market is providing options — if governments can set the right frameworks. Otherwise we are simply postponing the day when hair shirts will be unavoidable.