UK declares climate emergency, but will it make any difference?

Following 10 days of chaos in London as tens of thousands of Extinction Rebellion protesters took to the streets, the government finally took action.

MPs approved a motion to declare an environment and climate emergency in the UK. The motion was tabled by Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, who said that the passing of the motion was "a huge step forward".

Various towns and cities across the UK had already declared their own climate emergencies by this time. So had Scotland and Wales, so the national government was somewhat late to the party.

Although there is no single definition to the term, many have said that they want their localities to be carbon neutral by 2030. This is a far more ambitious target than the government’s own of reducing emissions by 80% by 2050.

Aside of the high profile activities of Extinction Rebellion and young people like Greta Thunberg, there were some pretty solid reasons to declare a climate emergency right now. According to the United Nations, the world has just 11 years left to avoid a ‘climate change catastrophe’.

Research presented to the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has shown that the original target of avoiding global warming of greater than1.5 degrees will be exceeded by 2030, if no action is taken now.

Studies show that we’re heading towards a 3degree rise in global temperature, which would have a massive impact on the Arctic ice, coral reefs and other sensitive environments. The research even claims that allowing such an event to take place would be dicing with the liveability of the planet for humans.

A temperature rise of more than 1.5 degrees would lead to high risks of dangers such as flooding, droughts, poverty and extreme heat. The impact would likely be felt by hundreds of millions of people, hence the impetus to declare and emergency situation.

The IPCC says that renewable energy must almost completely replace fossil fuel energy supplies by 2050, but to achieve such a target will be incredibly expensive. They estimate that a worldwide investment of $2.4 trillion would be needed every year for the next 15 years if we were to transform our energy system. In addition to this, land the equivalent size of Australia would need to be set aside for energy crops.

Certainly, the current situation worldwide is nothing short of a state of emergency. Eleven years is not long at all, and for any meaningful impact to be made, the world as a whole needs to take action, and rapidly. However, is simply being in a government declared 'emergency’ state enough to prompt action?

Essentially a climate emergency is an abstract concept, with no firm definition or actions required of it. However, it was a key element of quelling the action of Extinction Rebellion and youth climate protests. It remains to be seen whether real action will be taken in the form of changing targets, or whether this was simply a bit of political hyperbole.

At the current time, no changes have been made to work towards net zero, but it is still early days. However, going by government’s recent actions, such as approving the expansion of Heathrow, creating the UK’s first deep coal mine in decades and the downgrading of policies in the Environmental Bill give some indication to just where the climate stands on their list of priorities.

Further Reading

Is ‘Green Energy’ really good for the environment?

Green Energy Tariffs rise in importance for consumers, cost of energy bills remains top concern

Third of UK’s Largest Businesses commit to UN’s Race to Zero Campaign

Dyball Associates are proud to help new supply businesses successfully launch in the UK market.

Through our energy market consultancy services, and the software we've developed, we're supporting new UK electricity and gas suppliers get set up and start supplying.

Follow us on LinkedIn to keep up to date with the latest news and updates in the energy industry.