“The price of net zero is now too high to bear”….. “Time and time again, we find the state adopting an approach that wilfully destroys value in the name of environmental progress”

It is rare such breakthroughs in living standards, once achieved, are given up, and rarer still they are given up voluntarily. Yet that is now the position that the British state appears to be taking

• Telegraph View
  

The price of net zero is now too high to bear

Time and time again, we find the state adopting an approach that wilfully destroys value in the name of environmental progress

Credit: ANTHONY DEVLIN/POOL/EPA-EFOne of the great boons of the 20th century was the steady decline in airline fares which made it possible for people of all social backgrounds to benefit from air travel. From being the preserve of a relatively wealthy few, travel was democratised. People of practically all backgrounds could enjoy holidays in the sun and exposure to new cultures.

It is rare that such breakthroughs in living standards, once achieved, are given up, and rarer still that they are given up voluntarily. Yet that is now the position that the British state appears to be taking in its ideological pursuit of Net Zero.

Under the “Sustainable Aviation Fuel Mandate”, airlines will be forced to use at least 10 per cent green fuel in their planes by 2030, and 22 per cent by 2040. The Government’s own impact assessment shows that this could add over £300 to the cost of a family of four’s holiday plans by 2040, with over 80 per cent of the added fuel costs likely to be paid out of customer’s pockets rather than company profits.

This is a fundamentally unjust outcome. The Government should not be setting out to undo through taxation and regulation the great increases in living standards made available to poor households across Britain. Yet time and time again, we find the state adopting an approach that wilfully destroys value in the name of environmental progress.

Under the zero emission vehicle mandate, at least 28 per cent of cars sold this year must be electric. Manufacturers that fall short will face fines of £15,000 for each non-electric car sold above their quota. Yet despite desperate attempts by manufacturers to win customers over, the market demand for electric vehicles simply is not there, with their share of sales expected to be closer to 24-25 per cent instead.

The result is that manufacturers are expected to either attempt to redirect demand by funding discounts on electric vehicles with hikes in the price of petrol models, or to limit sales of combustion engine vehicles to hit their targets. Both would clearly leave consumers worse off.

In both cases, these costs to consumers are at least in part the result of the Government’s obsession with dictating not only the desired eventual goal of net zero, but also the manner in which it is to be reached. The result is to introduce into the British economy a sort of central planning of economic activity, with predictable results.

Indeed, the state has already been forced into u-turns when dissatisfaction at these consequences has spooked politicians. Sir Keir Starmer and his government should learn the obvious lesson: rather than attempting to pick winners and dictate terms, it would be better to price externalities and allow the market to decide. The alternative approach of an impoverishing environmentalism is not a viable solution.