Why Achieving The UK's Net Zero Goals Is So Unrealistic | Dieter Helm on Climate Change

[@user-ni8ij6hz2j]

Rory and Alastair have met their match in Professor Helm! Well done Professor and well done with Leading, Rory and Alastair, both your podcasts are informative and entertaining! Cheers from the States!

[@freelandguy121]

I've been watching TRIP for the past year, these Leading interviews are always the highlight of my week. Keep it up guys, another treat.

[@pr5x]

Best interview you’ve done.. the fact that hardly anyone has watched it or commented on it only highlights the huge challenges that politicians have to persuade the world’s public to effect change.. keep your head down Kier..

[@howestimothy7820]

I am so pleased you have Prof Helm on your programme. What a fantastic debate.

[@sluglife9785]

I was hoping the Leading interviews might end up on KZbin. Good stuff.

[@julianroberts8760]

I felt this conversation kept getting sidetracked e.g. to optimism/pessimism, from the issues surrounding our 2050 target. Rory reminded us that this is the biggest issue of our times but there was little to take away in conclusion other than Dieter's two macro policies. Isn't there a lot more that should be done? Like - 1. There is almost no public promotion of the facts and the reasons we need to change our behaviour. Rory (who is nothing if not a super brain) not knowing the carbon impact of flying the Atlantic is an example of our shared lack of public education. 2. There is little big scale economic incentive to do the right thing. Air travel growth is not disincentivised. Rail travel is often far more expensive than both air and car in spite of being respectively 6 and 2 times less CO2 intensive; 70% of the cancelled HS2 spend is now going to road improvements. 3. New houses are still being built without high standards of insulation and in greenfield places where a car intensive lifestyle is locked in. 4. Tidal etc barrages were not mentioned but could be equivalent to a nuclear power station in output. I could go on....My hunch is that the real problem is that the massive profits of the oil companies underpin our economies to such an extent we cannot escape their stranglehold. Almost every decision the Government takes also benefits them.

[@julianroberts8760]

I meant to add - why don't we tax carbon instead of work? In a revenue neutral way, reduce income tax and put it on oil in all its forms. Yes it would be painful but would incentivise the behaviour change needed. As an aside, I didn't know till recently that fuel for aeroplanes is tax free.

[@patrickkelly1195]

I agree with Dieter on the predominance of 'happy clappy' baseless optimism around (which seems to stem from a perception that 'we need to give people hope', but this optimism is, in fact, not supported by the science or metrics). I'm afraid my analysis of our predicament is somewhat bleak. I think we are headed for at least 2.4, but probably closer to 2.8 degrees of warming within the next couple of decades, regardless of the measures we take between now and then. Ultimately, we will go beyond 3 degrees of warming, which will be catastrophic. Along with 83% of IPCC scientists (according to a recent poll by Nature magazine) I expect to see the 'catastrophic impacts of climate change within my lifetime'. I'm 58. Very severe consequences for mankind are now baked into our collective future. Climate change is not THE issue, but the symptom of a broader issue which is ecological overshoot. Our global population has exceeded the carrying capacity of the planet (which has been calculated as 2.8 billion by ecologist William Rees). That means that there are three times as many people as the planet can ecologically sustain over the long term. Our destiny is therefore akin to the reindeer of St Matthew's Island. Population isn't a problem if we aspire to living like the average Bhutanese rural villager, but we aspire to live like the average American and developing nations, understandably, regard such 'development' and 'progress' as their right. There is no political antidote to our predicament. As Rees himself stated 'the ecologically necessary is politically unfeasible and the politically feasible is ecologically catastrophic', because, and this is one way that I depart from Dieter, I believe that nothing short of a fundamental reorganisation of global society, economics, aspirations and lifestyles will suffice at this late stage. The tinkering around the edges that has typified our response to date will not suffice. The assumptions and logic underpinning the 'green transition' don't stand up to the most cursory scrutiny. Every year, our efforts to invest in renewables are cancelled out by our economic growth, rising global population and something called 'Jevons Paradox' which receives little attention, but is the primary reason for our failure to decarbonise our economies. We left it too late to ensure a shallow glide path to our destination and there is now no way that we can respond to climate change without huge sacrifices. Most of my science / academic colleagues within the Climate and Ecology sphere believe, but will not publicly utter the following view: The collapse of our complex societies is now inevitable and we should spend some time considering how we ensure a 'just collapse' and how we rebuild societies in a post-collapse landscape (The 4 R's of Deep Adaptation provide a useful framework for this endeavour).

[@joanneward6746]

100%

[@TheBrick2]

People need to consider that fossle fuels are a battery. Agreculture converts that battery to food. This is what sustains our population. We have been runnng the battery down

[@davidgoddard3903]

Professor Helm was alarmingly effective in highlighting the gap between reality and the general understanding of the situation we are in. Alastair's reaction beautifully highlighted this, together with our democracy's difficulty in tackling it. Probably the most important podcast our duo has produced, yet as one of their keenest viewers I have only now come across it. The lack of reaction to it highlighted below is very worrying

[@tancdiscovery9432]

Not one mention on the inequality in carbon usage between the rich & poor. Richest 1% account for more carbon emissions than poorest 66%, Maybe there's some solutions to be found there,...

[@simony2801]

Why

[@hrishi383]

So…per capita emissions matter? There are many more poor people than rich.

[@FireflyOnTheMoon]

We are way, way past the point of squabblling about whose fault it is. There is no time left for that.

[@Nomoreanons]

Thank you Rory for asking the sort of questions that viewers will understand.

[@awesomeocelot5379]

The UK government has given more support in the last 4 years to fossil fuels than green energy, by over £10b. The highly profitable fossil fuel industry.

[@FireflyOnTheMoon]

DId you watch the video?

[@RockyRacoon66]

Dieter is right. 40 years in the energy industry and agree with all but one point. CC&S is fantastically expensive, extremely challenging technically, and with safety risks that make nuclear look like jelly. We may be the best place on earth to try it but that does not mean we should. Otherwise, spot on!

[@davidedwards4691]

You are spot on with your comment on CC&S and I think it puts doubt on his other conclusions

[@Inspectazoid]

The difference between a realist and a politician. One sells the truth and one sells dreams.

[@samuelmelton8353]

On the UK's contribution - I fully agree with the idea of fully recognising our impact; China's emissions are in part caused by making our products. We should also recognise that, while we are a medium sized country, it doesn't change anything. Lots of African countries are small. Lots of Indian states and Chinese Provinces aren't that big by themselves - we need to play our part in the world, as does everywhere else. The West causes, either at home or abroad, huge amounts of emissions, and has been doing so much longer than the developing world.

[@chriswills9437]

What everyone can do...is buy used, use public transport, don´t eat processed food and eat less meat...especially beef.

[@CloudhoundCoUk]

The world needs many more Dieter Helms'. Tell the truth. May be unpalatable nevertheless essential if change is to happen.

[@adamwalker1504]

Remember that they are discussing primary energy. This is not a good measure of the energy demand and comes from a fossil fuel past. So if 3kwh of primary energy is burned in a coal power station gets you 1kwh of useable electricity. But 1kwh of wind gives 1kwh of electricity!

[@user-nx6ji9tk8i]

I’m staggered that both Rory and Alastair have been unaware of all this. As are the Greens as do all our politicians.

[@jonkayl9416]

agreed

[@cliffwillson3643]

Excellent thought provoking interview.

[@GrowerChampagnes]

I believe someone once said "There are no solutions, only tradeoffs" and every well intentioned policy choice has a detrimental effect on someone. For example, flying less frequently or not at all would certainly adversely impact those countries where tourism is a major element of their GBP. One course of action might be to focus relentlessly on research into carbon poor or carbon neutral fuels which would obviate the need to cut down on flying to the benefit of both origin and destination countries. As Prof Helm says, it's all a question of where you most effectively invest limited resources.

[@peterdollins3610]

Nuclear Power as James Lovelock says with other scientists. I walk with my walking stick, take public transport, almost never eat meat but eat vegetable stews, get my clothes second hand. Support 7 wild life charities, Amnesty & Labour. The decrease in birds in animals in fish in insects in my 82 years is terrifying.

[@user-dh9jc6qt2n]

There were times during this where I wanted to stab away at the keyboard and point out the ignorance (and as he'd be annoyed to hear, the pessimism) in some of Dieter's assumptions, but I persevered to the end - I'm glad Alistair pushed back on some things, and I'm glad to hear Rory's analogy about conversations / being ignored on the Middle East, it made me pause to consider my reaction. My more considered reaction is still that his assumptions are probably based on a broad overview of technically complex industries, with a focus [understandably] on the economics rather than the detail, and that that broad-strokes look means he misses out on several key pieces of nuance. He states that EV prices are £8k higher than ICE. That is his factual analysis of NEW prices. The overwhelming majority of car purchases are on the used market where EVs already have price parity. Or finance where EV prices are already lower. This clearly benefits the worse off, not penalises them to pursue a 'green agenda'. This is just one area of several where I would challenge him. Alistair, Rory - I implore you to get other experts to speak about the detail of each segment, as I found a lot of Dieter's stance veered dangerously close to misinformation. People like Greg Jackson, Dan Caesar, Emma Pinchbeck, Graeme Cooper. And thanks, as always, for tabling a debate of this quality.

[@ChrisTaylor-NEP]

A fantastic interview. Very informative. The 'Coalition of the Willing' idea sounds very promising, but surely, if China were to levy the carbon tax on its own industries, that money would then go into subsidizing high-carbon energy so that its industries could continue to be internationally competitive. Further, I do think Helm's position is compromised because inevitably, Oxford, like any big reputable university in Britain, does accept multi-million-pound funding from the oil industry to carry out oil extraction-related research etc.

[@vladx2]

It’s impossible to account for each tiny bit of embedded carbon in an individual’s life. All of these need to be accounted for and addressed at source (scope 1 and 2)

[@vladx2]

At 53:06, Helm finally gets to solutions. Also accepts that he was wrong on North Sea wind, but somehow he should be right going forward

[@heritagehomesJapan]

For God’s sake, why didn’t anyone state the bleedin’ obvious answer to why, even though the production of green energy has skyrocketed, 80% of our energy is STILL fossil fuels, same as it was in 1990? Here it is: Total energy consumption has skyrocketed since 1990! And the increase in fossil fuel has been as steep as renewables. It’s not difficult.

[@jonkayl9416]

agreed

[@polarbearz7515]

I have been screaming at the screen saying the same thing

[@JoshMcCallion]

I agree they may not have explicitly said that, but I would say they implicitly do. 09:23 - the demand for fossil fuels is still increasing. 10:20 - Rory states that despite the increase in solar and wind there has also been an increase in fossil fuels. 12:01 - Dieter states that the demand for fossil fuels has, and continues to rise sharply in developing countries.

[@danm8412]

I thought Dieter was quite evasive an the topic of where we can take personal responsibility. Happy to talk about the impact of flying as he's made the necessary reductions. Less happy to talk about the role of Western diets and the need to drastically reduce our consumption of animal based products - especially beef and dairy. My suspicion is that he hasn't made this change and this worries me. So often I hear of people who are worried about climate change but are absolutely dead set against doing the easiest thing that makes a huge impact, changing their diet. If someone as informed as Dieter hasn't/won't make this change, what hope is there?

[@frizzlefrazzle5237]

Love that you had Deiter Helm, he is my hero since reading his books 'Burn Out' and 'Net Zero' which changed my life. His message is clear and probably one of the most important of our time. Absolute Legend.

[@suzannehill9935]

You need to interview Professor Julian Allwood on net zero and take a look at his research.

[@testaccount-kv4nw]

How to implement carbon (import) taxing: - be transarent first! When _all_ products (and services like flights, for Rory) are labeled clearly with their actual co2 footprint, everybody (customer and businesses) can prepare for the taxation that starts (e.g.) 2 years later with 25%, growing. (and provide the same transparency with the other global goals and personal health as well!) Transparency gives everybody the right to choose and providers the incentive to become better. If this does not work well enough: give everybody a 'pollution budget' to spend for themselves: you got 1000 points per year. A flight to USA cost you 4500 points. So, put them aside for 10 years, or buy them from poor people - because you are destroying their environment, too.

[@itsnome7750]

Is this guy actually helping anything? He's exhausting. I'm vege, vote green, cycle to work, no foreign holidays, green electric supplier etc but he's making me feel like I shouldn't bother...

[@TheBrick2]

Yes you should bother but don't expect it to change the world. Its better for goverments to have a clear idea than beilving what they are doing if better than it is.

[@rockydopeydoge6730]

He should have explained what he did at 41:10 at the get-go: declining solar panel price is only part of the cost, the cost of dealing with intermittency has to be taken into account also, and the discussion would have been more productive. To the two hosts who have zoomed in on one metric and obsessed about the optimism / pessimism debate based on an incomplete view: bear in mind there is no technology for carbon sequestration at the moment, and see how optimistic one can be about any of the climate change trajectory projections!

[@dominicdrury7511]

Best one yet! Rigorous detail led answers with solutions as well. Heartens me to know someone is giving this advice to government and angers me that is isn't followed. Especially the large quantities of small reactors with Ukraine showing the danger of large centralised energy supply that can be easily targeted.

[@greyhorse1211]

Wind and solar contribute about 3-4% of the current level global energy usage after years of investment.

[@gemiow]

thank you for a level headed discussion

[@katepellegrini9560]

Why doesn’t professor Helm mention the Climate And Nature Bill? His recommendations would be better acted on if we had the political reform of CAN enshrined in law and citizens’ assemblies in place to run alongside MPs making decisions. We also need to reduce energy demand by training an army of plumbers and builders to insulate old housing stock. Subsidies for fossil fuels could be diverted to renewable energy solutions.

[@ilaister9652]

Leading making it to YT is a boon. Dieter was a sub par guest. Ideologues usually are, when their persuasive instict is pure browbeating, no chance.

[@DavidBrown-ts2us]

Finally someone points out the cost of capital in today's economic climate. Remember with wind it's all paid up front, but with gas turbines you pay as you go.

[@davidedwards4691]

Very good interview I had read one of Dieter Helm reports in the past which I profoundly disagreed with. I still think here he is being misleading. One of examples is that he talks of the cost of intermittency of green electricity generation. I do not agree with that the cost is actually of managing variable energy producers and meeting demand which is different. For example when we had fossil fuel produced electricity and nuclear power (24 hour potential supply if you like) We built a huge battery (Dinowig) to move electricity production from the nighttime to daytime. My point is that there is a cost of producing energy 24 hours/all the time. Actually when you look at the reality of electricity grid management it is all about managing the peaks of demand which often are short term in nature.

[@michaelstimpson1137]

The real impediment to combating climate change is our debt based economic system. We need continuous growth and inflation to prevent our debt overwhelming our income. The USA pays a trillion in interest per year. The UK pays about £120 billion in public debt and £80 billion in private debt. If all new money is created through the creation of new debt those numbers won't get much smaller ever. We need to create a new sustainable economic system that isn't debt based OR a debt based system with near zero interest. We could cut economic output and emissions by 10% by elimination of debt.

[@dsjwhite]

As always, a lot to think about. A great broadcast, thank you.

[@lucianopavarotti2843]

How do all these politicians end up with big posh houses?

[@BigChompinc]

A good interview, his point about politicians selling the public a false narratives was interesting and when you think about it true for a lot of issues. I also liked that he talked about renewables companies lobbying the govt as often they are seen by default as the “good guys” when perhaps that’s not always the case.

[@Catherine-wm3uf]

where was Caroline Lucas mentioned? - I missed that...

[@vsstdtbs3705]

"Let's be grown up, realistic " - 1:08.22 He could start by saying that 8 billion fire animals are too many. The one and only solution to the climate crisis is to slash the number of fire animals.

[@TheBrick2]

I think this is an example of two people, both smart but knowledge of anministration etc meeting a enginering / scintific / analytical aproach to the problems. The underlying assumptions of policitian from a technical pov frequently seem so basic to those of an analytical / engineering background espically if you work at the coal face so to speak.

[@adamcourtenay]

Britain "deindustrialised" not because of climate targets but because of labour and energy costs, yes we import a lot of stuff but we also export a lot of stuff using our greener grid, so it's not really fair to say that Britain is cheating it's emissions. as we roll out more wind and solar and if HPC is ever finished, we'll also be a net exporter of electricity. nuclear won't help Britain reindustrialise either because it's currently so expensive to build - leading to higher energy costs. regarding intermittency - the market solves this by leveraging profit to be made from higher energy costs when the sun isn't shining vs when it is . yes it's expensive but long term it's more profitable - especially for microgenerators

[@mellowmarkable]

The market isn't really solving intermittency in the UK though - look at the problems the UK battery storage investment trusts have had (Gresham House and Harmony). In any case, these are 1 and 2 hour batteries, so only provide power for a limited time. You will still need an alternative (like nuclear) unless/until there is a significant advance in storage technology...

[@adamcourtenay]

@@mellowmarkable the majority will be via import/export with billions being spent on interconnects - far more than is being spent on storage currently as we now have the tech to send electric over vast distances with acceptable losses

[@user-nx6ji9tk8i]

Embodied carbon in all those imported EVs. We simply don,t count it,

[@MichaelWharton-tc8hu]

Of course the Nat Grid and companies like Octopus are going to say Net Zero by 2030 is possible. Think of the subsidies.

[@sluglife9785]

If we take it seriously, it really is an issue of needing to shift to a 'war economy', isn't it. What that effectively means is that the likes of property rights go out the window, because the national and global interest makes the politics of narcissistic self-interest trivial, and we need to totally rebuild the infrastructure against all complaints. But how the hell you transition to that in this context is a mystery. People will interpret it as dictatorship, fascism, or communism, given the politics of the 20th century. We're trying to inculcate cultural paradigm shifts in other regards and it's really messy and taking ages. Lots of areas will just need the rule book torn up, and the only way I can see to sell it is some kind of just transition framework where it's made clear that whilst there may be enormous amounts of change, everyone will have their basic needs protected. I'm an easier sell on this because I've had a generally crap life, but for people who have been doing well, resistance to stopping the game will be immense. It's hard not to assume that China will become the global frontrunner, if their leaders have the will, because they don't have to seek the consent of the populace. If we really want to compete, we might have to upgrade Democracy from simply voting for competing parties to something which is closer to the Chinese model but has deep feedback systems and radical transparency so that the thoughts and feelings of individual citizens can't just be violently suppressed. That all felt extremely wrong to say, and also practically unworkable, but it's what came to me in the moment.

[@joshyman221]

As big of an issue climate change is, it’s not worth becoming totalitarian for. But yes in many ways the seriousness of which the government should deal with it should be like a war time government.

[@sluglife9785]

@@joshyman221 I totally appreciate that point. Like I said, I feel mad even going in that direction, and it's not a perspective I would hold to. But I was thinking in the moment about how to respond to it if we generally consider it an imminent existential threat to humanity, and how to get past the roadblocks to change.

[@davidvanberckel2900]

There is a direct relationship between GDP and energy consumption. If GDP goes up so does energy consumption. This explains why all the increase in renewable energy has not had an effect on fossil fuel consumption. It’s because GDP has increased.

[@WarBrah]

Who knew the lifelong victim that “had a crap life” would like to utilize the state to usurp the material wealth and welfare of others due to spite, coaxed in the language of reducing emissions and a green economy. Loser mindset.

[@LesOubliesQuebec]

Vote for the right party he should have to say it. Reward party that speak and act upon it !

[@TheRexbassist]

Someone send this to Ed Milliband

[@riaz8783]

31:57 I disagree that these "green" subsidies are a meaningful cost to the public. The UK government gives billions in breaks and subsidies to the fossil fuel industry every year.

[@tropics8407]

Duuuuhhhhh 😅 let’s pauperize our country everyone 🙄

[@chumpzilla30]

You called a climate economist practical.

[@howtoappearincompletely9739]

Enunciating year-names like 2010, 2011, 2012 as "two-ten", "two-eleven", "two-twelve" is a seriously irritating habit this Dieter guy has. We're not talking about the third century, FFS.

[@NAB001]

Your contribution to the most challenging problem to face the human race is duly noted and profound.

[@howtoappearincompletely9739]

@@NAB001 I think you overegg my pudding.

[@Nomoreanons]

Alistair - shut up and let someone speak who actually knows what they're talking about!

[@joanneward6746]

Yeah I was really surprised how uninformed Rory and Alistair were

[@anthonywilson8998]

Thisis very worrying as none of them really know how far we are from achieving anything except trying to renew our grid to renewables @ £3 trillion. as calculated by grid engineers. Property efficiency levels as calculated by Cambridge Uni @ £4 to 5 trillion. EVs charging and excess costs. AI and. Computer. Centres require massive increases in elecsupplies. Nothing is anywhere near or ever will be. We are in the main skint, people are skint , there is no honesty. In real costs, Like H S 2 it is all pie in the sky and totally unrealistic. And totally out of balance with the lack of. Scientific evidence that CO2 is responsible. We need to cancel net zero until evidence proves it is the best way. At present CO2 is going up but the temp is not and none of the computer models are anywhere near except Russia.

[@jasongaylard2547]

I think the professor needs to look into LFP batteries for electric cars.

[@quantummotion]

It does nothing. LFPs are still too expensive for EXTENDED PERIOD grid storage and 75 % of a Lithium Ion /LFP factories are NATURAL GAS burners to dry of the wet solvents used in battery cell manufacturing. That's why EVs have more carbon emissions from manufacturing than ICE vehicles. Nobody is saving the environment by driving a Tesla, particularly if the jurisdiction you live and drive in burns gas/coal for electricity. The politicians and a good chunk of the general public really don't have a clue on how big, how hard, and how expensive transition will be.

[@anthonywilson8998]

So where is all the extraelec coming from when we get rid of Ossis. Quadruple the existing elec from 100 Gigawatts to 400 Gigawatts by 2050. .Cost of 10 trillion before extra. Supplies and before battery backup. @ £30 trillion .

[@DirkJacobsz]

Sorry I do not buy it...