On Monday (2nd October, 2023), I spoke at the Conservative Environment Network’s panel discussion entitled ‘Nudge zero: can we save the planet with behaviour change?’ – alongside the Minister for Energy Efficiency and Green Finance Lord Callanan, Katherine Fletcher MP, Nesta’s Katy King, and Smart Energy GB’s Mark Lund. It was brilliantly chaired by CEN’s Sam Payne, with some excellent questions from the audience.
For those who couldn’t make it along, I’ve written up a rough version of my opening remarks – let us know what you think!
Let’s cut straight to the chase: can we save the planet with behaviour change? My answer, unfortunately, can only be a straightforward “no – absolutely not.”
While there will be some people in society who are happy to change the way they live their lives in order to help cut emissions, that appetite is simply not shared by anywhere near enough of us to make a meaningful difference.
More to the point, even for those who say they would be happy to change their lifestyles, I’m sceptical that they’d be willing to do so in such a way that genuinely mitigates their contribution towards climate change.
Now to be clear, I am not saying we shouldn’t discourage those who do engage in behaviour change, and there certainly are small tweaks we can embrace to make a difference at the margin.
But to put it bluntly, to think we can rely on behaviour change to plot our way out of this problem is utterly fanciful.
So that poses a second question: what’s the alternative? Or do we have to accept that we’re condemned to an ever warmer planet?
I like to think not, and that’s because I believe in the power of human ingenuity and innovation to invent technological solutions which allow us to maintain our ways of life while meeting our climate objectives.
Just as we created the technologies that got us into this mess, we can create ones which help us to overcome it – without getting rid of all the wondrous conveniences we gained along the way.
And the good news is that to a large extent, we’ve already invented many of the technologies we will need on the path to net zero.
We’ve driven coal out of our electricity mix by installing solar and wind power; we’re decarbonising our vehicle fleet at a reasonable clip; we’re slowly but surely swapping out gas boilers for heat pumps. Even with things like our diets, the advent of lab-grown meat and alternative proteins mean that I’m confident that we can begin significantly cutting emissions from agriculture as well.
But with all of these things, further progress is still needed. Clean alternatives must become the natural first choice for consumers – which means they must come at a price point that makes the net zero transition not just the right thing to do environmentally, but economically too.
So you might detect that I’m optimistic that we can meet net zero without massively upending the economy or society at large. But I’m not saying that we can just sit back and wait for these technologies to magically come along.
We do need government to step in and play a role – and I think there’s a range of different things it can do. But as time is limited, I’ll begin by throwing out a few general ideas which will have the biggest impact.
First, we need to take seriously the idea of carbon pricing – where we make polluters pay for the emissions they create, which would put polluting and non-polluting activities on a more level playing field, gently nudging people towards green options and away from dirty ones.
Most economists agree that carbon pricing will allow us to decarbonise in the most economically efficient way possible, and it would mean we do not have to rely as much on top down bans and mandates, which recent events show us are subject to political whims of the day.
Second, we need to embrace pro-climate deregulation: this ranges from the specific to the more nebulous, but we need to look closely at what rules and regulations are holding back green entrepreneurs.
In the past, I’ve written about how companies working in the alternative proteins sector are stifled by nonsensical red-tape, as are heat pump installers, but it’s probably best if I save those for the discussion later.
Finally, investment in innovation will be essential. Developing all of the answers to the climate crisis won’t come cheap, and we have to support the scientific and entrepreneurial community in researching, developing, and commercialising the technologies we require to cut emissions.
That means funding innovation research properly, and it means allocating that funding effectively too. I’m encouraged by the creation of ARIA, and the government’s wider plans for spurring technology and science. But there’s so much more to we can do to increase the attractiveness of the UK as a place to carry out research – from having a welcoming immigration system to top talent, to ensuring lab-space can get built in the areas where it’s needed most.
So to conclude, no – we cannot get to net zero on behaviour change alone. Rather, what we must do is to provide people with the tools and technologies to make decarbonisation the natural first choice. We need to make the reason for getting to net zero not just a great moral ambition, but because it’s simply the common sense thing to do.