Building support for the energy transition

There is a danger that the politics of the energy transition has replaced the previous consensus with a stale discussion on the cost and feasibility of achieving an emissions target. That is reflected in the public debate which fails to reflect the full range of benefits of engaging with the transition or the costs of not tackling climate change. The evidence to this inquiry, and to our concurrent inquiries on energy resilience and the cost of energy, is that the transition is the route to lower bills and greater security, and that the costs of delay are borne by the public in higher prices, colder homes and lost jobs. The question for the country is not whether to make the transition but how quickly and how fairly. (Conclusion, Paragraph 12)

The Government should urgently supplement the work of Energising Britain by developing and implementing a cross-departmental, benefit- led communications strategy for energy transition, ensuring consistent messaging on its health, economic, national security, food security and social co-benefits. This should prioritise the benefits most salient to the public, particularly health outcomes, cost savings, and job creation. The Government should also strengthen evaluation of public understanding and commission further analysis, including from the Climate Change Committee, on the costs of inaction, in order to improve public understanding of the economic and social consequences of failing to act. (Recommendation, Paragraph 13)

The term net zero has lost much of its significant positive association. It increasingly acts as a distraction from the broader aims of the energy transition and as a lightning rod for opposition to climate action. As part of efforts to communicate the energy transition effectively, the term net zero should be dropped from the Department’s name and reduce its use in regular communications and public statements, instead focussing on wider societal benefits. (Recommendation, Paragraph 14)

Recent events, including Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the conflict involving Iran and the cost-of-living crisis, have increased the importance the public places on energy security including the physical security of energy 27 infrastructure which has been raised during the Committee’s inquiry sessions on energy resilience. We welcome the Government’s increasing focus on energy security as a rationale for the energy transition. The Government should continue to emphasise how transitioning to renewable energy enhances national energy security, reduces dependence on volatile international energy markets and strengthens the UK’s resilience to future price shocks and should clearly demonstrate that slowing the transition means prolonging Britain’s exposure to gas markets set by events in Ukraine and the Gulf. The Government should strengthen its commitment to the Clean Power 2030 mission in response to the Middle East crisis, and should say so. (Conclusion, Paragraph 19)

National security is a strong and increasingly important lever for making the case for the energy transition. The transition to renewable energies offers significant national security benefits, including increased resilience in an increasingly volatile geopolitical environment and reduced exposure to fossil fuel price shocks. These links are not yet being communicated consistently or prominently enough across Government. (Conclusion, Paragraph 23)

The Government should better communicate the national security dividends of transitioning to renewable energies and the opportunity to increase the UK’s resilience in an increasingly volatile geopolitical world. It should more consistently draw out the links between low carbon energy sources, infrastructure delivery and lower exposure to fossil fuel price shocks across departmental communications. DESNZ should strengthen cross-government messaging so that the energy transition is not treated as a single-department issue, but is reflected in announcements across transport, housing and wider infrastructure policy. This should be delivered as a sustained and coordinated cross-government effort. (Recommendation, Paragraph 24)

Public awareness of the health impacts of climate change remains low, although it remains to be seen whether the experiences of heatwaves this summer begins to increase awareness of the ways that climate change is already affecting both public health and the delivery of health services. Information on these risks should be more accessible to enable people to better understand the impacts they face now and in the future. (Conclusion, Paragraph 28)

The Government should use the evidence of this summer’s heatwaves to make the case for the transition directly and without hedging, including publishing UKHSA’s attribution of heat-related deaths and NHS pressures to climate change as they become available, and stating clearly that the alternative to the transition is more of the same. The NHS should communicate the health impacts of climate change clearly and consistently, and strengthen its role in raising awareness of the risks climate change 28 poses to health outcomes and delivery of health services. Relevant public bodies should also communicate the health benefits of action on climate change and related issues. (Recommendation, Paragraph 29)

We heard compelling evidence that climate change poses a growing threat to UK food production and food security. Yet public concern about the use of farmland for solar development appears to be greater than concern about the impact of climate change on the land itself. Those opposing renewable infrastructure have been more effective at mobilising concerns about food security than those making the case for climate action. (Conclusion, Paragraph 34)

Farming organisations should be more vocal in communicating the impact of climate change on food production and the role of the energy transition in safeguarding long-term food security. Government should work with the sector to ensure the case for climate action is communicated more clearly and persuasively than arguments are made against renewable infrastructure. (Recommendation, Paragraph 35) Mainstreaming the energy transition

The Government will only secure buy-in to the energy transition if it means reduced cost and less inconvenience. Support for the Clean Energy Mission and the broader energy transition will only build if people can see not just the broader environmental and health benefits discussed earlier but also the personal benefits it will deliver. (Conclusion, Paragraph 41)

Most consumers get advice on heating solutions and other energy saving devices from the local tradespeople that would be employed to install them in houses. If those small businesses are not convinced to engage in the energy transition, then they will not be part of convincing the wider population to do the same, nor investing in the skills to deliver it. (Conclusion, Paragraph 45)

SMEs are being overlooked in the energy transition. As trusted local voices and the primary source of advice for many consumers, they have significant potential to build public confidence in the transition. The previous administration did not make sufficient use of this opportunity. (Conclusion, Paragraph 46)

The Government should develop a dedicated strategy to engage SMEs in the energy transition. This should provide tailored support, improve SME representation in policymaking, and equip trusted local businesses, tradespeople and installers to communicate the benefits of the transition to their customers and communities. (Recommendation, Paragraph 47) 29

The biggest barrier to households and SMEs moving to low carbon technologies is cost rather than a lack of desire to do so. Three quarters of householders were interested in making upgrades, but there were concerns over costs and low levels of awareness of support schemes available. It will be critical that the Warm Homes Plan is rolled out effectively and that the Government sends clear signals to the public of the benefits of uptake of the technologies which are available as part of the plan. (Conclusion, Paragraph 53)

The costs of the transition are not currently falling fairly. Policy costs recovered through electricity bills are regressive, taking a larger share of income from poorer households. Those in poorly insulated or privately rented homes are least able to act and most exposed to high prices, yet they are the people who stand to gain most from cheaper clean power and warmer homes. A transition whose upfront costs fall on those least able to pay, while its benefits accrue first to those who can afford a heat pump or an electric vehicle, will not command public support and does not deserve to. (Conclusion, Paragraph 54)

The Government should act on recommendations we made in our Report on Tackling the energy cost crisis to reduce electricity prices and improve the competitiveness of UK businesses. In particular, it should accelerate support for energy-intensive industries, extend support to SMEs, and set out a clear plan for ensuring that households and businesses share in the long- term benefits of cheaper clean power. It should also improve awareness of the support available to adopt low-carbon technologies, through the Warm Homes Plan. Salary sacrifice for the installation of solar, battery storage and heat pumps should also be explored by the Government as part of its efforts to improve the affordability and accessibility of low carbon technologies. (Recommendation, Paragraph 55)

The Government should adopt and publish an explicit fairness principle for the transition in that no household in or at risk of fuel poverty should be left worse off by the costs of decarbonisation. It should publish an annual assessment of the distributional impact of energy policy costs. Fairness should be built into the design of the transition, not retrofitted through communications. (Recommendation, Paragraph 56) Building trust for the future

The previous administration hoped that better information through the usual channels would tackle the rise of misinformation about climate and the energy transition. We are concerned that simply providing 30 information will not be enough. For those already opposed to the transition, further information may simply entrench that opposition. (Conclusion, Paragraph 66)

The Net Zero Council was identified as a useful model for structured partnership between Government and business to support delivery of the energy transition and focus outreach to the business community. The Government should mirror this process by establishing a council focusing on a partnership with civil society, which should also include public institutions and national academies, as part of attempts to build up trusted voices. (Recommendation, Paragraph 67)

We recommend that the Government tasks the national academies to raise their profile with the nation at large. These bodies should be the basis for people seeking clarity on complex issues, like climate, rather than being remote, elite organisations that are slow to engage beyond their specialist audiences. (Recommendation, Paragraph 68)

While we recognise that the current remit of Ofcom may not allow it to intervene in matters of climate misinformation raised during this inquiry, we are concerned that exposure to misinformation online and broadcast narratives can erode overall confidence if not countered by credible communication and regulatory clarity. Indeed stories from the wilder parts of the internet can gain credibility by being repeated in Parliament and then reported in more established media outlets. While we appreciate Ofcom is a post-broadcast regulator, we are concerned about the lack of speed and transparency displayed by the regulator in reaching determinations on complaints and the concurrent impact this may have on enabling the spread of misinformation. (Conclusion, Paragraph 75)

In response to this Report, the Government should set out its assessment of the merits of granting Ofcom further legislative powers and resources to more effectively regulate misleading information online regarding the energy transition, especially on the “credibility laundering” of information. The Government should also explore the merits of tasking Ofcom with producing speedy, interim decisions on complaints, as part of its efforts to counter the spread of misinformation. (Recommendation, Paragraph 76)

We recommend that Ofcom should explore how to ensure information on climate change and energy transition from trusted sources is prominent and easy to find on social media platforms, specifically on how authoritative information might be given greater prominence within the algorithms of social media platforms and search engines. (Recommendation, Paragraph 77) 31