Boris is courting political disaster by trying to guilt us into going green

We were the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, and now the Government wants us to pay the price

If ever there was a slow-motion political car crash unfolding before our very eyes, it is Boris Johnson’s drive towards a zero-carbon future. Over the past 30 years or so, it has become customary to liken any similarly looming fiasco to the Poll Tax, but this will make the public backlash to the rates replacement pale into insignificance.

It, too, involves saddling millions of households with additional expenditure for unknowable benefits in an unfair way. Proponents may argue that this is justified to save the planet; but if the world’s worst polluters are just carrying on regardless then our sacrifice is pointless. Moreover, if we are merely outsourcing our own CO2 emissions to other countries – such as China and India – through imports, it is also hypocritical.

Aware that such arguments will be made, our political leaders are now resorting to moral blackmail. Yes, net zero by 2050 may be expensive to achieve and, yes, we will have to cough up to replace our cars/boilers/ cladding/insulation etc (although we cannot say precisely how much). But what we must accept is that we are the primogenitors of global warming, so it is only right that we pay the price.

Original sin rests with us, apparently, and can be located specifically at Ironbridge in Shropshire. This Unesco World Heritage site is visited by many thousands of tourists every year because it is where the Industrial Revolution began – an achievement that we regarded until recently as something to be proud of, but which is now a badge of shame, apparently.

The Climate Change Committee which advises the Government says our “historical contribution” to warming and the fact that the Industrial Revolution made us wealthy obliges us to make amends, even though we would still be tilling the land without it. This self-flagellation may go down well among the zealots of environmentalism but good luck turning it into a political slogan.

Boris Johnson, speaking to a Global Investment Forum in London, tried his best, reaching for his inner Gordon Gecko to declare that Green is Good. He invoked the UK’S record as a polluter, saying that we have a responsibility to set an example because we “knitted the deadly tea cosy of CO2 now driving climate change”, which must have troubled the interpreters.

An absolute essential for any government pursuing a policy carrying such enormous costs and implications is that it has to bring the country along with it. That requires a compelling argument to be made for its achievement, a realistic timetable for doing so and widespread acceptance that it will make a difference and is not just being done for show or bragging rights at a summit.

Campaigners say the first is met by the climate change “emergency”. Without reducing emissions to net zero by 2050, a warming “tipping point” will be reached. Whether or not you agree with the science is neither here nor there since most governments accept it to be true and are planning accordingly. But whether the timetable is realistic is another matter, not least what happens during the transition. The UK is committed to earlier deadlines than most, with the sale of new petrol and diesel cars banned from 2030 and gas boilers outlawed in new homes from 2035.

These monumental changes are supposed to happen within the same space of time it takes a child to go through school, and the danger with such expedited deadlines is that wrong choices are made.

For instance, the pressure is on people to switch to heat pumps as gas boilers are phased out. These cost upwards of £10,000 and can require a lot of outside space, which most people don’t have. The economics of running heat pumps once installed are good but the problem is in the interim. There is no certainty that the skills and labour are available to do the work – unlike the last time such a massive infrastructure project was undertaken, with the conversion of 22 million homes to North Sea gas between 1968 and 1974.

The UK now has 28 million homes, most of which will need improvements to achieve net zero by 2050. This requires retrofitting existing houses and building energy-efficient new ones at an estimated cost of £525billion by 2040, including £168 billion of government investment, or £18,750 per home.

But is this the right way forward in any case? Proponents say hydrogen boilers are the best mass solution for existing homes, with low consumer impact. Households would experience little disruption to their supplies and their radiators can remain in place. The problem for a Government anxious to charge forward is that the technology is still being tested, although the industry says it is viable.

Mr Johnson made much yesterday about the importance of market-driven solutions, so why are we being pushed in one direction with £5,000 bribes to opt for heat pumps? Is it because they can be installed more quickly and therefore reach the target faster?

Surely what matters is whether we plump for the right solution, not the one that allows artificial deadlines to be set by politicians who will not be around when the consequences become apparent. The installation of a new boiler will for many be a major investment and the idea that they are being compelled to make the wrong choice is deeply worrying. Since the main barrier to hydrogen is the cost of replacing the existing gas pipe supply network, this is something the Government needs to get behind. Mr Johnson says hydrogen is part of the solution along with new nuclear power plants, but does anyone seriously see this happening in the next 15 years?

If one thing is certain it is that in the short to medium term, this is all going to be extremely costly and the bills will be paid by you and me. In many cases they will be considerable. Eventually, of course, market forces and scientific advancement will create a green world of affordable electric (or hydrogen) cars and well-insulated homes heated by eco-friendly technologies, backed up by all the necessary infrastructure.

That is the utopia of which the PM dreams. It is getting there, and the costs of doing so, where his real problems lie. Telling us all to grin and bear it because we are the true begetters of climate change is a suicidal political strategy.

‘Surely what matters is plumping for the right solution, not the one that allows politicians to set artificial deadlines’