Net zero must mean a net gain in your pocket

Now, I am utterly convinced in the science that tells us climate change is real, that it must be tackled immediately, and that we must both limit temperature rises and adapt to the increases which we are already too late to prevent. Indeed, I am not only a personally, but a professionally-committed environmentalist. Last year, I started Zero Matters, a net zero consultancy which footprints, plans and delivers net zero plans for businesses. Zero Matters is, as I write, facilitating a reduction in carbon emissions amongst our clients.

However, committed as I am to reducing carbon emissions, it was not my primary driver for the purchase of an electric vehicle. My primary driver was money. When I bought the car, my calculation was not how many tonnes of carbon I would remove from the atmosphere; it was whether or not the small increase in monthly payments for the car would be offset by the reduction in running costs.

Read more: This week has been quite the advert for fiscal autonomy

It was, and indeed it encouraged me to change to an Economy 7 electricity tariff so that my car would be charged more cost efficiently overnight, which has further led to programming my dishwasher, washing machine and tumble dryer to be used only at night, too.

All of this is about money. It is not about climate change. Reducing my personal carbon footprint is a happy by-product, but the primary driver is saving money.

The purpose of me recounting this story is not to regale readers with tales of my white goods, but to encourage a franker, more honest, more open conversation about what motivates people. It’s not saving the planet. It’s saving money.

This is all highly relevant this week, as we reflect on last week’s by-election in Uxbridge and South Ruislip, which was unexpectedly held by the Conservatives, with London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s proposal to extend the Ultra Low Emission Zone being held up as "exhibit A".

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has taken fright, and the incumbent Conservative Government is now being heavily lobbied by those sceptical about its net zero policies to row back, in the hope that there are votes in it.

This is a mess, now, and a mess which is highly likely to lead to a slowing down of our drive towards the dramatic reduction in carbon emissions that we need to achieve net zero. It was and is, however, an avoidable mess, if we can start to have a more honest, clear discussion which places at its heart saving money, rather than saving the planet.

The truth is that the overarching narrative of both the Scottish and UK governments, that reducing carbon emissions is a moral imperative before it is a financial imperative, has been a manifest failure. The narrative that net zero is dutiful but not profitable has discouraged businesses and people from making the changes that the planet needs them to make.

This should change through more sensible government policy which focuses on the opportunities for households to save money, and for businesses to make profit. In the area of electric vehicles, for instance, governments should stop setting - and changing - irrelevant deadlines for banning the sale of internal combustion cars. The market will take care of that, because long before these deadlines are reached the technological advancements of battery electric vehicles will lead to their sale price being assimilated, then undercutting, that of internal combustion cars.

Instead, the Government could, for instance, offer a tax incentive for homeowners to install an EV charger in their property and ensure light regulation on an Airbnb-style rental of that charger. Similarly, the Government could ensure fast-track planning and other incentivisation of large scale, on-the-go charging infrastructure, which could also promote retail opportunities as drivers wait for their batteries to be charged.

On a macro scale, of course, we also need to encourage a change in how people see the oil and gas industry and the drive to net zero working together. Again, governments have allowed for, and indeed actively created, a perception that these are opposites, grinding against each other and constantly colliding. This is nonsense; without the investment of hydrocarbon companies into net zero technology, the transition is a pipe dream. The Scottish and UK governments should be supportive of maximum profits from oil and gas, on the basis that it must lead to maximum investment into renewables (with the significant by-product of increased corporation tax revenues for the country).

Read more: Huw Edwards story proves one thing: we need a better media

Electric vehicles and renewable energy are merely two examples of how the Government could change the conversation to revolve around money rather than duty. There are others. The Scottish Government presides over an extremely poor trunk road infrastructure which, as well as being a major safety hazard for the population, creates increased emissions by inhibiting the flow of traffic, suppresses general business growth and makes it significantly more challenging for investors to access the remote and rural areas which lie at the heart of Scotland’s enormous renewable energy potential.

A massive capital investment programme aimed at upgrading trunk roads would improve the long-term emissions outlook as well as improving the short, medium and long-term economic outlook.

Successful net zero policymaking will only be possible if we are more creative, thoughtful and honest, eschewing the traditional "stop the world" brigade in favour of a new, profitable environmentalism.

We are in the midst of an historic economic crisis, which is hitting the pockets of the people in unprecedented fashion. If we cannot show them that net zero is a net benefit, then we can forget the prospect of ever getting there.