Emerging from the COP26 climate conference (Glasgow 2021), the UK government published its Net Zero by 2050 strategy, setting out how it will achieve a target of net zero carbon emissions (meaning to negate the amount of greenhouse gases produced) to combat climate change. However, this comes at a time where the cost-of-living crisis drives up the cost of everyday living, caused by an amalgamation of factors (including the pandemic and war in Ukraine). It affects almost every aspect of life, the cost of food, energy, and fuel. It  was estimated that by April 2022, 23.4 million people would have incomes below the minimum income standard, making up 34.2% of the UK population. The increased cost of living  would mean that 48% of children  would be living in households unable to provide them a decent standard of living.  

Therefore, there is much debate if it is tangible or unattainable to achieve net zero by 2050 when, arguably, the cost-of-living crisis should be the government’s focus: we need to think more about how complex whole economy challenges are. 

It must be recognised that decarbonisation will bring costs that ultimately need to be passed onto consumers. There are claims that net zero policies are too expensive and undemocratic: Nigel Farage has even launched a campaign called “Power not Poverty,” calling for a referendum on net zero. A statement issued by Vote Power Not Poverty argues: “we all want to do our bit. But Westminster’s Net Zero is the wrong bit, at the wrong price, in the wrong timeframe”. Furthermore, plans for net zero are also met with criticism and opposition from within the Conservative party; Tory MPs and peers have formed the Net Zero Scrutiny Group (NZSG). Some members claim the government’s plans to reach net zero emissions by 2050 have been “dreamed up by out-of-touch elites” and would impoverish working people, “making them colder and poorer”. This opposition conveys the sense that the pledge for net zero by 2050 is unattainable, and rather domestic issues should be prioritised. 

Taking this opposition into consideration, if the cost of living and energy security issue does not improve over the coming years then government policy might be more inclined to shift towards cheaper yet more environmentally damaging ways of providing energy (e.g., via fracking and burning of fossil fuels) instead of pursuing and adhering to their commitments to net zero by 2050. This would not only be detrimental to the environment, but also contribute no real long-term solution to the cost-of-living crisis: it would only help momentarily.  

However, if governments across the globe uphold their commitment to accomplish net zero within the next 30 years by investing in greener methods of producing energy, there is the potential to create new jobs (improving livelihoods) and reduce the reliance on fossil fuels, eventually decreasing energy bills. As Alexander Stafford rightly suggests; “Net Zero is a solution, not a cause, of the cost-of-living crisis”. This mirrors the Prime Minister's statement: “and everywhere you look, in every part of our United Kingdom, there will be jobs. Good jobs, green jobs, well-paid jobs, levelling up our country while squashing down our carbon emissions”.

If further action is not taken to stop the climate impacts we're already experiencing, “the planet is likely to see global temperatures rise by 2-4 °C (3-7 °F) by the end of the century”. Thus, the catastrophic result of inaction on the climate crisis should outweigh any transgression from the Net Zero by 2050 pledge. Alternate suggestions and a well thought through plan of how the government will achieve its 30-year goal is needed: detailing exactly when and how they are going to achieve this. Government enforcement of the national living rather than national minimum wage for all could also work to combat the cost-of-living crisis whilst helping to fund government initiatives. Depending on how dire the social situation is in coming years, there could perhaps be a watering down of the government’s ambition. This may come into fruition in the form of an extended deadline for net zero (e.g., Net Zero by 2075), alleviating some of the pressure from the government whilst slowing down the transition which may reduce costs for bill payers. 

This combination of social, economic, and environmental issues come alongside Shell’s highest ever quarterly profits, making a huge “$9.13bn (£7.3bn) in the first three months of the year”. Large oil corporations such as Shell do not currently pay a “windfall tax” (a one-off levy that the government imposes on a sector that has made huge profits from something they were not responsible for). This has caused much controversy as the government hopes that a lack of taxation would translate into funding cleaner energy solutions. The hope of reinvesting the same amount into green energy calls into question if the government could be doing more to impose a windfall tax and contribute funding rather than relying on a lack of taxation. 

Government intervention (rather than relying on external companies with a lack of windfall tax) could be a solution to the cost of living and net zero by 2050 issue: with guaranteed funding, a plan can be devised to find a sustainable and affordable route to combat the challenges of Net Zero and the cost-of-living crisis, working hand in hand to approach these issues collectively rather than individually. The need for change and intervention to alleviate financial pressures is obvious, but the challenge in doing so is working in such a way that supports the pledge of net-zero by 2050: by making it tangible and attainable. 

Ella is an English Language and Literature undergraduate student at the University of Edinburgh. She hopes to pursue a career in politics or law, focusing on government policy and how it can improve and impact peoples lives.

LinkedIn