Letter to Institute of Economic Affairs points out net zero pamphlet made “absurd” assumptions

A letter to Lord Frost, the Director General of the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), has pointed out that a new pamphlet about net zero made “absurd assumptions”, and should be withdrawn.

The IEA published a pamphlet on 13 January on ‘The Cost of Net Zero’ which alleged that the National Energy System Operator (NESO) had found that the cost of achieving net zero would be £7.6 trillion over the next 25 years.

However, a letter to Lord Frost from Bob Ward, Policy and Communications Director at the Grantham Research institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science indicates that the IEA’s pamphlet misrepresented NESO’s findings.

The letter points out that it makes the “absurd assumption” that there would be absolutely no new investment in the UK energy system over the next 25 years of net zero emissions was not a target.

It also suggests that the IEA would have learned of its fundamental mistake if the pamphlet’s author, David Turver, had contacted NESO in advance about his interpretation of the figures.

The letter states: “Your document contained several claims that were significantly inaccurate and misleading, and apparently based on absurd assumptions. I urge you to withdraw it before more people are deceived by its contents.”

It states:

“Mr Turver aggregated figures that represented projections of operating and capital expenditure for the UK energy system between 2025 and 2050 in NESO’s ‘Holistic Transition’ scenario. These would only represent the costs of net zero if the energy system required absolutely no new investment over the next 25 years without the net zero target, which is clearly absurd. Indeed, your pamphlet essentially admits this by citing similar figures for the ‘Falling Behind’ scenario, which is not consistent with achieving net zero emissions by 2050 but still involves significant investment. Clearly Mr Turver did not bother to contact NESO to check that his interpretation of their figures was accurate – if he had he would no doubt have learned of his fundamental error.”

The letter concludes:

“I note that several media reports uncritically covered the publication of your pamphlet, and include quotes from politicians and commentators who appear to have accepted your inaccurate and misleading figures at face value.

“I urge you to withdraw the document and to review your internal processes to ensure that your documents receive a rigorous quality control check before they are published.”