FREQUENTLY ASKED QS.

+ What kind of organisation are you?

The Zero Carbon campaign is an independent and a-political not-for-profit, founded and funded by Stephen Fitzpatrick to explore policy solutions for reaching net zero ahead of the COP26 summit.

We ceased active campaigning after the conclusion of COP26 in November 2021, however, we remain operative as a hub for carbon pricing news, research and resources.

We are independent from the Government, but have collaborated with and received input from major political parties and relevant Government departments.

+ What are you trying to achieve?

We want the UK Government to commit to a policy-based plan of action for achieving net zero at a price that society can afford. That’s why we called for the UK Prime Minister to introduce a series of sector-based carbon charges ahead of COP26 (the UK-hosted UNFCCC Climate Conference, which took place in November 2021), and to commit to using the revenue to protect low income households from the cost impacts of the net zero transition and support individuals in making the switch to lower carbon lifestyles. Not only do we believe that this is the fairest and most effective way to catalyse the transition to net zero, but it will also enable more transparency with regards to the environmental impacts of the products that we choose.

+ Why do we need a price on carbon?

The burning of fossil fuels (e.g oil, coal, natural gas) is the single-biggest driver of greenhouse gas emissions.. As a result of this, we are in a state of climate and ecological crisis, and without curbing these emissions - and phasing out fossil fuel use across the globe - the world as we know it will become unrecognisable; even in comparison to the extreme weather events of the past few years.

Britain - as a developed nation, with the 5th largest economy in the world - has a moral and historic responsibility to lead on the global transition to net zero. But beyond that, it also has a huge opportunity to gain from being a first mover when it comes to low-carbon innovation.,Major investment from the government is required in order to make this a reality, and to ensure that the shift to a low carbon future acts as a catalyst for economic growth and prosperity. We believe that the UK's current approach towards carbon pricing is inconsistent with this ambition, and that a revised system could incentivise decarbonisation across the economy, whilst helping to raise substantial revenue to support both our climate and economic goals.

+ How are you going to get it?

Our campaign seeks to convince as many people as possible - from policy-makers to business leaders, NGOs, members of Civil Society and the general public - to advocate for a carbon charge. When we were actively campaigning we used a variety of mechanisms to drive support for carbon charging, including our White Paper, Parliamentary petition and COP26 declaration. Active campaigning has now ceased, but our social channels continue as a platform for carbon pricing-related news and relevant policy announcements, and you can continue to access all our research and resources via this website.

+ Who is your leader?

The Zero Carbon campaign was founded by Stephen Fitzpatrick and was led by Hannah Dillon until November 2021. Active campaigning has now ceased, but Senior Campaign Manager Isabella Goldstetin remains responsible for keeping the campaign operative as a hub for carbon pricing news, research and resources.

However, the project is much larger than this small, immediate team. It’s successes were made possible by the support and advocacy of numerous stakeholders across policy, business and academia, as well as a range of stakeholders. This includes our excellent Commission, Public First, Seahorse Environmental Communications, Nice and Serious, If Not Now Digital, Greenhouse Communications, MakerChange.Studio and 11 year old Jude Walker - who walked over 200 miles from his home in Yorkshire to raise awareness of our Parliamentary petition.

+ What political party are you aligned to?

We are not a political organisation, nor are we affiliated to one particular political party. We believe that the transition to net zero will not be achieved without true cross-party leadership and collaboration. As such, we have collaborated with and received input from major political parties, as well as relevant Government departments.

+ Who are you funded by and what do you spend money on?

The Zero Carbon campaign was founded by Stephen Fitzpatrick, who donated £1.35 million of his own money to fund it. This money supported the day-to-day running of the project. It also funded all of the work (research, creative and otherwise) that we produced in order to engage stakeholders (public, political, business etc) with the campaign across 2020 and 2021, including the running of our Commission. Our Commissioners were not paid for their contribution; they very kindly gave their time for free.

+ What is your position on the Green New Deal?

Carbon charging cannot provide the whole solution to the net zero problem; but it is a powerful catalyst for change that - if correctly implemented - will have positive consequences for both people and planet. Additional regulations and policies will be required to help aid a fair and just transition , as we outlined in our Commission's White Paper. However, being a-political, we are not in a position to support the suite of policy recommendations provided by one particular party.

+ Why are you a credible organisation and why should people take you seriously?

We are a-political, and do not have a vested interest in seeing this policy through other than our belief in the multiple positive benefits afforded by a net zero world. The policy we have been advocating for was developed by an independent and diverse range of experts, and the campaign itself was founded by an individual with a proven (and successful) track record in green innovation. Through our campaigning, consultation responses and contribution as expert witnesses we have proven ourselves to be experts in this field. Whilst we are by no means the only people working to advance the case for carbon pricing, we do believe that our track record has given us credibility to do the campaigning work that we do.

+ Why do you think there is an appetite for stronger 'green' policies?

Public opinion research conducted for the campaign by Public First and Opinium in February 2021 revealed strong support for the Government taking stronger action on climate change - both at home and abroad - and found that the British public are generally supportive of the Government levying ‘green’ taxes in pursuit of the UK’s net zero target. It also demonstrated - consistently - that carbon charges are one of the most popular policy options for addressing climate change. However, this support is contingent on charges being designed to a) target those the public believe deserve to pay, including big polluters b) protect those on low-incomes from cost increases, and c) redirect revenues towards publically popular policies such as the creation of green jobs, retraining workers, and investing in clean energy production. These findings have been corroborated by opinion research undertaken by other organisations - including Green Alliance and WWF, who found that 94% of 22,000 respondents supported the introduction of a carbon tax Overall, it’s clear that people are willing to act on climate change, but they don’t want this to come at great expense to them, or their households. Consistent, sensitively phased carbon charging - accompanied by a fair system of revenue recycling - can respond to these concerns. It can also simplify the current ‘green tax’ landscape and provide a market incentive for industries and other actors to make their own decisions with regards to how they decarbonise.

+ The Green Party have been talking about this for years. Why do you think you can get around this when previous attempts have failed?

We are at a unique and critical time in history: the UK was the first major economy to legislate for net zero, and the Government has declared a climate and ecological emergency to underline that intent. The COVID-19 pandemic created an unprecedented need for government investment to support households, businesses and the wider economy - but it has also exposed overwhelming public support for those investments to be made in the context of a ‘green recovery.’ Public interest in (and appetite for action on) climate change is at an all time high, and climate issues have never been more present in the news and policy agenda. Global leaders expect us to honour the ambitious pledges we have made and keep global momentum pushing in the direction of net zero emissions. This includes delivering on the commitments that our policy work and campaigning over the past few years have helped to secure, notably - to reduce policy costs on greener forms of heating, to strengthen and extend carbon pricing across the ⅔ of the economy that is currently uncovered, and to tackle emissions embodied in trade through a multilateral global carbon pricing agreement. Although our window for active campaigning is over, there remains a vital role for us all to play in holding the Government to account on these commitments. That’s why we will continue to use our platforms to agitate for progress on these changes, as well as other necessary commitments that the Government has yet to come forward with.

+ Isn’t this mere “tinkering around the edges?” Surely we need to do more than just price carbon?

We understand that carbon charges do not provide the whole solution to the net zero problem; this initiative will have to be underlined by substantial supplementary policies if we are to achieve a fair and just transition for all within a meaningful timeframe. You can find a more detailed outline of the complementary policies recommended by our Commission in their White Paper.

+ What is your relationship to OVO? And how would OVO and other energy companies benefit from the introduction of a carbon charge?

The Zero Carbon campaign and OVO have the same founder, but beyond that they are separate entities. The Zero Carbon campaign team (and associated supporting agencies) are funded independently from OVO, and policy development was run by an independent body of experts who very kindly gave their time for free. Any person, company or institution that is choosing to adapt itself to a low-carbon world (e.g through adopting science-based-targets/committing to net zero emissions/adopting a low carbon lifestyle) will ultimately benefit from the out-pricing of fossil fuels, but - as long as we facilitate and fair and just transition - so will the whole of society.

+ How would a carbon charge actually work?

A carbon charge is a form of pollution tax. It requires people who produce, distribute, or use fossil fuels - as well as those whose activities result in the production of greenhouse gas emissions - to pay for every tonne of greenhouse gases that enter our atmosphere. It would gradually amalgamate the multiple conflicting carbon price signals that currently exist in the UK under one clear and transparent ‘charge.’ Over time, the price of this charge would increase and be extended to more areas of the economy - to ensure that incentives to decarbonise exist wherever emissions are produced. The majority of greenhouse emissions are produced as a result of energy, power and fuel use. For this reason, the carbon charge would predominantly be placed on energy companies (for example, gas is currently subjected to a very minimal carbon price). However, emissions can also be produced as a result of production processes. Where this happens (as with industry and agriculture) we would expect companies to pay an additional price on top of what has been paid for energy inputs. We believe that a phased, sectoral approach to introducing a carbon charge - which acknowledges the challenges faced by different sectors of the economy - can help fund a fair, green transition towards net zero. By 2030, we would like to see a simple carbon charge of £75/tCO2e (carbon dioxide and equivalents) on greenhouse gas emissions across the economy. The revenue from this charge could then be used to support investment in green alternatives, provide funds to cushion households from cost increases, and contribute to core government spending in a way that also incentivises consumer and business behaviour. More details of these proposals - and on the different pathways and complementary policies that we think are required for each sector - are outlined in our Commission’s White Paper.

+ Why this as opposed to other policies?

Carbon pricing is not the whole answer to the net zero problem and will need to be implemented alongside a suite of complementary policies in order to be effective. However, scientists and economists agree that making the burning of fossil fuels prohibitively expensive is the most effective way of getting to net zero. Existing carbon pricing policies - such as the UK ETS - are not guaranteed to price carbon at a rate high enough to drive the rapid emissions reductions required to deliver the net zero transition. That’s why we believe that putting a set charge on carbon is a better place to start; it ensures that those who produce the most emissions pay, and incentivises everyone to switch towards lower-carbon production processes. By strengthening and extending the UK’s carbon pricing system, we can disincentivise the production of greenhouse gas emissions wherever it occurs, whilst providing clear investment signals to support the transition towards a low-carbon economy. Not only will this have positive health benefits for people and planet, but it will drive the creation of a lot of new jobs too.

+ Why do you think there is an appetite for extending carbon pricing in the UK?

We believe that - when accompanied by a rebate scheme - carbon charges are the fairest and most effective way to reduce emissions from fossil fuels.

A clear carbon signal has not only been shown to effectively reduce emissions (Ofgem 2019), but it is less subject to gaming (e.g double-counting, the over-allocation of free credits) than other pricing systems (e.g Emissions Trading Systems), and it enables pricing predictability where other systems don’t; if you can’t predict the price that carbon will trade at, you can’t make reliable long-term investment decisions. It can also ensure that carbon is priced at a level consistent with net zero, where other systems (i.e Emissions Trading Systems) cannot, while providing individuals with better transparency over where they’re being charged, and what they can do to reduce their footprint.

Further to this, set carbon charging will enable fewer exemptions by ensuring that emissions are penalised wherever they occur (as opposed to issuing ‘free allowances’), whilst providing revenues that can be used to ease the impact on UK households and facilitate the transition to net zero more broadly (i.e through investing in the transition of heavy industry, household heating, etc).

+ If prices rise then won’t ordinary people just end up paying?

Carbon charging will ensure that the biggest polluters pay the most, in line with their contribution to global warming. However, if the UK wants to achieve ‘net zero’ emissions, everyone is going to have to play their part. To make sure a carbon charge is introduced in a way that is fair for everyone, we are proposing that a proportion of the carbon charge revenue is used to enable exemptions for certain households, as well as being invested to create jobs to support a green industrial revolution, and help lower cost-barriers to low carbon living. For example, we want to support Government funding for energy efficiency improvements in homes, as well as helping Industry to scale up investment in low-carbon production processes. This - combined with a sensitively phased approach to the introduction of charges - can help ensure that the UK’s low carbon transition is both fair and effective.

+ But what’s the point when it’s India and China that are responsible for most emissions anyway?

The UK - as the 5th largest economy in the world, and the home of the industrial revolution - has both a moral and historical obligation to go above and beyond in our attempts to address the climate crisis; that is the premise of the Paris Agreement. What’s more, we are responsible for a lot of the emissions coming out of countries such as China, because they are being produced as a result of UK demand. Just because these ‘consumption’ emissions are not being produced on our shores, does not mean they are not our responsibility to resolve.

This is especially poignant in light of the UK’s efforts to establish itself as a global leader on climate action. If the UK leads the way in demonstrating how carbon charging could work, then other countries could follow suit. Just as our climate change act framework is studied by other administrations, so could a future UK carbon charging system serve as an example to be modelled across the globe. It is also important to remember that climate change has no borders; it is in the UK’s own self-interest to support developing nations in their efforts to achieve net zero emissions, because it will have positive impacts on the global environmental footprint.

+ How is this policy compatible with wider efforts to get to net zero? Doesn’t it harm the chances of other measures being adopted?

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the Government had made a number of small and piecemeal policy announcements, but a clear roadmap for ensuring that the UK delivers on its legislated goal of achieving net zero emissions by 2050 was sorely absent. While the run-up to COP26 saw the publication of a number of key policy papers - including the Energy White Paper, Industrial Decarbonisation Strategy, the Net Zero Review and the Net Zero Strategy - gaps and uncertainties remain; particularly with regards to technology, timescales, funding, and mechanisms for ensuring a just transition. We believe that the system of carbon charging we are proposing can be a catalyst for the wider policy development required to secure an equitable green recovery and deliver net zero. Not only does it provide an efficient mechanism to achieve these twin objectives, it also offers the financial means to fund them.

+ There are already green taxes and they don’t seem to work - why should this be any different?

Carbon prices currently exist in multiple forms in the UK: explicitly as additions to electricity bills, and implicitly as - for example - additional taxes on fuel.

These ‘Green Taxes’ are often inconsistent and piecemeal in approach, as well as limited in scope; especially where prices are too low to drive significant emissions reductions (i.e EU ETS), or price freezes have occurred (e.g with Carbon Price Support, which was frozen in 2016 to protect businesses and consumers from increased bills). Many sectors are not covered, and in those that are, significant exemptions dilute policy efficacy, providing little incentive to abate.

Our Commission has proposed the implementation of a stronger and more consistent approach to account for the cost of carbon. They are recommending that charging is approached on a sectoral basis, is sensitively phased (so as to ensure public and political support) and is compatible with the 2050 net zero target. They are also proposing that the revenue is used to protect low-income consumers from bearing the brunt of decarbonisation costs, and to support industrial decarbonisation where it is currently prohibitively expensive.

+ What are the benefits of this policy for someone like me?

Beyond the multiple health and lifestyle benefits afforded by a greener, cleaner society, effective emissions pricing can give consumers a stake in how they choose to decarbonise, as opposed to having top-down restrictions placed upon them. Not only will this policy make choosing to go ‘green’ the lowest-cost option (where currently it is viewed by many as being prohibitively expensive), it will also lead to greater transparency over where individuals are being charged for their use of fossil fuels; and provide financial support to cover the up-front cost of transitioning. In the short term, carbon charges could also help raise funds for the government to invest in economic stimulus; such as innovation and creating new, sustainable jobs.