Just as the UN’s climate change board has released its most ominous warning yet, the government seems caught between extracting itself from Russia and u-turning on its environmental promises.
Prime minister Boris Johnson has previously vowed to cut the UK’s net carbon emissions to zero by 2050, but sanctions against Russia and calls to stop using the country’s fuel imports over the Ukraine invasion has piled on the pressure.
On top of that, the cost of living crisis means Downing Street is facing calls to mitigate the cost of energy transition – bills shot up by an average of £700 per year from April.
Meanwhile, the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on Monday also warned that it is “now or never” for the world to dodge climate disaster.
With the UK’s energy strategy set to come out on Thursday, here’s a breakdown of all the sources Downing Street is reportedly looking into and their impact on the environment.
Wind farms
Environmental impact
Wind turbines – known as wind farms when in groups – do not release any emissions which pollute the surrounding area, and don’t need any water to be pumped around its system for cooling, making it environmentally friendly.
However, it can damage natural habitats, and the turbine blades can be dangerous to any flying wildlife. Wind farms also usually need service roads to be built near them, which can add to the visual damage to the landscape.
Still, the impact is minimal when compared to the polluting effect of fossil fuels.
Is it possible?
Yes – according to the US government’s energy department, wind power is cost-effective, and one of the lowest-priced energy sources available.
A scheme is already in place in Yorkshire and in Caerphilly, in Wales, where energy supplier Octopus allows customers to get 20% off electricity bills when their local turbine is spinning. They get 50% off when it’s picking up speed.
Is it popular?
Well, it’s not an idea favoured by anyone in the countryside as it breaks up the landscape.
There are also strict planing rules about where turbines can built across England at the moment, but business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng is looking at easing these regulations.
Downing Street sources also told the BBC that No.10 has “got to be open” to more onshore wind, but the cabinet is currently divided over the wind farms.
Nuclear
Environmental impact
Nuclear power is a controversial source of energy. While technically less polluting than fossil fuels, it can be toxic to humans and animals – as seen in the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, where the pollution has lingered for decades.
The construction of nuclear plants also produces carbon emissions, and requires uranium mining and manufacturing operations, meaning nuclear is actually a “low-carbon” power source rather than a zero-carbon energy supply.
Is it possible?
Yes – according to the World Nuclear Association, the UK already produces around 15-20% of its electricity from nuclear.
However, almost all of the power stations pumping out this power were on track to be decommissioned by 2025. Then, Johnson said in March that he wanted 25% of the UK’s electricity to come from nuclear.
A large amount of investment would therefore need to be invested into new power stations for this u-turn.
Is it popular?
Nuclear power has a mixed reception. It is much more reliable than wind farms, meaning it would strengthen the UK’s energy security, and has a high capacity for producing a lot of power, regardless of the weather.
It also takes up much less space than solar or wind farms.
However, there are serious concerns about the safety of nuclear reactors, and the long-life of radioactive waste. Reactors are also expensive – and difficult – to build, and it would take a long time before the UK saw any returns on its money in terms of the immediate crisis with the Ukrainian war.
Fracking
Environmental impact
This method of recovering gas and oil from shale rock is known for being very detrimental to the environment. It means drilling in the ground and using high-pressure water, sand and chemicals to fracture the rock to get the gas out.
It uses a huge amount of water and it is harder to develop in the UK compared to other countries such as the US, where the rock layers aren’t as complex.
As Friends of the Earth energy campaigner Tony Bosworth said: “Shale gas is not the solution to the UK’s energy challenges.”
Is it possible?
As the UK was fracking up until 2019 – albeit on a small scale – it would appear relatively straightforward for No.10 to revert back to this energy source.
Business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng has also asked the British Geological Survey to look into how the science around fracking could be altered, suggesting the UK might fall back on it. There are also thought to be large supplies of natural gas across the country.
However, it could take a significant amount of time for the wells to start producing gas commercially again.
Is it popular?
Fracking is very controversial.
It’s prompted significant worries about its negative impact on the environment and its safety concerns – more than 120 tremors were recorded at a previous UK site.
Ministers previously said fracking would not be reconsidered without “compelling new evidence”, but Kwarteng’s renewed interest in it could be hinting at a u-turn.
Oil
Environmental impact
As a fossil fuel, increasing our use of oil would go against recommendations from the IPCC. Burning oil produces greenhouse gases and so will worsen the climate crisis. Extracting oil, like with extracting gas, can also ruin habitats and deeply impact wildlife.
Is it possible?
As the UK currently uses oil, it seems like it would be straightforward for Britain to up its production. However, the UK has confirmed it will ban all Russian oil imports by the end of 2022, so it means looking elsewhere for our oil supplies.
Johnson has said that he wants to “remove barriers” to increase fossil fuel production in the North Sea in light of the current energy crisis.
Six North Sea projects are also expected to be given the go-ahead by the oil and gas regulator, according to The Independent.
Is it popular?
Increasing the UK’s dependence on oil is deeply unpopular, especially as the climate crisis is only worsening.
Yet, cabinet minister Jacob Rees-Mogg has suggested trying to get all of the oil out of the North Sea.
He told LBC on Monday: “We want to get more oil out of the North Sea, we want to get more gas out of the North Sea.”
He continued: “2050 is a long way off. We’re not trying to become net zero tomorrow. We’re going to need fossil fuels in the interim.”
However, campaigners have warned that this will “blow” the UK’s net zero climate target.