On Monday the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) issued a press release titled “Energy security, jobs and investment boost through climate action”. We can differ about the validity of the claims made in that short heading, but the sub-title is simply deceitful: “Families and businesses will continue to reap the benefits of the clean energy transition in the coming decades”[my emphasis].

Again, we can have different opinions about whether we will or will not see benefits down the line, but the use of the word “continue” suggests that we are already doing so. Patently we aren’t. The UK has some of the highest electricity prices in the world, and this is indisputably due to the government’s energy policies. Anyone reading Sir Dieter Helm’s latest excellent analysis, titled “The cost of energy and what to do about it”, then reading the DESNZ press release would be at a loss to understand what is going on.

Sir Dieter’s conclusion is robust:

…Now is the time to think again about British energy policy, and now is the time for realism: Britain is not going to be a clean-energy superpower; it probably won’t hit the net zero 2030 target; net zero carbon territorial production targets do not map onto climate change and do not make much difference to it –in some cases, they may make it worse; renewables + a gas reserve working say 5% of the time is not a cheap energy system; and international businesses (notably in the new technologies) are not flocking to the north of Scotland to get access to cheap offshore wind. Britain is not going to be an AI global superpower, not least because of its very high energy costs.

Realism points up the need to urgently address the two immediate crises: the crisis in British industry as a result of the highest electricity prices in the developed world; and the crisis of affordability for households. To these can be added the climate crisis: there is no significant global progress on reducing the carbon concentration in the atmosphere, fossil fuels still make up 85% of global energy supplies, and there is no transition from coal, oil and gas globally. Britain may have got out of domestic coal, achieved by the Conservative governments, but it has not got out of coal consumption embedded in imports. It is still 75% fossil-fuel-dependent. There is no transition from fossil fuels taking place globally, and nobody is looking to Britain to find out how to do it – how to have the highest costs, and be the most vulnerable to shocks like those in Ukraine and Iran, even when it does not take much gas from either Russia or Qatar. There is a deep irony that Johnson and Miliband share the enthusiasm for the go-for-broke strategy which has resulted in the current problems.

Has anyone in DESNZ read it? If they have, did they understand it? They can’t have done, for instead of taking Sir Dieter’s sage advice, they have just announced:

…the government has set out its proposed level for the seventh Carbon Budget, which sets a science-led target of ~87% emissions reduction in the period 2038 to 2042 – endorsed by the Environmental Audit Committee and the Climate Change Committee.

It claims in support a report prepared by the Confederation of British Industries Economics at the behest of the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU). The government press release describes the report as “independent”. I have grumbled repeatedly about the misuse of this word. The ECIU very properly acknoweldges some of its major funders in 2025. There’s the European Climate Foundation (working “to catalyse climate action”). Its funders include Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Grantham Foundation, Bloomberg Philanthropies, William & Flora Hewitt Foundation, Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, IKEA Foundation, Growald Family Fund, KR Foundation, Climate Imperative, McCall McBain, Stiftung Mercator, Porticus, Hightide Foundation, Laudes Foundation, AKO Foundation, Climateworks Foundation, Ballmer Group, Sequoia Climate Foundation, Robert Bosch Stiftung, Arcadia, Montpelier & Hampshire Foundations, Postcode Loterij, Oak Foundation, and Quadrature Climate Foundation. By the way ,the Quadrature Climate Foundation (“Responding to escalating threats to lives and livelihoods from climate impacts, which will intensify without a fast, fair transition”) also funds the ECIU directly. Then there’s the Meliore Foundation (the project host for “a pan-European think tank, created to promote effective climate action”). The Meliore Foundation is in turn financially supported by Oak Foundation, KR Foundation, William & Flora Hewitt Foundation, and Grantham Foundation. Also funding ECIU is the Windward Fund (“The Windward Fund is committed to discovering and implementing methods to address energy and climate issues across the globe. Several of our projects are working to mitigate the effects of climate change by researching, establishing, and funding renewable energy sources, energy conservation tactics, and tactics to engage the oil and gas industries. Additionally, projects are combating ozone depletion and pollution using tactics such as carbon capture, methane reduction initiatives, and more.”). Then there’s the Natural Environment Research Council aka UK Research & Innovation (“a non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology”). In other words, the UK government is funding a body which (inter alia) funds other bodies which in turn fund ECIU to commission the CBI to produce a report which will endorse the government’s energy policy. A cynic might wonder, given its timing, if the report was commissioned for the very purpose of supporting DESNZ’s latest announcement. Whatever else the ECIU Report is, it isn’t “independent”. The only surprise would be if it didn’t support the government’s policy agenda.

By the way, if you are interested in going down the funding rabbit hole, you might take a look at Avarice in Funderland.

Moving on, the government press release assues us:

The new target is based on evidence-based assumptions about how the country will take a consumer choice-led approach to the adoption of technologies such as solar, batteries and EVs that will cut bills for families.

Well, there’s evidence and then there’s evidence, but assumptions? Then there’s the claim about “ a consumer choice-led approach”. The reality is that this is the opposite of the truth. The consumer is being given precious little choice. As an example (one among many) – I went to our local VW dealer the other day to discuss possibly purchasing a new diesel T-ROC. It’s one of the few diesel vehicles still made by VW (which is in turn one of the few car manufacturers still making diesels for the UK car market). Or it was. They’ve just stopped making T-ROC diesels, as I was informed in a telephone call from the dealer a few days ago. This isn’t because of lack of demand. Its because of EV mandates.

As for “ technologies such as solar, batteries and EVs that will cut bills for families”, this is contentious at best, dishonest at worst. I accept that the government has a view, as it is entitled to do, but I don’t believe it make factual claims that are highly controversial.

Read the press release for yourself – it makes a number of such contentious claims. Then there’s this:

Without action, climate change continues to endanger the UK’s food and water security, exacerbate global population displacement and pose national security risks, including to critical infrastructure, in a context of increased global instability and households already suffering from the price volatility of fossil fuels. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) is also clear that the costs of climate damage are getting higher, while the cost of the net zero transition is getting lower. This is about protecting the UK’s way of life and the natural world from significant dangers.

How many times does it have to be pointed out that nothing the UK does to reduce its territorial emissions can make the slightest difference to climate change? And, as Sir Dieter Helm points out in his latest piece, a focus, such as that of the UK, on territorial rather than consumption emissions, is arguably resulting in more, not fewer emissions globally, since the UK is making itself increasingly dependent on products made in countries such as China, which rely much more heavily on fossil fuels. As an aside, that level of dependence on the likes of China hardly represents security of any sort either.

I also suggest Mr Miliband remembers something he seems to have forgotten. When he was the Minister responsible for the Climate Change Act, he signed off its impact assessment. At page 7 it said this:

It should be noted that the benefits of reduced carbon emissions have been valued using the social cost of carbon which estimates the avoided global damages from reduced UK emissions. The benefits of UK action will be distributed across the globe. In the case where the UK acts in concert with other countries then the UK will benefit from other nations reduced emissions and would be expected to experience a large net benefit. Where the UK acts alone, though there would be a net benefit for the world as a whole the UK would bear all the cost of the action and would not experience any benefit from reciprocal reductions elsewhere. The economic case for the UK continuing to act alone where global action cannot be achieved would be weak.

That applies with much greater force today, given that emissions continue to increase globally as the UK’s territorial emissions fall.

The final point to note is that the press release contains little of substance, and relies instead on glowing commendations from a number of people who are euphemistically described as stakeholders. They include representatives of the UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association (UKSIF); Aldersgate Group (“we advocate the business case for decarbonising the UK economy”); the UK Transition Finance Council; Energy UK (“The UK will only meet its Net zero targets with a thriving, competitive and innovative retail energy market that delivers for homes and businesses”); E.ON UK; RenewableUK; the Climate Change Committee; the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and the Global School of Sustainability at the London School of Economics and Political Science; (sadly) the RSPB; Green Alliance; E3G; Friends of the Earth; WWF; We Mean Business Coalition (“The SME Climate Hub drives global efforts to strengthen small and medium-sized business resilience. We have created the go-to platform for SMEs to navigate shifting market conditions and decarbonize their businesses, ensuring they remain prosperous, competitive, and future-fit in the low-carbon economy of tomorrow. It was co-founded in partnership with the Exponential Roadmap Initiative and the UN Climate Change High Level Champion’s Race to Zero campaign.”); Corporate Leaders Group UK (“The CLG UK has frequently defined the UK’s business response to climate change – one of the greatest challenges of our time….CLG UK has helped build consensus across the UK business community in support of climate action. It spoke first and loudest in support of the UK’s Climate Change Act …”); Climate Outreach; Round Our Way (“Round Our Way was created for the growing number of us worried that the impact climate change has on families like ours isn’t getting the attention it deserves”); Just Transition at The Young Foundation; Climate Action Network UK (CAN-UK); ClientEarth; The Climate Coalition; the Climate Group; Design Council (“Raising the bar on the UK’s global leadership in regenerative design, getting to net zero faster and building a circular economy”); and Net Zero Programme Director at the Broadway Initiative. .

I find that list of talking heads to be extraordinary. The government is clearly closely connected to a vast number of organisations which support its extremist energy agenda, and which can be relied upon to offer a helpful quote for government press releases. But shouldn’t government press releases be limited to the factual? Shouldn’t they be impartial and any supporting quotes be independent? In fact, shouldn’t there be a law against this sort of thing?