What do you think?
Rate this book
Net Zero: How We Stop Causing Climate Change
The inconvenient truth is that we are causing the climate crisis with our carbon intensive lifestyles and that fixing – or even just slowing – it will affect all of us. But it can be done.
In Net Zero the economist Professor Dieter Helm addresses the action we would all need to take, whether personal, local, national or global, if we really wanted to stop causing climate change.
Net Zero is Professor Dieter Helm’s measured, balanced view of how we stop causing climate change by adopting a net zero strategy of reducing carbon emissions and increasing carbon absorption. It is a rational look at why the past 30 years efforts has failed and why and how the next 30 years can succeed. It is a vital book for anyone who hears the clamour of Extinction Rebellion and other ecological activists, but wonders what they can actually do.
In Net Zero the economist Professor Dieter Helm addresses the action we would all need to take, whether personal, local, national or global, if we really wanted to stop causing climate change.
Net Zero is Professor Dieter Helm’s measured, balanced view of how we stop causing climate change by adopting a net zero strategy of reducing carbon emissions and increasing carbon absorption. It is a rational look at why the past 30 years efforts has failed and why and how the next 30 years can succeed. It is a vital book for anyone who hears the clamour of Extinction Rebellion and other ecological activists, but wonders what they can actually do.
329 pages, Kindle Edition
Published September 3, 2020
44 people are currently reading
653 people want to read
About the author
Dieter Helm
35 books24 followersDieter Helm is Fellow in Economics, New College, Oxford. He is also Professor of Energy Policy and Professorial Research Fellow, Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, University of Oxford.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews
September 19, 2021
Dieter Helm's well-written plan of action to achieve net zero consumption by 2050 holds many thought-provoking ideas and sound proposals. For example, why not introduce a system of centralised battery charging for electric cars, whereby we could just swap our empty batteries for full ones at service points? The book is filled with clever concepts and analyses like this, underlining the urgent need for action after the "30 wasted years" since the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
My fundamental problem with the book lies with Helm's view on achieving this net zero society: through making "the polluters" pay, relying almost completely on state funds for the provision of proper "public goods" and mitigating emissions that are difficult to avoid. In his vision, carbon taxes should be introduced to make individuals like you and me pay for our pollution. Although Helm recognises that this will cost us immensely; that our supermarket, transport and energy bills will rise drastically; and that these measures will disproportionally affect the poor, he argues that there is simply no other way. Customers like you and me, not the corporations using polluting production methods, are ultimately responsible for climate change. Moreover, the state should pay for new infrastructure so these corporations can employ environmentally friendlier prodution methods. His argument virtually absolves corporations of any responsibility regarding climate change and blames individuals who buy plastic wrapped vegetables instead. In this regard, the book almost reads like a propaganda attempt by those capitalist corporations (and the system behind them) who are in control of the means of production and decide to employ polluting production methods to gear up their profits. I for one did not ask for my apples to be wrapped in plastic.
Another issue I have with Helm's account is the way in which he frames countries like China, Brazil and India as environmental "villains" while only mentioning the historical responsibility of Western countries for global climate change as a sidenote. The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities is given minimal, if any attention. Although some environmental trends in these countries are very worrying, such as the cutting down of the Amazon forest or the heavy reliance on coal, the book would do well to contextualise these more. Let's also not forget that a very substantial amount of the environmental damage caused in these countries is done to the benefit of Western, capitalist corporations.
All in all, this book did provide me with new and valuable insights into the climate change issue and the net zero society. However, it is essential to adopt a critical outlook on Dieter Helm's manifesto.
My fundamental problem with the book lies with Helm's view on achieving this net zero society: through making "the polluters" pay, relying almost completely on state funds for the provision of proper "public goods" and mitigating emissions that are difficult to avoid. In his vision, carbon taxes should be introduced to make individuals like you and me pay for our pollution. Although Helm recognises that this will cost us immensely; that our supermarket, transport and energy bills will rise drastically; and that these measures will disproportionally affect the poor, he argues that there is simply no other way. Customers like you and me, not the corporations using polluting production methods, are ultimately responsible for climate change. Moreover, the state should pay for new infrastructure so these corporations can employ environmentally friendlier prodution methods. His argument virtually absolves corporations of any responsibility regarding climate change and blames individuals who buy plastic wrapped vegetables instead. In this regard, the book almost reads like a propaganda attempt by those capitalist corporations (and the system behind them) who are in control of the means of production and decide to employ polluting production methods to gear up their profits. I for one did not ask for my apples to be wrapped in plastic.
Another issue I have with Helm's account is the way in which he frames countries like China, Brazil and India as environmental "villains" while only mentioning the historical responsibility of Western countries for global climate change as a sidenote. The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities is given minimal, if any attention. Although some environmental trends in these countries are very worrying, such as the cutting down of the Amazon forest or the heavy reliance on coal, the book would do well to contextualise these more. Let's also not forget that a very substantial amount of the environmental damage caused in these countries is done to the benefit of Western, capitalist corporations.
All in all, this book did provide me with new and valuable insights into the climate change issue and the net zero society. However, it is essential to adopt a critical outlook on Dieter Helm's manifesto.
November 23, 2020
Net-Zero Year or Net Year-Zero?
First and foremost, I must congratulate Professor Dieter Helm for his honesty. Upon reading this book one understands the bright future that is being readied for us all over the next decade or two. Secondly, I must point to some very imaginative writing, with proposed technological solutions to the carbon emissions rivaling both Ayn Rand and William S. Burroughs. Finally, a star for logic and thorough analysis. For each particular recommendation, the author diligently considers alternatives, which, indeed, sets him apart from the common eco-leftist crowd.
And please do not understand me wrong. Despite I give this book only 3 stars, I do recommend it to all serious readers. However, before you open Prof. Helm's masterpiece, there is another book of only 212 pages. It is a mandatory pre-read to make you qualify:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2...
Prof. Helm likes comparing the "Net Zero" to World War II. Back in 1947, one prominent man stated in his House of Commons speech — "Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time…" A social experiment very similar to Prof. Helm suggestion, has been tried on several occasions. One of the most important trials was called "The Year Zero". Pol Pot. Cambodia / Kampuchea, 1975-78.
The target, exactly as stated by the book title, is to reach the "Net-Zero" emissions. "Net-Zero" means, roughly, that the UK alone must emit no more carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) than the corresponding islands' territories and surrounding ocean can absorb. Determining this amount is no easy task. The total Earth landmass is 149 million km². The UK occupies 0.24 million km² of land, thus the UK population is entitled for 0.24 / 149 = 0.16% of the Earth "absorption capacity". On the other hand, the UK population is roughly 67 million, which is 0.87% of the total Earth population. One may argue that the Islands' population is entitled for some larger portion of the global emissions. Five times larger, approximately. In 2016, the global anthropogenic CO2 emissions were estimated at 33-49 billion ton of CO2-equivalent or 9.0-13.4 billion ton of Carbon (hint: divide "tons of CO2" by (16*2/12+1)/12 = 3.67 to get "tons of Carbon"). The range of these estimates is large, because besides the fossil fuel burning and cement production - which are difficult, but not impossible to account for - humans add carbon to the atmosphere from deforestation, agriculture and other such activities. In its 2013 report, IPCC estimated that roughly 1/3 of the anthropogenic CO2 is absorbed by green plants and soil, 1/3 - dissolves into the oceans, and 1/3 remains in the atmosphere. So, how much CO2 is "absorbed"? Should we count only the "Carbon", which remains the atmosphere or should we also consider the "Carbon" which "pollutes" the ocean? Bringing all the numbers together, we must arrive to the conclusion that the UK in total is entitled to emit anywhere between 9000*1/3*0.16% = 4.8 to 13400*2/3*0.87% = 78 million ton of "Carbon" per year. In the BP World Energy Report of 2020, the number - for the fossil fuel only - is estimated as 105 million ton. Naturally, the latter number does not include the carbon impact of the imported consumer goods - from made-in-Bangladesh clothes to made-in-China computers and solar panels. It also does not include the imported commodities (metals, materials and chemicals): steel, aluminium, cement, fertilizers, etc. Applying the author's logic, each British citizen is entitled to emit anywhere between 4800/67=70 and 78000/67=1150 kg of "Carbon" per year. Just for comparison, an average adult emits about 90 kg of "Carbon" per annum by simply BREATHING. Yes, we are all "polluters", but breathing is considered "natural" and does not count!
In Chapter 4, Professor Helm postulates his Three Principles of Sustainable Economy, which must apply for the "Net-Zero" emissions in the UK. [Quote] (I) "The polluter pays". (II) "Public money for public goods". And (III) "Net environmental gain". [Unquote] As political slogans, all three sound quite right. However - and I must once again give the author the credit for being honest - the same Chapter 4 explains the politically-correct obfuscations. I take this opportunity to rephrase the proposed principles without going in-depth into the author's reasoning for each; the reasoning, to my opinion, is logical, and the author does consider alternatives:
(Principle I) "Consumer equals polluter." Every CONSUMER pays. The pay is proportional to consumption. The cost of living will, on average, increase. The poverty in the UK will generally increase. The consumption in the UK will generally decrease. Very likely, some goods and foods may be rationed and some even become totally unobtainable, as during the WW2, although extensive rationing should be avoided, to give the population an illusion of free will.
(Principle II) "All-mighty bureaucracy plus cosmetic democracy." Private business cannot address public good because it is for-profit. Elected politicians cannot address public good because they worry about the next elections. NGOs cannot address the public good because they cannot be easily controlled. Because of unpopularity of the "Net-Zero" harsh measures, the allocation of public funds - and what in general constitutes the "public good" - must be decided by the narrow circle of willing GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRATS, mostly UNCHANGEABLE and practically UNACCOUNTABLE to public. The Parliament empowers the bureaucrats by accepting an appropriate law, after that, a facade of democracy is maintained for cosmetic purposes only, to keep the impoverished content. Again, the situation is not dissimilar to the Churchill war ministry from 1939 till 1945.
(Principle III) "Controlled pauperization through austerity." While deciding on the necessary resource allocation, the bureaucrats must act on the side of caution, always selecting the option that makes the population, on-average, consume, and therefore emit, LESS, not more. The ultimate government's goal is to bring the UK public to the BASIC SURVIVAL MINIMUM (Universal Service Obligation, USO in the author's terminology) as fast as possible, but yet not too rapidly to prevent massive unrest, a mutiny or a revolution. Despite all the public suffering, the actions of bureaucrats are moral and ethically justified. We do it for the sake of salvation of our children and grandchildren! Yes, during the War, the UK population also took sacrifices for future generations.
The fundamental difference between the World War II and the proposed "Net-Zero" principles is that in the former case the extraordinary measures and legislations have been clearly time-framed by the victory over Nazi Germany in Europe - very soon after Nazis capitulated, the UK democracy returned to its normal self. But in case of "Net-Zero", if the principles are accepted, the destruction of British democracy will be total and permanent till at least the year-2100. Three generations or more in politics is almost as good as "forever". Time to remember "1984", "We", "Fahrenheit 451" and "Eden".
Chapter 5 is, to my opinion, is the most important in the book. It describes the practical implementation of the above principles in the sphere of Finance. Again, the author is brutally logical, and diligently considers alternatives to each measure. These derivations are too long and too detailed for this review, so let me produce the concise summary of each:
(1) The consumers (Principle I) will pay for their "emissions" in form of General Carbon Tax (GCT), applied alongside to the present Value Added Tax (VAT). GCT is applied at the point-of-sale of goods and services. Computing the actual carbon footprint is resource-consuming and impractical: for example, a pair of shoes may be 100 g of "Carbon", and may be 2 kg, depending on design, materials used, manufacturing process, country of origin, etc. It is impossible to imagine an army of researches, accountants and lawyers to set the "scientific" amount of "Carbon" for each possible fashion, style and size. Thus, GCT will be set as a fixed per cent of the fair market price. Notwithstanding, GCT may be different for different CATEGORIES of consumer goods, e.g. luxury and sporting items taxed more than staples.
(2) The amount of GCT is decided every several years. GCT is set, more or less at will, by the government bureaucrats (Principle II) based on "reaching the goal". If the government deduces from "the latest scientific research" that the society is "closing on the emission goal", GCT reduces, et vica versâ. This is similar to setting the Central Bank exchange rates, only less frequent. The goal for the UK at the moment of writing is stipulated as "zero net emissions by 2050." The goal may be adjusted in the future.
(3) Besides the GCT, the government bureaucrats impose additional Border Carbon Taxes (BCT) for the imported goods and materials. In case of five basic commodities: fertilizers, cement, steel, petrochemicals and aluminium, the estimation of "Carbon" may be explicit. For the other commodities and goods, only a fixed per cent of the fair market price is feasible - see the example with shoes, above. The BCT will be set differently for different countries. For example, if the UK bureaucrats decide that China is less committed to the emission reductions than India, the steel from India will attract 15% BCT and the same quality steel from China - 20%. Shoes from "greening" Philippines will have 13% BCT, and from "insufficiently committed" Viet Nam - 17%, and so on. The World Trade Organization will object, and even call it "protectionism", but who cares. This is for the greater good.
(4) Besides the GCT and BCT, the government bureaucrats (Principle II) may, at will, impose additional Industry Carbon Taxes (ICT) for the material-economy producers that are not deemed "absolutely necessary" or "effective" for USO. For example, petrochemical companies may be exposed to ICT just because petrochemicals are viewed as "harmful" and "unnecessary". Naturally, these producers will be pushed to pass ICT on their consumers with the additional cost of manufactured goods, according to Principle I. Some unwanted industries may be taxed into bankruptcy and closures in accordance to Principle III.
(5) By creatively combining the domestic GCT, the BCT, and the ICT (add also the GCT imposed on the international transportation services), the government bureaucrats firstly, collect additional taxes - the author estimates that the additional government income will exceed the current VAT - and secondly, can regulate the consumption / pauperization rate. Just for the reference, the current VAT in the UK is already at whopping 20%, except for the staple foods and children clothes, where it is - at least for now - zero.
(6) The additional government income from GCT, BCT and ICT should not be given back to the poor. This will reduce poverty and thus promote consumption, so it is against Principle III. What should we do with the additional funds? The government bureaucrats will allocate these monies, at will, in a way generally unaccountable to the public, to the infrastructure, education, research and development, defence, law enforcement, propaganda / mass media, re-cultivation / environmental clean-up / CO2 sequestration, and saving money in the National Environmental Reserve. In no particular order. In the following Chapters 6 to 10, Prof. Helm broadly considers the infrastructure, the international trade in "carbon offsets", the agriculture, the transportation and finally - the electricity generation.
The practical recommendations for implementing "Net Zero" follow the same pattern. First, the author diligently considers and rejects multiple options, which, to his view, cannot effectuate to the "Net Zero" goal. Second, he stipulates a draconian recommendation, based on his three Principles. Third, he describes the suffering the UK population will go through because of the proposed policy. Finally, he bubbles - Ayn Rand style - about some wonderful new technologies that may (or may not) help to alleviate the suffering towards the year 2050. The mentioned technologies range from marginally feasible to downright science fiction - like, "limitless geothermal energy from Iceland transported to the UK in ammonia tankers". It is true that Iceland - with 360 thousand population - managed to increase installed geothermal capacity 17-fold since 1990. But at the same time the electricity generation from geothermal in Iceland increased only 4.5 times, while the imports of oil INCREASED by 28% (hint: get a book on Geology and a book on Thermodynamics, locate two subject: "Specific heat capacity of rocks" and "Thermal conductivity"; understand why the point of diminishing returns has been reached and why Iceland can supply energy for 0.36 million of her own inhabitants but cannot supply for 67 million Brits or 670 million Europeans). It is evident from the text that the author has never consulted engineers, physicists or geologists. The Natural Capital Committee (NCC), he chairs since the inception in 2012, never had a civil engineer, a resource geologist or a hydrogeologist as a member. Even a professional lawyer (Kerry ten Kate) has been dismissed in 2015 without the qualified replacement.
The author refers to "COVID-19" and "recent coronavirus pandemic" more than 40 times through the book. According to Prof. Helm, COVID-19 is an excellent opportunity to turn the British population towards austerity. COVID-19 is just a readiness check. By effectively shutting down the Parliament and imposing "restrictions", the government has confirmed that the Brits - on average, of course, - are happy to live in a totalitarian Stalinist state, there an unelected Chief Medical Officer can at will put all law-obeying citizens under house arrests and police - like Gestapo and KGB - chases free speech proponents.
Of course, the UK is no Kampuchea. For starters, Prof. Helm is proposing to go much slower than Pol Pot went - 20 to 30 years to achieve "Net Zero" instead of just one or two years. Secondly, the USO in the UK is supposed to be significantly higher than the one imposed on the "4-th Category Citizen" in the Pol Pot communes. Thirdly, we hope that the UK in Europe of 2021 has much better visibility than Kampuchea back in 1975. There will be no "Killing Fields"; deliberate starving of population and other such atrocities will not be internationally tolerated.
At this positive note, we keep the fingers crossed and wish the British population good luck in this important social experiment. Because, another prominent man has pointed out - after another war in another century - "Every nation gets the government it deserves."
First and foremost, I must congratulate Professor Dieter Helm for his honesty. Upon reading this book one understands the bright future that is being readied for us all over the next decade or two. Secondly, I must point to some very imaginative writing, with proposed technological solutions to the carbon emissions rivaling both Ayn Rand and William S. Burroughs. Finally, a star for logic and thorough analysis. For each particular recommendation, the author diligently considers alternatives, which, indeed, sets him apart from the common eco-leftist crowd.
And please do not understand me wrong. Despite I give this book only 3 stars, I do recommend it to all serious readers. However, before you open Prof. Helm's masterpiece, there is another book of only 212 pages. It is a mandatory pre-read to make you qualify:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2...
Prof. Helm likes comparing the "Net Zero" to World War II. Back in 1947, one prominent man stated in his House of Commons speech — "Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time…" A social experiment very similar to Prof. Helm suggestion, has been tried on several occasions. One of the most important trials was called "The Year Zero". Pol Pot. Cambodia / Kampuchea, 1975-78.
The target, exactly as stated by the book title, is to reach the "Net-Zero" emissions. "Net-Zero" means, roughly, that the UK alone must emit no more carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) than the corresponding islands' territories and surrounding ocean can absorb. Determining this amount is no easy task. The total Earth landmass is 149 million km². The UK occupies 0.24 million km² of land, thus the UK population is entitled for 0.24 / 149 = 0.16% of the Earth "absorption capacity". On the other hand, the UK population is roughly 67 million, which is 0.87% of the total Earth population. One may argue that the Islands' population is entitled for some larger portion of the global emissions. Five times larger, approximately. In 2016, the global anthropogenic CO2 emissions were estimated at 33-49 billion ton of CO2-equivalent or 9.0-13.4 billion ton of Carbon (hint: divide "tons of CO2" by (16*2/12+1)/12 = 3.67 to get "tons of Carbon"). The range of these estimates is large, because besides the fossil fuel burning and cement production - which are difficult, but not impossible to account for - humans add carbon to the atmosphere from deforestation, agriculture and other such activities. In its 2013 report, IPCC estimated that roughly 1/3 of the anthropogenic CO2 is absorbed by green plants and soil, 1/3 - dissolves into the oceans, and 1/3 remains in the atmosphere. So, how much CO2 is "absorbed"? Should we count only the "Carbon", which remains the atmosphere or should we also consider the "Carbon" which "pollutes" the ocean? Bringing all the numbers together, we must arrive to the conclusion that the UK in total is entitled to emit anywhere between 9000*1/3*0.16% = 4.8 to 13400*2/3*0.87% = 78 million ton of "Carbon" per year. In the BP World Energy Report of 2020, the number - for the fossil fuel only - is estimated as 105 million ton. Naturally, the latter number does not include the carbon impact of the imported consumer goods - from made-in-Bangladesh clothes to made-in-China computers and solar panels. It also does not include the imported commodities (metals, materials and chemicals): steel, aluminium, cement, fertilizers, etc. Applying the author's logic, each British citizen is entitled to emit anywhere between 4800/67=70 and 78000/67=1150 kg of "Carbon" per year. Just for comparison, an average adult emits about 90 kg of "Carbon" per annum by simply BREATHING. Yes, we are all "polluters", but breathing is considered "natural" and does not count!
In Chapter 4, Professor Helm postulates his Three Principles of Sustainable Economy, which must apply for the "Net-Zero" emissions in the UK. [Quote] (I) "The polluter pays". (II) "Public money for public goods". And (III) "Net environmental gain". [Unquote] As political slogans, all three sound quite right. However - and I must once again give the author the credit for being honest - the same Chapter 4 explains the politically-correct obfuscations. I take this opportunity to rephrase the proposed principles without going in-depth into the author's reasoning for each; the reasoning, to my opinion, is logical, and the author does consider alternatives:
(Principle I) "Consumer equals polluter." Every CONSUMER pays. The pay is proportional to consumption. The cost of living will, on average, increase. The poverty in the UK will generally increase. The consumption in the UK will generally decrease. Very likely, some goods and foods may be rationed and some even become totally unobtainable, as during the WW2, although extensive rationing should be avoided, to give the population an illusion of free will.
(Principle II) "All-mighty bureaucracy plus cosmetic democracy." Private business cannot address public good because it is for-profit. Elected politicians cannot address public good because they worry about the next elections. NGOs cannot address the public good because they cannot be easily controlled. Because of unpopularity of the "Net-Zero" harsh measures, the allocation of public funds - and what in general constitutes the "public good" - must be decided by the narrow circle of willing GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRATS, mostly UNCHANGEABLE and practically UNACCOUNTABLE to public. The Parliament empowers the bureaucrats by accepting an appropriate law, after that, a facade of democracy is maintained for cosmetic purposes only, to keep the impoverished content. Again, the situation is not dissimilar to the Churchill war ministry from 1939 till 1945.
(Principle III) "Controlled pauperization through austerity." While deciding on the necessary resource allocation, the bureaucrats must act on the side of caution, always selecting the option that makes the population, on-average, consume, and therefore emit, LESS, not more. The ultimate government's goal is to bring the UK public to the BASIC SURVIVAL MINIMUM (Universal Service Obligation, USO in the author's terminology) as fast as possible, but yet not too rapidly to prevent massive unrest, a mutiny or a revolution. Despite all the public suffering, the actions of bureaucrats are moral and ethically justified. We do it for the sake of salvation of our children and grandchildren! Yes, during the War, the UK population also took sacrifices for future generations.
The fundamental difference between the World War II and the proposed "Net-Zero" principles is that in the former case the extraordinary measures and legislations have been clearly time-framed by the victory over Nazi Germany in Europe - very soon after Nazis capitulated, the UK democracy returned to its normal self. But in case of "Net-Zero", if the principles are accepted, the destruction of British democracy will be total and permanent till at least the year-2100. Three generations or more in politics is almost as good as "forever". Time to remember "1984", "We", "Fahrenheit 451" and "Eden".
Chapter 5 is, to my opinion, is the most important in the book. It describes the practical implementation of the above principles in the sphere of Finance. Again, the author is brutally logical, and diligently considers alternatives to each measure. These derivations are too long and too detailed for this review, so let me produce the concise summary of each:
(1) The consumers (Principle I) will pay for their "emissions" in form of General Carbon Tax (GCT), applied alongside to the present Value Added Tax (VAT). GCT is applied at the point-of-sale of goods and services. Computing the actual carbon footprint is resource-consuming and impractical: for example, a pair of shoes may be 100 g of "Carbon", and may be 2 kg, depending on design, materials used, manufacturing process, country of origin, etc. It is impossible to imagine an army of researches, accountants and lawyers to set the "scientific" amount of "Carbon" for each possible fashion, style and size. Thus, GCT will be set as a fixed per cent of the fair market price. Notwithstanding, GCT may be different for different CATEGORIES of consumer goods, e.g. luxury and sporting items taxed more than staples.
(2) The amount of GCT is decided every several years. GCT is set, more or less at will, by the government bureaucrats (Principle II) based on "reaching the goal". If the government deduces from "the latest scientific research" that the society is "closing on the emission goal", GCT reduces, et vica versâ. This is similar to setting the Central Bank exchange rates, only less frequent. The goal for the UK at the moment of writing is stipulated as "zero net emissions by 2050." The goal may be adjusted in the future.
(3) Besides the GCT, the government bureaucrats impose additional Border Carbon Taxes (BCT) for the imported goods and materials. In case of five basic commodities: fertilizers, cement, steel, petrochemicals and aluminium, the estimation of "Carbon" may be explicit. For the other commodities and goods, only a fixed per cent of the fair market price is feasible - see the example with shoes, above. The BCT will be set differently for different countries. For example, if the UK bureaucrats decide that China is less committed to the emission reductions than India, the steel from India will attract 15% BCT and the same quality steel from China - 20%. Shoes from "greening" Philippines will have 13% BCT, and from "insufficiently committed" Viet Nam - 17%, and so on. The World Trade Organization will object, and even call it "protectionism", but who cares. This is for the greater good.
(4) Besides the GCT and BCT, the government bureaucrats (Principle II) may, at will, impose additional Industry Carbon Taxes (ICT) for the material-economy producers that are not deemed "absolutely necessary" or "effective" for USO. For example, petrochemical companies may be exposed to ICT just because petrochemicals are viewed as "harmful" and "unnecessary". Naturally, these producers will be pushed to pass ICT on their consumers with the additional cost of manufactured goods, according to Principle I. Some unwanted industries may be taxed into bankruptcy and closures in accordance to Principle III.
(5) By creatively combining the domestic GCT, the BCT, and the ICT (add also the GCT imposed on the international transportation services), the government bureaucrats firstly, collect additional taxes - the author estimates that the additional government income will exceed the current VAT - and secondly, can regulate the consumption / pauperization rate. Just for the reference, the current VAT in the UK is already at whopping 20%, except for the staple foods and children clothes, where it is - at least for now - zero.
(6) The additional government income from GCT, BCT and ICT should not be given back to the poor. This will reduce poverty and thus promote consumption, so it is against Principle III. What should we do with the additional funds? The government bureaucrats will allocate these monies, at will, in a way generally unaccountable to the public, to the infrastructure, education, research and development, defence, law enforcement, propaganda / mass media, re-cultivation / environmental clean-up / CO2 sequestration, and saving money in the National Environmental Reserve. In no particular order. In the following Chapters 6 to 10, Prof. Helm broadly considers the infrastructure, the international trade in "carbon offsets", the agriculture, the transportation and finally - the electricity generation.
The practical recommendations for implementing "Net Zero" follow the same pattern. First, the author diligently considers and rejects multiple options, which, to his view, cannot effectuate to the "Net Zero" goal. Second, he stipulates a draconian recommendation, based on his three Principles. Third, he describes the suffering the UK population will go through because of the proposed policy. Finally, he bubbles - Ayn Rand style - about some wonderful new technologies that may (or may not) help to alleviate the suffering towards the year 2050. The mentioned technologies range from marginally feasible to downright science fiction - like, "limitless geothermal energy from Iceland transported to the UK in ammonia tankers". It is true that Iceland - with 360 thousand population - managed to increase installed geothermal capacity 17-fold since 1990. But at the same time the electricity generation from geothermal in Iceland increased only 4.5 times, while the imports of oil INCREASED by 28% (hint: get a book on Geology and a book on Thermodynamics, locate two subject: "Specific heat capacity of rocks" and "Thermal conductivity"; understand why the point of diminishing returns has been reached and why Iceland can supply energy for 0.36 million of her own inhabitants but cannot supply for 67 million Brits or 670 million Europeans). It is evident from the text that the author has never consulted engineers, physicists or geologists. The Natural Capital Committee (NCC), he chairs since the inception in 2012, never had a civil engineer, a resource geologist or a hydrogeologist as a member. Even a professional lawyer (Kerry ten Kate) has been dismissed in 2015 without the qualified replacement.
The author refers to "COVID-19" and "recent coronavirus pandemic" more than 40 times through the book. According to Prof. Helm, COVID-19 is an excellent opportunity to turn the British population towards austerity. COVID-19 is just a readiness check. By effectively shutting down the Parliament and imposing "restrictions", the government has confirmed that the Brits - on average, of course, - are happy to live in a totalitarian Stalinist state, there an unelected Chief Medical Officer can at will put all law-obeying citizens under house arrests and police - like Gestapo and KGB - chases free speech proponents.
Of course, the UK is no Kampuchea. For starters, Prof. Helm is proposing to go much slower than Pol Pot went - 20 to 30 years to achieve "Net Zero" instead of just one or two years. Secondly, the USO in the UK is supposed to be significantly higher than the one imposed on the "4-th Category Citizen" in the Pol Pot communes. Thirdly, we hope that the UK in Europe of 2021 has much better visibility than Kampuchea back in 1975. There will be no "Killing Fields"; deliberate starving of population and other such atrocities will not be internationally tolerated.
At this positive note, we keep the fingers crossed and wish the British population good luck in this important social experiment. Because, another prominent man has pointed out - after another war in another century - "Every nation gets the government it deserves."
June 27, 2021
A no holds barred account, gets caustic at places, about the drastic policy and lifestyle/ world order changes required to tackle the climate crisis.
Becomes a bit belaboured at times, however provides real pragmatic solutions too : Carbon tax, Compensate Carbon more on the side of caution, polluter pays principle etc.
You may leave the book feeling pessimistic though, since tackling the crisis is more than wishy washy techno babble talk, it is a serious reordering of our world order, the dominant economic models followed all across of consumption with no end and reconciling the three centuries of colonialism and its legacies...which are difficult as you can imagine.
Becomes a bit belaboured at times, however provides real pragmatic solutions too : Carbon tax, Compensate Carbon more on the side of caution, polluter pays principle etc.
You may leave the book feeling pessimistic though, since tackling the crisis is more than wishy washy techno babble talk, it is a serious reordering of our world order, the dominant economic models followed all across of consumption with no end and reconciling the three centuries of colonialism and its legacies...which are difficult as you can imagine.
May 3, 2022
Comprehensive guide to the different aspects of the path to net zero. Wide ranging in its scope and ideas, albeit with a primarily Euro-centric focus (the author is British). Not necessarily the most accessible read though, and perhaps best enjoyed by those with a technical grounding in net zero matters.
September 27, 2020
Thought provoking and generates hope for the future!
December 10, 2020
An important book that does not focus on the causes and very existence of global warming (he assumes that this is accepted) but on the policies that can achieve net zero carbon emissions. It’s very pragmatic (and also fairly depressing) and goes through the time wasted and the failure of attempts at an international and global solution (Paris COP etc). Rather focuses at what should happen at a national and individual level. Carbon tax, focusing on consumption, looking at impacts from agriculture, energy and transport, sequestration. It’s really interesting and well written for non experts in that matter.
February 1, 2022
Sir Dieter Helm is on a mission. This very accessible, excellent and well researched (if polemical) book is sort of the entry point to a great deal of his thinking about energy policy, agriculture policy, environment policy and his groundbreaking work on natural capital. Sort of a gateway to his career, but also a book of the moment. He debunks a whole ton of received wisdom about environment policy over the past 30 years (30 wasted years!) and wishes to point out a bunch of uncomfortable home truths. We aren't paying for the damage we're causing. Those who pollute (externalise their costs) need to be made to pay. We need to pay a carbon tax. We need to take a hard look at the micro choices we make every day. We need to actively rebuild the natural capital around us. Nothing particularly new here, but it's delivered with such urgency and clarity of thought that this deserves a very wide readership. I had the good fortune of seeing Prof. Helm speak recently - he's just as urgent and compelling in real life. He’s not without controversy and there’ll always be those who’ll pick apart his thinking. But I really appreciate his attitude - better to be roughly right (and act) than to be precisely wrong (and just debate). Paraphrasing slightly but that’s the attitude we need for these times when so much needs to change. #sustainability #netzero #cop26 #guehennoreads #booksofinstagram #booksof2021
August 25, 2021
Excellent analysis of what we now need to do to tackle climate change.
Three key points are
1. Polluter must pay
We need to reduce consumption as well as the production of carbon intensive goods.
We need carbon taxes and border taxes and Europe and UK should do this unilaterally.
We need subsidies for renewable energies.
2.Public money for public goods.
New electric transport and broadband fibre infrastructure needs public coordination and planning.
R&D into renewable and CCS needs public investment.
3. Net environmental gain
Fossil fuel usage will still exist, some gas usage will continue, coal usage should be ended, while we move to renewables and carbon sequestration both natural and technological is required.
He focuses on the three main polluting sectors agriculture, transport and electricity for potential solutions.
The approach he recommends is a pragmatic and realistic one. His logic was very convincing and after reading this book I came away with a lot of hope that the problems of climate change are not insurmountable.
Three key points are
1. Polluter must pay
We need to reduce consumption as well as the production of carbon intensive goods.
We need carbon taxes and border taxes and Europe and UK should do this unilaterally.
We need subsidies for renewable energies.
2.Public money for public goods.
New electric transport and broadband fibre infrastructure needs public coordination and planning.
R&D into renewable and CCS needs public investment.
3. Net environmental gain
Fossil fuel usage will still exist, some gas usage will continue, coal usage should be ended, while we move to renewables and carbon sequestration both natural and technological is required.
He focuses on the three main polluting sectors agriculture, transport and electricity for potential solutions.
The approach he recommends is a pragmatic and realistic one. His logic was very convincing and after reading this book I came away with a lot of hope that the problems of climate change are not insurmountable.
August 9, 2025
I always prefer honesty to fantasy and so the scope of the book is admirable. It really is a plan to achieve net zero, taxes, infrastructure investment and sequestration. This is refreshing in both its simplicity and that it doesn’t parrot the same talking points you see in a lot of books on climate change which make some heroic assumptions about the altruism of the general public. The problem is that I can’t see any scenario where those policies are ever implemented. Yes they would work but I think a dose of realism on how people actually act would be helpful. An answer to the question “what could also work with a more credible set of polices” would be welcome. Extend the honesty out to the most likely scenario rather than the one that gets us to net zero by 2050 (fantasy in my opinion)
August 19, 2023
Well, this was a mixed bag for me. I understand the arguments and the author's perspective, but I feel like all the blame was moved from corporations to the consumers and the government, occasionally to China and India as well. Basically the point is: corporations won't do shit (true), so let us suffer the costs and change of lifestyle. While I agree that there should be individual changes, I don't think the population will accept higher costs, decrease in quality of life, constraints and so on, while companies have huge profits. I do understand the frustration though, when things have no direction or speed.
June 20, 2024
An excellent book which lays out the differences between the production emissions and consumption emissions of a country. Countries like the UK are claiming to have achieved large reductions in the production of climate-changing CO2, but this is partly due to them having de-industrialised so that the goods formerly produced at home are now produced in China and elsewhere, and the emissions occur there instead of at home. If you calculate the emissions due to how much is consumed in the UK, there has not been a big reduction.
He proposes a carbon tariff on imports to prevent countries that attempt to cut emissions being undermined economically by those who don't.
He proposes a carbon tariff on imports to prevent countries that attempt to cut emissions being undermined economically by those who don't.
August 27, 2022
What I liked about this book is that it taught me about the environmental crisis through an economic perspective, which as biologists we don’t necessary get taught and it is important if we want to solve the problem. Sadly, my economic knowledge is null, so some sections of the book were a bit too detailed for me. Regardless of that, I was able to follow the chapters smoothly and I could understand the new concepts fairly well. Reading a book should be about learning, and even if by the end of it you have only learnt one new thing, then you’ve succeeded.
August 31, 2022
(2.5)Some refreshing and thought-out proposals regarding infrastructure and agricultural practices for a carbon neutral future and a thourough explanation on why the UN and EU have been inefficient in their fight against climate change since 1992 (which were the most informative and solid parts of the manifesto) -
- along with the worst takes on taxation I have ever seen as well as a weird Covid-19 and WWII era fetishization so I have extremely mixed feelings here
- along with the worst takes on taxation I have ever seen as well as a weird Covid-19 and WWII era fetishization so I have extremely mixed feelings here
December 31, 2020
Good book but not always easy to read. The solutions proposed seem really hard to achieve. Many countries have tried carbon tax and never implemented it. It leaves me with a sour after taste and little optimism. Will we ever be able to reverse the damage we ´ve created to the environment?
April 11, 2023
I found this to be a very valuable read - it addresses all the main issues of climate change. Though it does not contain perfect solutions, it’s a great book to start conversations and gets the reader in a solution-driven mindset (urgent, rather than despairing).
February 5, 2024
I wanted to give it three because I felt depressed and exasperated after reading it. Not because it wasn't well written, but because it's obvious that these potential solutions aren't going to be implemented.
May 18, 2024
Thought provoking at times but frames countries in the Global South as villains in the narrative around climate change, without truly grasping the impact of Western consumer habits and TNCs essentially "offshoring" pollution to meet Western demands
July 4, 2021
My eco education continues. Lots to take in here, but sound propositions if only there was enough appetite for them. Definitely one to keep the motivation up on personal actions though.
December 9, 2021
Fairly informative about the areas where the most change could be made quickly to combat climate change. Doesn't seriously consider more radical methods than alterations to the market or the state.
December 23, 2021
Easy to follow and well thought out.
April 18, 2023
An intelligent and solution focused book. I fear for the planet future generations will live on I really do.
May 1, 2023
Read as course text
Coherent and consistent through-line. The argument is compelling, and I respect it even despite my disagreements.
Coherent and consistent through-line. The argument is compelling, and I respect it even despite my disagreements.
January 2, 2024
An important book on what we need to do to stop the advancement of climate change. It should be compulsory reading for our politicians who are in denial.
April 23, 2024
Very informative but the author focuses too much on the solutions he proposes (which are not feasible, in my opinion) rather than explaining the phenomena behind CC.
December 12, 2024
I loved this book. It was great.
March 27, 2023
Some aspects of this book are excellent, others not so much. I found it pretty uneven, where some things were explained very coherently and other areas which lacked clear arguments. It is still a good and interesting read, but could have been better.
July 19, 2022
grace gave me this to read and my god.
world is going to end.
found it really difficult to read and digest.
would not really recommend xoxo
world is going to end.
found it really difficult to read and digest.
would not really recommend xoxo
September 24, 2021
The recent IPCC report clearly shows that: climate change is having an affect on every region of the world, human activity is responsible and it is imperative that we act immediately.
Every fraction of a degree matters and saves lives. 0.5 of a degree is huge and has massive consequences for the future of the global south. We must aim to prevent as much suffering as we possibly can.
But how?
It’s currently in vogue to commit to net zero by 2050. But what does this actually mean and how can we achieve it?
In his recently wainwright prize shortlisted book, Professor Dieter Helm has begun to create a blueprint, an outline for change and a serious consideration of the concept of net zero.
Focusing primarily on UK policy and actions; he argues that our carbon CONSUMPTION, rather than emissions or production must achieve net zero. Since the Kyoto Protocol, European countries have begun a process of deindustrialisation. By exporting carbon intensive industry and importing back carbon intensive products (mostly to China) we’ve created the illusion of lowering our carbon footprint. The reality is that over the last 30 years there has been NO PROGRESS in cutting emissions.
Our current framework, infrastructure and government policies will never deliver the results we so desperately need.
We need to be much more ambitious.
Helm makes a particularly in depth analysis of two main areas: transport and agriculture. For example, there is no point in creating electric cars if we haven’t found a way to decarbonise electricity.
Helm urges us to look at our own use of carbon, to create a diary and find places where we can reduce our consumption. Yet, thankfully, it doesn’t focus wholly on individual action. Corporations and institutions must change to a sustainable system and we as individuals have the power to demand they do so. #UprootTheSystem
It’s an excellently researched and well thought out case for achieving net zero. It’s a fascinating, hopeful and challenging read.
I’m glad that there are people like Helm doing this research and I hope that it gets the recognition and implementation that it needs. It’s a plan that could and would work.
Every fraction of a degree matters and saves lives. 0.5 of a degree is huge and has massive consequences for the future of the global south. We must aim to prevent as much suffering as we possibly can.
But how?
It’s currently in vogue to commit to net zero by 2050. But what does this actually mean and how can we achieve it?
In his recently wainwright prize shortlisted book, Professor Dieter Helm has begun to create a blueprint, an outline for change and a serious consideration of the concept of net zero.
Focusing primarily on UK policy and actions; he argues that our carbon CONSUMPTION, rather than emissions or production must achieve net zero. Since the Kyoto Protocol, European countries have begun a process of deindustrialisation. By exporting carbon intensive industry and importing back carbon intensive products (mostly to China) we’ve created the illusion of lowering our carbon footprint. The reality is that over the last 30 years there has been NO PROGRESS in cutting emissions.
Our current framework, infrastructure and government policies will never deliver the results we so desperately need.
We need to be much more ambitious.
Helm makes a particularly in depth analysis of two main areas: transport and agriculture. For example, there is no point in creating electric cars if we haven’t found a way to decarbonise electricity.
Helm urges us to look at our own use of carbon, to create a diary and find places where we can reduce our consumption. Yet, thankfully, it doesn’t focus wholly on individual action. Corporations and institutions must change to a sustainable system and we as individuals have the power to demand they do so. #UprootTheSystem
It’s an excellently researched and well thought out case for achieving net zero. It’s a fascinating, hopeful and challenging read.
I’m glad that there are people like Helm doing this research and I hope that it gets the recognition and implementation that it needs. It’s a plan that could and would work.
September 21, 2022
This is the best book I have read on climate change. It maps out a way forward, based on a carbon tax, of course, but emphasizing that any carbon tax must be applied to the consumption of goods, so that imported goods are taxed on their carbon content. The author is very skeptical of the prospects of moving forward on the basis of international agreement after the failure of the EU to agree on an effective carbon price. He points out that a country can only move to net zero if it applies a carbon tax to imported goods. But if it does it will provide an incentive to the exporting country to apply the carbon tax itself so as to secure the revenue from the tax. I found the proposals quite convincing and offering a practicable way forward. The freedom to apply such a carbon tax could perhaps be a benefit of Brexit?
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews