The EC has published the Energy Efficiency Financial Institutions Group’s (EEFIG) report on applying the Energy Efficiency First principle in sustainable finance, for which I was the lead alongside Peter Sweatman of Climate Strategy. I think this is one of the most important, if not the most important report, to come out of EEFIG’s work – which over ten years was extensive, very influential and covered many aspects of energy efficiency finance.

The Energy Efficiency First principle is EC policy and is defined as:

‘energy efficiency first’ means taking utmost account in energy planning, and in policy and investment decisions, of alternative cost-efficient energy efficiency measures to make energy demand and energy supply more efficient, in particular by means of cost-effective end-use energy savings, demand response initiatives and more efficient conversion, transmission and distribution of energy, whilst still achieving the objectives of those decisions.’

So why is applying it in financial institutions, and this report, so important? Every day, and every hour, even as you read this, decisions are being made in investment committees and credit committees to invest or lend money for all kinds of energy using assets. The level of energy efficiency of those assets determines our future energy demand, and of course emissions, for years and even decades to come. This is particularly true for long lived assets such as buildings and industrial facilities but is equally true for shorter lived, smaller assets and equipment.

Financial institutions can influence these decisions by setting investment and lending policies and procedures that ensure energy efficiency performance is at least considered in the investment or lending processes, and options evaluated. If the money says you need to reach a certain level of energy efficiency for the project or asset you will do what is needed to get the money. Why should financial institutions do that? Surely this is just another level of bureaucracy that will upset customers who have to leap through seemingly ever more hoops. Other than the fact that it is the right thing to do, financial institutions have real motivations to do this. They are increasingly being driven to decarbonise their portfolios by reporting standards such as the EU Taxonomy and TCFD. Furthermore, improving energy efficiency reduces financial and physical risks, and in some asset classes like houses higher levels of energy efficiency have been shown to be linked to higher value. Energy efficiency can reduce risks and increase value.

Applying the Energy Efficiency First principle in financial institutions can help accelerate energy efficiency and decarbonisation within their portfolios compared to being passive and relying on customers (of all sorts), who themselves may not know what is possible in terms of cost-effective energy efficiency, or the multiple benefits of energy efficiency measures can bring. This does mean a more proactive approach from the financial institutions and does bring them further forward in the process of planning, designing and financing an asset or project, (the earlier a high level of energy efficiency is incorporated the easier and cheaper it is to implement).

In order to apply the Energy Efficiency First principle financial institutions need to set policies, understand the potentials within relevant sectors they operate in, build their own capacities, and have tools to assess energy efficiency of underlying assets as well as portfolios. Energy efficiency also needs to be integrated into wider sustainability principles and policies rather than just be bolted on. Perhaps surprisingly energy efficiency is often not mentioned in sustainability policies and systems, even though it is the most cost-effective way of addressing emissions reduction. This is another example of how invisible energy efficiency is.

A financial institution wanting to implement Energy Efficiency First needs tools at policy, portfolio and project levels. Leading public and private financial institutions, including amongst others, the EBRD, the EIB, the World Bank, ING, Aviva, and Allianz, are putting these kinds of tools into action. Technology has a big role to play in evaluating projects and portfolios and a number of providers are offering or developing tools.

The EEFIG Energy Efficiency First report sets the scene for applying the principle in financial institutions, makes the arguments why they should apply it, provides showcase exemplars, sets out processes, and gives examples of tools in use at policy, portfolio and project level. It also makes recommendations for policy makers and financial institutions. Energy Efficiency First does not mean that in every case all possible energy efficiency measures will be implemented, there are often technical and financial cases that prevent this. What it does mean that at some point in the process of financing an asset you have to stop and assess the energy efficiency performance of the underlying asset and see if more can be done. That would stop many of the missed opportunities that are happening every day and every hour and ensure more of the cost-effective energy efficiency potential is implemented.

If we can scale the use of the Energy Efficiency First principle within financial institutions it will accelerate improvements in energy efficiency and reduced emissions, and avoid ‘lock in’. It will also help shift energy efficiency financing from a niche and still very small ‘add on’ to everyday normal practice. The next step in the process of scaling the Energy Efficiency First principle in financial institutions is to translate the general guidelines into specific guidelines for each sub-sector. Real estate is different to private equity for instance and needs specific guidelines. This is best done through the sector associations to ensure buy-in and dissemination.

Scaling the use of the Energy Efficiency First principle within financial institutions is the next important task. At ep group we continue to work with financial institutions and others to accelerate investment into energy efficiency and can assist in applying the Energy Efficiency First principle.

The report can be found here:

https://tinyurl.com/kzmpj7vp

Thanks to all the Working Group members and the consortium team for their work in this project.

On the 12th October I moderated a panel on industrial decarbonisation at the Carbon Forward London conference. Not being a carbon markets specialist I was out of my comfort zone – which is always a good place to learn new stuff and meet new people. Despite not being directly involved in carbon trading obviously my work has touched upon it. The first time I ever reported carbon emission reductions as well as energy saving was 1993 for Strathclyde Regional Council that had several thousand buildings. I just found the report in my archive the other day. Then in 2005 I executed a very early trade on the Emissions Trading Scheme when our client at RWE Solutions, Guinness, closed the Park Royal Brewery, which was of course the wrong kind of decarbonisation.

My panelists at Carbon Forward were: Andrew McDermott, Deputy Chief Executive, British Ceramic Confederation, David Phillips, Head of Capital Markets & New Market Strategy, Aker Carbon Capture, and Trevor Sikorski, Head of Natural Gas and Carbon Research at Energy Aspects. Their expert contributions made me consider the subject and also taught me a lot about the latest developments in carbon capture and storage (CCS).

In my long career in in energy efficiency, interest in the subject has waxed and waned but we are definitely in an up-wave now due to some obvious factors, notably energy price increases and increased focus on energy security, as well as less obvious factors such as growing interest in the subject from institutional investors. Despite that growing interest energy efficiency remains the Cinderella of energy options and the potential for cost-effective improvements remains high. The IEA estimate that 40% of our required reductions in emissions could be achieved through improved energy efficiency. In our work on energy efficiency, including through our ESCO-in-a-box® business model, we see the need to improve the economics of many energy efficiency projects, particularly deep retrofits, and this requires stacking different revenue sources together. This can include adding carbon, biodiversity and even social credits, into the mix for retrofit projects.

Andrew outlined the decarbonisation pathway for the ceramics industry, an energy intensive industry which is geographically dispersed and includes a high proportion of SMEs. Furthermore its carbon emissions are predominantly driven by heat, and particularly high temperature heat processes, typically at 1200 to 1300^oC, but with some specialised processes operating at an incredible 2,800^oC. The pathway to net zero for ceramics includes a mix of technologies: energy efficiency (14% reduction in carbon); on-site generation (1%); grid decarbonisation (3%); hydrogen (36%); electrification (11%); bio-energy (3%); carbon capture (15%); and product adoption (4%); leaving a residual 4%. Hydrogen combustion is being trialled in some sites but of course there are issues of supply and storage. Electrification may sound like an easy option but the different heat transfer pathways, with less emphasis on convection and more on radiation mean that it can be necessary to change stacking patterns to ensure even heating. Electrification is not just a simple switch of heat source.

David talked about Aker’s modular carbon capture technology which is now being applied in Norway and further afield in onshore and offshore applications. With plants ranging from 40,000 tonnes a year to more than 400,000 tonnes a year the technology is now proven and costs are coming down, as carbon prices go up. Aker also offers carbon capture as a service, providing the whole solution including capture, transportation and storage on a price per tonne basis. I must admit this technology is more advanced than I had previously thought and with an increasing carbon price it will become more viable for large single point emitters or CCS hubs.

Trevor talked about the risks of technology and how companies could be incentivised to take those risks. Given the need for speed to address the climate crisis new technologies will need to be developed and adopted quickly, and that is inherently risky. Manufacturing companies are naturally hesitant about adopting unproven new technologies, particularly those that directly impact the process. Getting those kinds of decisions wrong can be terminal.

The discussion reminded me of a paper I wrote in 1987¹ based on parts of my PhD work in which I set out a soft systems² analysis of the energy management function within companies. In it I said that when considering options for energy efficiency projects companies needed to make an explicit decision on the level of research, design and development, i.e. technological risk, that they were willing to take on. The model presented divided energy management into four levels: good housekeeping; retrofit; plant replacement projects; and process re-design. These apply equally to decarbonisation. ‘Good housekeeping’ is a dated phrase but really means managing what you have already in a better way, ensuring the existing system is operating at maximum efficiency with minimum waste. In industrial energy systems this means measures like ensuring control systems are operating well, burners are firing efficiently, and steam traps are all operating. This is the basic level of energy management and in many energy intensive industries it is usually fairly well managed. In less intensive industries, and in buildings, it tends to slip over time which is where processes like ISO50001 can be useful as they systematise management processes rather than leaving things to chance. Even in the best run companies there are probably still opportunities to save energy and carbon this way. Although it is different to industry we have had an example of this in the residential market recently where during the energy price crisis it came out that nearly all of the millions of condensing gas boilers, which were sold as being energy saving, were set up to run at high flow temperatures, which mean they weren’t condensing which means that homes were wasting c.6-8% of their gas usage. Adjusting the flow temperatures down reduces energy use without affecting thermal comfort – better housekeeping or energy management.

The retrofit level is all about adding something to a plant or building that improves efficiency, maybe insulation, a control system, or new more efficient burners. The plant replacement level is about things like replacing a production line but using essentially the same process technology. A new plant, or building, will tend to be more efficient than an existing one even with the same basic process technology because of incremental improvements in the efficiency of components such as motors and drives etc.

The final level, process re-design, is clearly the most capital intensive, the most research and development intensive, and the riskiest. In decarbonisation it includes things like switching steel production from iron ore in blast furnaces to direct reduction using hydrogen. It also includes changes in material inputs and process such as switching cement production from clinker made from limestone to alternative feedstocks.

An important aspect of the soft systems model of energy management, which also applies to decarbonisation, is the need for a ‘contextual evaluation’, meaning how does the proposed measure fit with other policies, developments and decisions in the organisation. This may include things like; is there a plan – or even proposal – to re-locate?; where are you in terms of the normal plant replacement cycle?; does this proposed change fit with the product strategy? The interaction between technical evaluation, financial evaluation and contextual evaluation can be an iterative process that itself may lead to new ideas. I said in 1987, ‘to conduct these analyses well requires an ability to think outside the normally accepted boundary of energy management and a high level of communication within the organisation’. This is equally true for decarbonisation – at the end of the day the business is there to perform its primary function and decarbonisation per se is not its objective, but rather a constraint that is driving change. Interactions between proposed solutions, as well as interactions with other aspects of the organisation, need to be fully evaluated.

It is relatively easy to identify a generic decarbonisation pathway for an industry. It is much more complex to translate that pathway into a specific action plan for a particular organisation as the technical, financial and contextual evaluations specific to that organisation – with all of the specific constraints – have to happen, and the interactions between measures and other factors need to be considered. The technological risks involved need to be reviewed and an explicit decision about the level of risk to be taken has to be made. This itself needs to be set against the risks of inaction – financial, commercial and environmental.

The output should be a long-term plan with defined programmes and investment projects with likely timings, identified risks, and evaluation of impact on emissions and other benefits. It will be a living plan that evolves in response to changes in technology and economics. This kind of extensive analysis is difficult in all organisations but particularly in SMEs, where the capacity to make these kinds of evaluations and decisions is more limited and external assistance is likely to be needed. If you need help developing a decarbonisation plan please get in touch with me or ep’s consultancy team.

1. A soft systems model of energy management and checklists for energy managers. Applied Energy 27 (1987) 229-241
2. Soft systems methodology is an organised way of thinking that’s applicable to problematic social situations and the management of change by using action. It was developed at the University of Lancaster, primarily by Peter Checkland. These complex situations are known as “soft problems”. They are usually real-world problems where the goals and purposes of the problem are problematic themselves. Examples of soft problems include: How to improve the delivery of health services? and How to manage homelessness with young people? Soft approaches take as tacit that people’s view of the world will change all the time and their preferences of it will also change. See: Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. 1981. Wiley. ISBN 978-0-471-98606-5 

I was on a panel at the Midlands Net Zero Hub conference on 5th October which was an excellent event. The panel was too short, as is often the case, but catalysed several conversations. Here is a fuller version of my remarks.

It is always good to be back in Brum as I studied at the University of Birmingham between 1977 and 1980 and have many fondmemories of the city. I took a unique interdisciplinary degree which had been set up in response to the oil crises which covered all aspects of energy. We took courses in various categories of engineering as well as economics, and talked about energy transitions and S-curves, subjects that are now more commonly discussed. We studied all energy technologies from oil to coal to solar and wind, which at the time were considered minority interests and largely disparaged by the mainstream energy industry. The scale of the global renewable enegy industry now shows how far we have come in forty years but of course we still have a long way to go in the energy transition. My final year undergraduate dissertation was looking at proposals by Lockheed to build a fleet of hydrogen fuelled aircraft, so I now get déjà vu reading some of the reports on hydrogen in aviation.

It is also highly appropriate to be in this place because a few hundred metres behind me is the magnificent golden statue of Boulton, Murdoch and Watt. It is little known but they invented the Energy Service Company in the 1760s – they invested capital to install Watt’s new, more efficient steam engine in pumping stations in mines and took a proportion of the savings in coal. It was a shared savings deal. So like many other innovations you can say Britain invented it but hasn’t fully benefitted from it.

Moving on from history, the problem we face today is how to scale up investment in net zero – and particuallry for me that means in energy efficiency, distributed energy and electrification. Those three things will have the biggest potential impact in moving us towards net zero.

At ep we’ve spent the last decade or more working on the problem of how to scale-up investment, we’ve studyed examples from all round thre world where investment has been scaled, and worked on projects and programmes in UK, Europe, Asia and the Middle East, and developed a number of tools to help scale-up.

Having looked at all the successful cases of scaling up investment, (and there aren’t enough of them yet), I came up with a very simple model which I call the jigsaw of energy efficiency financing. The jigsaw has four pieces:

Standardisation – which means standardisation of technologies, development processes, underwriting processes and contracts.
Finance – which means both project finance and the critically important but harder to find development finance.
Pipeline – we need to scale-up pipelines to attract institutional capital and that needs both development work and new, more attractive business models.
Capacity bulding – which means capacity building amongst customers, suppliers and the finance industry.

You can put these four pieces together in different structures, public or private, or use different vehicles such as super-ESCOs, procurement frameworks or investment funds, but you do need all four to be brought together. Otherwise you will either end up with projects looking for money, or money looking for projects.

Many of the programmes we have led or been involved in fit into this model.

Standardisation
We brought the Investor Confidence Project (ICP) to Europe. ICP is a set of Protocols for developing energy efficiency projects in a standardised way that has been proven to lower risks and transaction costs. We also wrote the Energy Efficiency Financial Institutions Group’s (EEFIG) Underwriting Toolkit, a first attempt at standardising the way that financial institutions assess value and risk of energy efficiency investments.

Finance
We have connected projects to capital and worked with the finance industry through ICP and EEFIG, and directly with investors by conducting due diligence on investments and acquisitions for a number of investors.

Pipeline
We have developed new models to build pipeline including ESCO-in-a-box®, (see below), Retrometer – an approach to metered energy efficiency, and the Net Zero Delivery Vehicle (see below).

Capacity building
We have trained public sector bodies on using ESCOs, written guides on energy policy and financing energy efficiency for entities such as SE4ALL and UNESCWA.

Assembling the jigsaw

Our ESCO-in-a-box® operating system brings all four pieces of the jigsaw together. It uses standardised protocols, processes and documentation to enable local authorities or economic development agencies to offer financed energy services, in an attractive value proposition, to local businesses. It links projects to finance and builds local capacity.

Our Net Zero Delivery Vehicle focuses on bridging the development gap, the gap between project concept and high quality, well developed, financeable projects. It brings together local authorities with ambitious net zero plans but limited capacity with private sector best practice to develop projects and source financing for them.

So to sum up, in the years since I left Birmingham we have seen tremendous progress in many areas and the energy transition is now well underway, although most of the focus has been on large-scale centralised energy. The challenge now is how to scale-up much smaller-scale projects in energy efficiency, distributed energy and electrification. We don’t need to reinvent the wheel, we have the tools, we need to focus on scaling them up.

If you need assistance to scale-up investment into energy efficiency, distributed energy and electrification get in touch.

For the second day running I was speaking at an event, this time the Association of Decentralised Energy’s (ADE) annual conference. I had not spoken at the event for a few years and it is always a pleasure to work with the ADE. The topic of my presentation was metered efficiency and the Retrometer project which ep is involved with. Metered efficiency is a new paradigm which enables a number of things including; reducing the performance gap between what expected savings are and what actually occurs; pay for performance contracts which resemble Power Purchase Agreements and can be financed; time of day energy and carbon performance reporting; and allowing DNOs to see the effect of different efficiency measures and programmes on load curves. Information on Retrometer, which we hope will soon move forward into the Alpha phase with Strategic Innovation Fund support, can be found here and here.

Of course, there was much talk about the Prime Minister’s speech on net zero which rolled back previous commitments, and magically ‘cancelled’ policies which were not even under serious consideration. Some of the comments in the first panel which discussed the PM’s announcements got me thinking.

These included:

‘the beginning of undermining confidence in the independent Climate Change Committee’

‘policy weaponisation’

‘playing to people’s fears’

‘a political trap’

‘more US style politics than UK style politics’

Although my readers know me as an energy person, with a strong interest in space exploration and a love of David Bowie’s music, most people don’t know that one of my other great interests is American politics. I got into it through being interested in the space programme, (think JFK’s commitment to land men on the moon), got up in the early hours to watch Nixon’s resignation speech in 1974, worried through the Reagan years, and have studied it closely ever since. I have also seen the reality of US politics, at a local and state level, close-up and personal through a great friend in the Mid-West who became a politician. I am still not at liberty to tell some of the stories from that period. Of course the election of Trump was a terrible shock and I woke up nearly every day of his Presidency reading the news because I was so concerned about what he had said or done overnight.

So what is the connection between US politics and the PM’s announcement on net zero? Well, it is pretty clear that UK politics has been the subject to the same forces that resulted in Trump being elected, some internal but also clearly supported and amplified by very dangerous domestic and foreign actors. In some ways, these forces were more ‘successful’ in the UK than in the US (think BREXIT). People in the UK still under-estimate the danger represented by Trump, his supporters and MAGA ‘Republicans’. Make no mistake, they are authoritarian, anti-democratic and would undo decades of progress on issues such as civil rights, women’s rights and the environment, as well as potentially start a war. If you don’t see it this way you are not following closely enough. The 2024 US election is a critical decision point and whatever you may have read or believe about President Biden the choice is clear – it is between democracy and authoritarianism.

The common cry of the MAGAs is against ‘woke’ behaviour which in their view includes things like ESG investing and net zero. Their tactics include inciting fear about imagined slights like claiming that the Biden administration wants to ban gas stoves (ovens). This led Jim Jordan, a Trumpist Republican member of the House of Representatives to tweet: ‘God. Guns. Gas Stoves’. You can see the parallel with Rishi Sunak’s tweet saying: ‘We’re stopping heavy-handed measures: Taxes on eating meat. New taxes to discourage flying. Sorting your rubbish into seven separate bins. Compulsory car sharing. Expensive insulation upgrades.’ He also said: ‘We will never force anyone to rip out their old boiler for an expensive heat pump.’ None of these things were real policies.

So, I am not so worried about the impact on achieving net zero that the PM’s announcements yesterday will make. The momentum of investors, corporates and local governments is powerful enough to overcome these changes in policy on their own. What I am more worried about is the longer term and that this is another step towards more intense MAGA-style politics in the UK in which facts are ignored, (and even denigrated), conspiracy theories are promoted, and divisions are intensified by politicians driven by authoritarian and anti-democratic urges. If as the polls suggest Labour win the next election the Conservative party will most likely lurch further to the right and mount a long campaign based on ‘anti-woke’, anti-science positions and fighting ‘the blob’, equivalent to the MAGA’s opposition to the ‘Washington elites’. Hopefully these won’t resonate with the majority but there is a risk they could, particularly if there is an extended period of relative economic problems.

We do need to worry about how to get to net zero, but we really need to worry about the direction politics is taking, and how much worse it could get.

It was a pleasure to attend the East of England Local Government Associations’ Net Zero conference on Wednesday. It was a well attended, wide ranging and informative event covering investment, design, transport and behaviour change. I was on a panel addressing the problem of how to attract investment to achieve net zero ambitions. I made the following remarks on the panel talking about investment, revisiting one of my common themes – how to bridge the development gap between ‘here’s a good idea’ and ‘here’s a high quality financeable project’.


Good morning, it’s a pleasure to be here in Cambridge addressing the important topic of achieving investment to deliver net zero ambitions. That is something that I, and the rest of the ep team spend a lot of time thinking about and working on.

It is clear that getting to net zero requires a huge amount of investment. It is true that behaviourial issues are important but fundamentally this transition is about investment – investment in transforming our infrastructure from being based on fossil fuels and combustion to renewable electricity and energy efficiency. It is on a scale equivalent to the industrial revolution, and when historians look back in a 100 years it will be seen like the industrial revolution.

So how much investment is needed? The Climate Change Committee say £50 billion a year up until 2050.

What is clear is that this level of investment cannot come from the public sector alone. We have to access institutional capital.

At the same time as we are addressing net zero within local government and companies, we are seeing a revolution in finance, one in which the finance sector is being driven by regulation and customer pressure to invest in a more sustainable way. We see this in things like the EU Taxonomy and TCFD forcing financial institutions to look at climate related risks. Just like businesses and local governments, the financial institutions are trying to work out how to make the transition towards net zero. You can be cynical, and probably should be cynical, about some of it because ‘there is greenwashing’ – but make no mistake there is a fundamental shift in the finance sector towards net zero, ESG and sustainable finance.

So on the one side you have a big potential for energy efficiency, distributed clean energy, storage, and flexibility services – and on the other side you have a lot of money that wants to invest in this stuff. What is in the middle, what stops capital flowing?

There are many many barriers, particularly for energy efficiency, but the biggest one is the one I call the development gap. That is how do you go from ‘here is a good idea’ to ’here is a quality developed project that can actually be financed and delivered?’. This is a huge gap which has only really been recognized in the recent past, and an area we are beginning to see progress.

One of the things about developing projects, whether it be energy efficiency, renewables, a new wind farm, a new building, or a new car, or a new aeroplane, is that it is risky. You don’t know with certainty what the outcome will be. That development risk requires a different kind of capital to the institutional capital that flows into actual infrastructure projects which is all about achieving low risk and relatively low but safe returns.

At ep we work globally and we’ve spent the last ten or more years looking around the world at examples where countries or regions have scaled up investment into energy efficiency and decentralised energy and we came up with a simple model – something I call the jigsaw of energy efficiency financing.

There are 4 pieces to the jigsaw:

– Finance – both development and project finance – two very different kinds of capital but both essential
– Pipeline – capital needs to be deployed at scale and so there is a need to build big pipelines by aggregating a lot of small projects. Many of the projects we are talking about are individually tiny by the standards of institutional capital. There is also a need for better business models and business cases that stress multiple benefits to make the proposition more attractive – which helps build pipeline.
– Standardisation – you can only have capital deployed at scale if there is standardisation and that means standardisation of everything, the development process, the technologies, the underwriting processes, the contracts – everything.
– Capacity building – that means for the customers, for the supply chain and for the finance sector.

You can put these four elements together in different ways under different structures – private, public, hybrid, super-ESCOs, procurement frameworks, investment funds. etc. We’ve come to the conclusion that it really does not matter how you put them together but you absolutely need all four to be in the same place at the same time.

One of the ways we are applying this model in real life is the Net Zero Delivery Vehicle. ep has partnered with four local authorities, Essex County Council, Surrey County Council, Kent County Council, and Brighton & Hove City Council and applied for IUK funding to launch the Net Zero Delivery Vehicle, the NZDV. The NZDV will be focused on bridging the development gap. We will see whether our IUK application is successful but if we can get the NZDV funded we think it can develop and deploy c.£100m of capital or more over the next few years.

So in summary:

– We cannot get to net zero without mobilizing private capital at scale
– We need to blend public and private capital
– The biggest need is to fill the development gap
– The development gap is difficult to fill with private capital and is a perfect role for public money to catalyse private investment
– You need all four pieces of the jigsaw to be brought together (USE JIG SAW PROP):
o Finance – development and project
o Pipeline – scale
o Standardisation
o Capacity building for customers, suppliers and finance sector.

Thank you and I look forward to the discussion.


Ironically the event happened at on the day Rishi Sunak announced the watering down of net zero policies. There was a sharp contrast between the leadership being shown by local governments and other organizations, and the lack of leadership being shown by the Prime Minister. I was reminded of a piece I wrote in 2019 (link) and the quote by Ghandi. ‘The future depends on what you do today’.

Following the leaking of the government’s changes in policy I saw that one tabloid had the headline ‘net zero, the tide has turned’ which was clearly an approving headline. Personally it looks to me that the tide is flowing and accelerating – in favour of net zero with more and more investors and organizations, public and private, committing to serious action. Rather than turning the tide the PM is likely to be more like King Canute.