SE Academic Review 2023

15 ACADEMIC REVIEW 2023

The last two strategies, ‘Taxation’ and ‘Regulation’ attempt to address the consumption side of carbon neutrality but with varying levels of control. ‘Taxation’ would likely involve the implementation of a carbon tax, holding consumers accountable for their carbon emissions. In his book, Goodall (2020, p. 126) suggests a carbon tax of $100 per tonne of CO 2 would be sufficient to increase the price of fossil fuels to a level that would force people to change over to renewable energy. A carbon tax also ensures that external costs such as the impact on climate is reflected in prices and provides government with some of the revenue required to fund the transition to carbon neutrality. The UK does not appear to be considering a carbon tax but there are suggestions it would consider a road tax to help fund some of the transition to carbon neutrality (Topham, 2021). On the other hand, ‘Regulation’ involves complete bans that explicitly limit the population’s freedom. Unsurprisingly, this option would be most likely to invite a public backlash. However, a ‘taxation’ strategy alone would only increase the inequalities already present in our society. Those who have the financial capabilities to pay for the carbon tax or carbon offset would have more access to carbon consumption whilst those who cannot afford to pay would be disadvantaged. “ The UK does not appear to be considering a carbon tax but there are suggestions it would consider a road tax to help fund some of the transition to carbon neutrality. ”

‘The Free Market’ option involves the least amount of government intervention. Private markets drive the climate action campaign through businesses and private organisations taking responsibility. There are already many examples of this such as the Science Based Target Initiative and Climate Action 100. These groups work in the private sector and either help businesses set goals for 2050 carbon neutrality, or hold them accountable for not doing so. There have also been recent pushbacks from shareholders pressurising large fossil fuel companies to take climate action. Recently, shareholders in Exxon Mobil, replaced two board members with their own candidates with the objective of reducing the company’s carbon footprint (Sommer, 2021). This demonstrates the market’s growing realisation of the importance of carbon neutrality. However, in many areas fossil fuels are still much cheaper than renewables and the free-market strategy relies on the development of renewable energy technology to make prices competitive. This development stage could take a long time and private shareholders are unlikely to take the risk of investing in renewables when there is such a large gap in prices. The next strategy, ‘Government Pays’ is influenced by Bill Gates (2021), who suggests that governments should intervene to cover the pricing gap between fossil fuels and renewable technology which he refers to as “green premiums”. Not only would this allow for a faster transition to renewable energy, but it would also show the government’s public support for carbon neutrality. Currently for petrol, the green premium is 106%, meaning that the zero-carbon option of advanced biofuels are over double the price (Gates, 2021, p. 144). Gates points out that the government is one of the few institutions that has the capability to invest in such green premium markets because of its ability to invest in size over the long term. Recently, the UK government introduced their strategy for net zero emissions which provided £5,000 in grants for heat pumps. Although this is an example of the government subsidising to mitigate the pricing gap, they were heavily criticised for the little difference this made in the overall 2050 target (BBC, 2021; Harvey & Elgot, 2021). However, a major flaw with this strategy is that it does not tackle any of the problems existing with our current consumption patterns and is merely a solution on the technological side as we wait for the development of green solutions.