A scenario that meets the “net-zero by 2050” goal would be the “cheapest” option for the UK, according to modelling by the National Energy System Operator (NESO).

In a new report, the organisation that manages the UK’s energy infrastructure says its “holistic transition” scenario would have the lowest cost over the next 25 years, saving £36bn a year – some 1% of GDP – compared to an alternative scenario that slows climate action.

These savings are from lower fuel costs and reduced climate damages, relative to a scenario where the UK fails to meet its climate goals, known as “falling behind”.

The UK will need to make significant investments to reach net-zero, NESO says, but this would cut fossil-fuel imports, support jobs and boost health, as well as contributing to a safer climate.

Slowing down these efforts would reduce the scale of investments needed, but overall costs would be higher unless the damages from worsening climate change are “ignored”, the report says.

In an illusory world where climate damages do not exist, slowing the UK’s efforts to cut emissions would generate “savings” of £14bn per year on average – some 0.4% of GDP.

NESO says that much of this £14bn could be avoided by reaching net-zero more cheaply and that it includes costs unrelated to climate action, such as a faster rollout of data centres.

Notably, the report appears to include efforts to avoid the widespread misreporting of a previous edition, including in the election manifesto of the hard-right, climate-sceptic Reform UK party.

Overall, NESO warns that, as well as ignoring climate damages, the £14bn figure “does not represent the cost of achieving net-zero” and cannot be compared with comprehensive estimates of this, such as the 0.2% of GDP total from the UK’s Climate Change Committee (CCC).

Net-zero is the ‘cheapest option’

Every year, NESO publishes its “future energy scenarios”, a set of four pathways designed to explore how the nation’s energy system might change over the coming decades.

(Technically the scenarios apply to the island of Great Britain, rather than the whole UK, as Northern Ireland’s electricity system is part of a separate network covering the island of Ireland.)

Published in July, the scenarios test a series of questions, such as what it would mean for the UK to meet its climate goals, whether it is possible to do so while relying heavily on hydrogen and what would happen if the nation was to slow down its efforts to cut emissions.

The scenarios have a broad focus and do not only consider the UK’s climate goals. In addition, they also explore the implications of a rapid growth in electricity demand from data centres, the potential for autonomous driving and many other issues.

With so many questions to explore, the scenarios are not designed to keep costs to a minimum. In fact, NESO does not publish related cost estimates in most years.

This year, however, NESO has published an “economics annex” to the future energy scenarios. It last published a similar exercise in 2020, with the results being widely misreported.

In the new annex, NESO says that the UK currently spends around 10% of GDP on its energy system. This includes investments in new infrastructure and equipment – such as cars, boilers or power plants – as well as fuel, running and maintenance costs.

This figure is expected to decline to around 5% of GDP by 2050 under all four scenarios, NESO says, whether they meet the UK’s net-zero target or not.

For each scenario, the annex adds up the total of all investments and ongoing costs in every year out to 2050. It then adds an estimate of the economic damages from the greenhouse gas emissions that primarily come from burning fossil fuels, using the Treasury’s “green book”.

When all of these costs are taken into account, NESO says that the “cheapest” option is a pathway that meets the UK’s climate goals, including all of the targets on the way to net-zero by 2050.

It says this pathway, known as “holistic transition”, would bring average savings of £36bn per year out to 2050, relative to a pathway where the UK slows its efforts on climate change.

The overall savings, illustrated by the dashed line in the figure below, stem primarily from lower fuel costs (orange bars) and reduced climate damages (white bars).

Note that the carbon pricing that is already applied to power plants and other heavy industry under the UK’s emissions trading system (ETS) is excluded from running costs in the annex, appearing instead within the wider “carbon costs” category.

This makes the running costs of fossil-fuel energy sources seem cheaper than they really are, when including the ETS price.

Net-zero requires significant investment

While NESO says that its net-zero compliant “holistic transition” pathway is the cheapest option for the UK, it does require significant upfront investments.

The scale of the additional investments needed to stay on track for the UK’s climate goals, beyond a pathway where those targets are not met, is illustrated in the figure below.

This shows that the largest extra investments would need to be made in the power sector, such as by building new windfarms (shown by the dark yellow bars). This is followed by investment needs for homes, such as to install electric heat pumps instead of gas boilers (dark red bars).

These additional investments would amount to around £30bn per year out to 2050, but with a peak of as much as £60bn over the next decade.

These investments would be offset by lower fuel bills, including reduced gas use in homes (pale red) and lower oil use in transport (mid green).

Notably, NESO says it expects EVs to be cheaper to buy than petrol cars from 2027, meaning there are also significant savings in transport capital expenditure (“CapEx”, dark green).

Again, the biggest savings in “holistic transition” relative to “falling behind” would come from avoided climate damages – described by NESO as “carbon costs”.

Net-zero cuts fossil-fuel imports

In addition to avoided climate damages, NESO says that reaching the UK’s net-zero target would bring wider benefits to the economy, including lower fuel imports.

Specifically, it says that climate efforts would “materially reduce” the UK’s dependency on overseas gas, with imports falling to 78% below current levels by 2050 in “holistic transition”. Under the “falling behind” scenario, imports rise by 35%”, despite higher domestic production.

This finding, shown in the figure below, is the opposite of what has been argued by many of those that oppose the UK’s net-zero target.

NESO goes on to argue that the shift to net-zero would have wider economic benefits. These include a shift from buying imported fossil fuels to investing money domestically instead, which “could bring local economic benefits and support future employment”.

The operator says that there is the “potential for more jobs to be created than lost in the transition to net-zero” and that there would be risks to UK trade if it fails to cut emissions, given exports to the EU – the UK’s main trading partner – would be subject to the bloc’s new carbon border tax.

Beyond the economy, NESO points to studies finding that the transition to net-zero would have other benefits, including for human health and the environment.

It does not attempt to quantify these benefits, but points to analysis from the CCC finding that health benefits alone could be worth £2.4-8.2bn per year by 2050.

Investment is higher for net-zero than for ‘not-zero’

It is clear from the NESO annex that its net-zero compliant “holistic transition” pathway would entail significantly more upfront investment than if climate action is slowed under “falling behind”.

This idea, in effect, is the launchpad for politicians arguing that the UK should walk away from its climate commitments and stop building new low-carbon infrastructure.

As already noted, the NESO analysis shows that this would increase costs to the UK overall.

Still, NESO’s new report adds that “falling behind” would “save” £14bn a year – relative to meeting the UK’s net-zero target – as long as carbon costs are “ignored”.

Specifically, it says that ignoring carbon costs, “holistic transition” would cost an average of £14bn a year more out to 2050 than “falling behind”, which misses the net-zero target. This is equivalent to 0.4% of the UK’s GDP and is illustrated by the solid pink line in the figure below.

Some politicians are indeed now willing to ignore the problem of climate change and the damages caused by ongoing greenhouse gas emissions. These politicians may therefore be tempted to argue that the UK could “save” £14bn a year by scrapping net-zero.

However, NESO’s report cautions against this, stating explicitly that the “costs discussed here do not represent the cost of achieving net-zero emissions”. It says:

“Our pathways cannot provide firm conclusions over the relative costs attached to the choices between pathways…We reiterate that the costs discussed here do not represent the cost of achieving net-zero emissions.”

It says that the scenarios have not been designed to minimise costs and that it would be possible to reach net-zero more cheaply, for example by focusing more heavily on EVs and renewables instead of hydrogen and nuclear.

Moreover, it says that some of the difference in costs between “holistic transitions” and “falling behind” is unrelated to climate action. Specifically, it says that electricity demand from data centres is around twice as high in “holistic transitions”, adding some £5bn a year in costs in 2050.

In addition, NESO says that most of the “saving” in “falling behind” would be wiped out if fossil fuel prices are higher than expected – falling from £14bn per year to just £5bn a year – even before considering climate damages and wider benefits, such as for health.

Finally, NESO says that failing to make the transition to net-zero would leave the UK more exposed to fossil-fuel price shocks, such as the global energy crisis that added 1.8% to the nation’s energy costs in 2022. It says a similar shock would only cost 0.3% of GDP in 2050 if the country has reached net-zero – as in “holistic transition” – whereas costs would remain high in “falling behind”.

Interview: How ‘mid-level bureaucrats’ are helping to shape Chinese climate policy

China energy

|

09.12.25

Revealed: Leak casts doubt on COP30’s ‘informal list’ of fossil-fuel roadmap opponents

COP30 Belém

|

28.11.25

UK budget 2025: Key climate and energy announcements

Oil and gas

|

26.11.25

IEA: Fossil-fuel use will peak before 2030 – unless ‘stated policies’ are abandoned

Renewables

|

12.11.25

The post Net-zero scenario is ‘cheapest option’ for UK, says energy system operator appeared first on Carbon Brief.

Net-zero scenario is ‘cheapest option’ for UK, says energy system operator

Trixy Elle, a fishmonger from Batasan Island, lost her home and her business when Typhoon Odette tore through the Philippines in 2021. She is among a group of survivors who filed a lawsuit this week in a UK court seeking damages from Shell over the oil giant’s role in climate change.

In today’s world, it sometimes feels like we’re all slightly more connected: that smartphones and social media have helped us to understand what people on the other side of the world are going through.

But after living through the horrors of Super Typhoon Odette, which tore through my home in the Philippines in December 2021, killing or injuring more than 1,800 people, I know this isn’t true. Unless you’ve lived through it yourself, you’ll never know the feeling of having to swim away from your own collapsing home, or the sound of 175 mph (281 km/h) winds devastating your entire community. No amount of photo or video footage can ever bridge that gap.

Fossil fuel companies in the Global North, which bear huge responsibility for the climate crisis, are largely protected from the impacts of their polluting activities. But those of us living on small islands, at the sharp edge of climate change, don’t have that luxury.

My family lost everything. We lost our business and had to sell our precious belongings just to rebuild our house. We now live in non-stop fear. Even moments meant for joy are now tinged with anxiety and stress. After all, Odette – also named Rai – tore through our islands right before Christmas. We didn’t, and still don’t, know when the next disaster will hit, only that thanks to the fossil fuel industry, the threat is always growing.

Profit before people

We’ve done nothing to cause the climate crisis, but because fossil fuel companies have chosen profit over people, our lives have been destroyed. Scientists have said the likelihood of a disaster like Odette in the Philippines has roughly doubled due to global warming.

None of this is fair. That’s why we’ve chosen to turn our fear into action and take the fossil fuel giant Shell to court.

Since at least 1965, Shell has known that fossil fuels are the primary cause of climate change. The corporation was warned that if it failed to curb its emissions, the world could suffer major economic consequences by 2038. But still, it chose not to change course. Shell is one of the world’s largest emitters, accounting for 2.04% of historical global emissions. Contrast that to the Philippines, which has the highest risk of climate hazards but has contributed just 0.2%.

We’re not naive about the scale of the challenge. Shell is a huge company with endless resources. But we’re living in an age of scientific discovery. Attribution science can now directly link individual extreme weather events to climate change, and emissions to specific fossil fuel companies.

The law is also changing. We’re seeing courts recognise the role and responsibilities of major emitters in the harm climate change causes our planet. In May, a German court ruled that major emitters can be held liable for climate damages abroad.

Peruvian farmer loses climate case against RWE – but paves way for future action

In July, the International Court of Justice advised that governments have a binding duty to protect people and the planet from the climate crisis, and so the potential liabilities for fossil fuel companies are substantial. Some estimates say the climate damages attributable to the 25 largest oil and gas companies could be more than $20 trillion.

Polluters must pay

By filing this case, we are seeking financial compensation for losses and damages. We’re still living with the consequences of Odette, even today.

The “polluter pays” principle is clear: those most responsible for environmental harms, including fossil fuel giants like Shell, should cover the costs of managing them. That’s the basis of our claim. We are also asking for concrete steps to be taken, from replanting mangroves to rebuilding sea walls, in line with our right to a balanced and healthy environment, something set out in the Filipino constitution.

Just as importantly, we are asking for justice. We want to send a powerful message to companies like Shell. For too long they have been able to burn fossil fuels while chasing endless profit, despite knowing how dangerous it is. But in 2025 the science and the law are both on our side. Sooner or later they will have to clean up their act.

===========================================================

Shell says claim is “baseless”

When asked to comment on the pending case by Climate Home News in October, Shell acknowledged that more global action was needed on climate change but rejected the suggestion that the company had unique knowledge about the problem.

A company spokesperson has responded to media reports about this week’s court filing saying: “This is a baseless claim, and it will not help tackle climate change or reduce emissions.”

The post The risk of another “super typhoon” is growing – that’s why we’re suing Shell appeared first on Climate Home News.

The risk of another “super typhoon” is growing – that’s why we’re suing Shell

A global goal to protect 30% of the planet’s land and sea ecosystems by 2030 is at risk of falling off track due to a decline in international finance, a new report has found, which leaves developing countries with a $3 billion funding gap.

The target known as “30×30” was adopted at UN biodiversity talks in 2022, and aims to protect nature and cut emissions by increasing protected areas across the world. Experts estimate this can contribute to slash at least 10 gigatonnes of carbon emissions annually.

To achieve this target and as part of the landmark Kunming-Montreal biodiversity pact, developed countries agreed to mobilise $20 billion directly to developing countries by 2025. About a fifth of this funding is estimated to reach protected areas, which means that developing countries should receive $4 billion by 2025 for this purpose. By 2030, this figure should reach $6bn.

But a new report by Indufor – a forest intelligence group supported by nature NGOs – found that developed countries only delivered $1 billion in 2024 for protected areas, falling $3 billion short of the 2025 target. 

Last year also marked the first year-on-year decline in funding for protected areas after a post-pandemic growth, the report shows.

$3bn funding gap 

The report shows there has been an increase in support for protected areas in developing countries, which has grown by more than 150 percent in the last decade. After the pandemic, philanthropic funding drove most of the growth, rising by more than 70 percent during this period.

These funds are meant to pay for establishing new protected areas, providing capacity to park rangers, and supporting Indigenous groups and local communities, among other initiatives.

However, the current rate of increase is too slow to reach the $6 billion by 2030 target, the report says. To achieve this, international funding must grow by about 33 percent each year between now and 2030, since at the current pace developing countries would only receive $2bn by 2030.

The drop in 30×30 funding in 2024 could be driven by a reporting lag by philanthropies, the report says, as some grants are coming to an end after the growth in post-pandemic contributions and could be renewed. However, the reports also warns that cuts to US foreign aid could further reduce the available finance in 2025.

Small islands underfunded

So far, Africa has received the most finance with about half of the overall funding reaching the continent in 2024, while small island developing states remained severely underfunded by international flows.

Safiya Sawney, Grenada’s Climate Ambassador, said at the report launch on the sidelines of the UN Environment Assembly in Nairobi that the funding coming to the Caribbean is not enough. She added that “we’ve heard from the report that there has been scaled up philanthropic financing, I can tell you that it’s not reaching my region, it’s not reaching my country”. 

Jiwoh Abdulai, Sierra Leone’s minister of environment and climate change, also told the event that developed countries should step up finance, warning that the cost of inaction will be higher. “The best time to put out a fire is when it is in your neighbour’s house before it gets to yours,” he added.

Earlier modelling by Campaign for Nature in 2020 suggested that expanding and managing the world’s protected areas would require an average investment of at least $140 billion per year globally by 2030, funded through a mix of domestic and international sources. Already, the $6bn target falls significantly short of this figure.

Abdulai said that besides the funding gap, there is also an accessibility problem. Countries ask for funds and it comes five years later, making “the money not even close to enough to solve the problem” as the funding needs tend to grow after the initial request.

He said developed countries need to fulfil their pledges because “if the funding is not coming then we are not addressing the problem and if we are not addressing the problems today in the frontline countries, tomorrow the frontline will move from our countries to yours”, he added.

US retreat sounds alarm

The report also shows that the funding for protected areas has come mostly from a few sources. Since 2022, just Germany, the World Bank, the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the European Union, and the United States, provided more than half of all international finance for the 30×30 goal.

“There is a real risk or a significant vulnerability if even one major donor were to pull back,” said Michael Owen, one of the authors of the report. He warned that this leaves global biodiversity protection vulnerable to political transitions, at a time of rising geopolitical tensions, which could trigger sudden changes in funding or even retrenchment. 

The report notes that “the shuttering of USAID leaves a significant gap to be filled, as it has been the sixth largest international 30×30 funder making up nearly 5% of total flows”.

With just five years left to meet the 30×30 target, Brian O’Donnell, director of Campaign for Nature, said there is “a clear need to ramp up marine conservation finance”, especially to small island states. He added that meeting the 30×30 target “is essential to prevent extinctions, achieve climate goals, and ensure the services that nature provides endure, including storm protection and clean air and water.”

Anders Haug Larsen, advocacy director at Rainforest Foundation Norway, said the world is currently far off track, both in mobilizing resources and protecting nature.

“We now have a short window of opportunity, where governments, donors, and actors on the ground, including Indigenous Peoples and local communities, need to work together to enhance finance and actions for rights-based nature protection,” Larsen added.

The post Funding for protected areas fell in 2024, threatening global nature target appeared first on Climate Home News.

Funding for protected areas fell in 2024, threatening global nature target