Connect with us

Published

on

Reaching net-zero will be much cheaper for the UK government than previously expected – and the economic damages of unmitigated climate change far more severe.

These are two key conclusions from the latest report on risks to the government finances from the independent Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), which includes a chapter on climate change.

The new OBR report shows very clearly that the cost of cutting emissions to net-zero is significantly smaller than the economic damages of failing to act.

Here are four key charts from the OBR report.

Climate damages could reach 8% of GDP by 2070s

The UK could take an 8% hit to its economy by the early 2070s, if the world warms by 3C this century, according to the new OBR report.

(This aspect of the OBR report has been picked up in a Reuters headline: “Global 3C warming would hurt UK economy much more than previously predicted, OBR says.”)

Its latest estimate (blue line) of the impact of “climate-related damages” by the 2070s is three percentage points (60%) higher than thought just last year (yellow), as shown in the figure below.

Chart 1.9: Impact on GDP and government borrowing of climate change damage
Left: Impact of climate damages on UK GDP, if global warming reaches 3C by the end of the century. Right: Impact on government borrowing. Blue lines show the latest estimates whereas yellow lines are from last year’s report. Credit: OBR

The OBR says that the increase in its estimate of climate damages is due to using a “more comprehensive and up-to-date analysis”.

(The world is currently on track to warm by only slightly less than 3C this century.)

Unchecked damages could double hit to borrowing

The impact of climate damages on government borrowing would be nearly twice as high by the 2070s, if global warming goes unchecked and reaches 3C, according to the OBR report.

This is shown in the figure below, which compares additional government borrowing each year, as a share of GDP, if warming is limited to less than 2C this century (left) or if it climbs to 3C (right).

Chart 4.6: Additional public sector net borrowing from climate damage costs
Additional government borrowing each year due to climate damages, as a share of GDP, %, if warming is limited to less than 2C this century (left) or 3C (right). Credit: OBR.

The OBR explains that the largest impact of climate damages on government borrowing is “lower productivity and employment and, therefore, lower tax receipts”.

Cost of net-zero halved

When it comes to cutting UK emissions, the OBR says the government will only need to invest just over half as much on reaching net-zero, compared with what it expected four years earlier.

This is shown in the figure below, with the latest 2025 estimate (right) showing a cumulative government investment of 6% of GDP across the 25 years to 2050, down from 11% (left).

(Note that the large majority of “lost government receipts”, shown in yellow in the figure below, are due to fuel duty evaporating as drivers shift to electric vehicles. As the OBR notes, the government could choose to recoup these losses via other types of motoring taxes.)

Chart 4.12: Change in cumulative real spending and receipts impacts by 2050-51
Cumulative change in government lost receipts (yellow) and extra investment (green), as a share of GDP, %. Left: OBR’s 2021 report. Right: Latest 2025 report. Credit: OBR.

The OBR takes its estimates of the costs and benefits of cutting emissions to net-zero from the government’s Climate Change Committee (CCC). The CCC recently issued significantly lower estimates for net-zero investment costs, due to more rapidly falling clean-technology costs.

Acknowledging this shift, the OBR says the latest CCC estimates on the cost of reaching net-zero are “significantly lower” than earlier figures.

It notes that the net cost to the economy of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 is now put at £116bn over 25 years, some £204bn lower than previously expected.

In very rough terms, this figure – which excludes health co-benefits due to cutting emissions and avoided climate damages – is equivalent to less than £70 per person per year.

Cost of action far lower than cost of inaction

Taken together, the OBR findings show more clearly than ever before that the cost of taking action to tackle climate change would be far lower than the cost of unchecked warming.

For the first time, its latest report combines the estimated cost of cutting emissions with the expected damages due to rising temperatures in a single figure, shown below.

The comparison illustrates that climate damages (blue bars in the chart) are set to impose severe costs on the UK public finances, even if warming is limited to less than 2C this century (left).

The OBR also shows how the cost of government investment in cutting emissions (yellow) is both temporary and relatively small in comparison to climate damages.

Moreover, it highlights how unchecked warming of 3C this century (right) would impose far higher climate damages on the UK government’s finances than if global temperatures are kept in check.

Specifically, global action to limit warming to 2C instead of 3C could prevent more than 1 percentage point of climate damages being added to annual government borrowing by the 2070s.

In contrast, the combined estimated cost to government of action to cut emissions never exceeds 0.6 percentage points – even if lost receipts due to fuel duty are not replaced (green).

CHart 4.13: Annual additional primary borrowing from the combined costs of damage and transition, relative to the 2024 FRS central long-term projection
Annual additional government borrowing as a result of action to cut emissions (yellow, green) and from climate damages (blue, purple). Left: 2C of warming this century. Right: 3C. Credit: OBR.

Beyond these new numbers, the OBR acknowledges that it still does not include the cost of adapting to climate change, or the impact this could have on reducing damages.

Nor does it consider the potential for accelerated transitions towards clean energy, technological advances that make this shift cheaper or the risk of tipping points, which could cause “large and irreversible changes” to the global climate.

The post OBR: Net-zero is much cheaper than thought for UK – and unchecked global warming far more costly appeared first on Carbon Brief.

OBR: Net-zero is much cheaper than thought for UK – and unchecked global warming far more costly

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Climate-Fueled Wildfires and Dust Storms Drove Up Air Pollution Around the World Last Year

Published

on

A new report shows air pollution threatens the majority of the world’s population, while information gaps increase the risks.

A new report on global air pollution shows that the majority of the world’s population breathes unhealthy air, and climate change is making the problem worse.

Climate-Fueled Wildfires and Dust Storms Drove Up Air Pollution Around the World Last Year

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Australia must not follow dystopian US-style data centre path of Big Tech overreach and emissions blow out

Published

on

SYDNEY, Monday 23 March 2026 — Greenpeace Australia Pacific has labelled the Federal government’s new expectations for data centres and AI infrastructure released today as seriously inadequate, failing to address the massive impacts of the facilities on our energy systems and society, and enabling US-style Big Tech overreach and deregulation.

Greenpeace says the dizzying scale of new AI data centre development in Australia threatens to derail the energy transition by prolonging reliance on polluting fossil fuels, increasing electricity prices and consuming enormous quantities of water — all to power an industry which may be enabling socially harmful outcomes.

Joe Rafalowicz, Head of Climate and Energy at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said: “The frenzied build out of AI data centres in Australia is breathtaking, and following a dangerous US-style path where Big Tech corporations have carte blanche to drain local energy and water, and build new, polluting gas and diesel-powered plants to fuel their operations.

“Australia is following the US down the same dystopian path of unregulated AI data centre expansion and overreach by Big Tech corporations that are at best driving significant climate and environmental harm and at worst, generating illegal explicit images or supporting the US military to bomb civilians in Iran.

“These billionaire-run companies like Amazon, Open AI, Meta have time and again shown themselves to be morally impaired, with not even the best interests of humanity, let alone Australians, at the core of their decisions. Expecting them to just do the right thing because we ask nicely is baffling.

“We’re also seeing vested-interest lobby groups like the newly formed Data Centres Australia aggressively pushing to cut regulations that would protect Australians from the climate, environmental and social impacts of data centres.

“Last year, the Albanese government abandoned its own recommended AI guardrails when it announced its National AI Plan — a move applauded by these lobby groups.

“The gas lobby has also now seized on data centre growth to justify extracting more gas, just as the world needs to rapidly phase out fossil fuels for energy security and to tackle the climate crisis.

“We have a short and closing window to choose a different path in Australia — without strong guardrails, we risk replicating the US pattern where Big Tech corporations make huge profits at the expense of locals. The government must not roll out the red carpet to these corporations without adequate, legislated protections and scrutiny — not just ‘nice-to-haves’.”

ENDS

Media contact:

Kate O’Callaghan on 0406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org

Australia must not follow dystopian US-style data centre path of Big Tech overreach and emissions blow out

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Courts’ Fight Over ‘Cop City’ Protests Raises Questions About Terrorism Laws and Environmental Activism 

Published

on

A years-long legal fight tied to protests over Atlanta’s Public Safety Training Center could shape how states wield terrorism laws against environmental protest movements.

ATLANTA—On a recent March morning, a large monitor at the front of a DeKalb County courtroom flickered to life as Superior Court Judge David B. Irwin appeared over Zoom. The hearing—with attorneys and out-of-state defendants joining remotely—centered on a question with national implications: Can activists who protested Atlanta’s controversial police training center be prosecuted as domestic terrorists?

Courts’ Fight Over ‘Cop City’ Protests Raises Questions About Terrorism Laws and Environmental Activism 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com