THE
SC ANDALOUS
C L I M AT E
CHANGE
COMMITTEE
DAV I D T URVER
The Scandalous Climate Change Committee
David Turver
© Copyright 2024, Net Zero Watch
Images of CCC officials courtesy PRASEG, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Deed.
Contents
Introduction1
Inadequate supervision 1
Conflicts of interest 2
Misleading models 4
Lack of transparency 5
Hypocrisy5
Conclusions5
About the author
David Turver is a retired engineer, and the author of a popular Substack, at [Link]
[Link].
iii
iv
Introduction
The Climate Change Committee (CCC) was established
under the Climate Change Act of 2008. Its purpose is to
advise the UK and devolved governments, ensuring that
they remain focused and on track to achieve the Net Zero
target by 2050, irrespective of political fluctuations.
However, as shown below:
• The CCC is has been allowed to manage its own
conflicts of interest, so independent oversight of
appointments is lacking.
• The CCC has repeatedly turned a blind eye to the
conflicting business interests of its members and staff.
• The social and business interests of members have
contributed to a ‘groupthink’ that has undermined
the work and output of the committee.
• Serious failings can be identified in the modelling of
Net Zero costs by the Committee.
• The CCC should be disbanded and control of climate
and energy policy returned to Parliament.
Inadequate supervision
Looking through the events section of the Commons
Energy Security and Net Zero Committee and the Lords
Environment and Climate Change Committee reveals that
the CCC has only been invited to Parliament to account
for itself once in the three years to March 2024. This was a
one-off meeting1 of the Lords committee with outgoing
Chair, Lord Deben. In that meeting Lord Deben revealed:
The [CCC’s] structure is remarkably good. It has been
remarkably resilient through all the years since its incep-
tion because its independence is guaranteed. It gives its
advice to Parliament. When Parliament passes the budg-
ets, which we have to produce, they become law and
cannot be changed without reference to the Climate
Change Committee, which would have to give permis-
sion were it to be changed.”
In effect, the CCC has become the arbiter of emissions
targets, and put beyond the control of Parliament.
But because the multi-trillion-pound sums involved
in attempting to achieve Net Zero will impact society and
the economy profoundly, it is important that the CCC
is, and is seen to be, beyond reproach. However, it has
repeatedly shown itself to be unfit to manage conflicts
of interests appropriately. This failure will inevitably lead
many to question its output and its authority.
1
Conflicts of interest
Left to supervise its own staff and members, the ble energy subsidies in the UK.4 These revela-
CCC has, since its inception, had problems with tions showed conclusively that he had not in fact
conflicts of interest, despite the existence of a divested from green business interests, as he had
policy to guide its staff. This defines a conflict of promised to do at his appointment hearing.
interest as:2 The House of Lords Commissioner for
A set of circumstances by which a reasonable Standards launched an investigation into
person would consider that an individual’s abil- whether Lord Deben had made appropriate
ity to apply judgement or act, in the context of declarations of his interests while speaking
delivering the CCC’s statutory duties is, or could in the House of Lords. Crucially, she could not
be, impaired or influenced by another interest assess whether he had misled Parliament at his
they hold. appointment hearing when he said that none of
Sancroft’s clients had any connection to his CCC
The policy identifies common situations that may
role. This was because the appointment hearing
result in such a conflict:
took place in 2013, outside of a ‘Four Year Rule’ .5
• commissioning research projects This meant she could not assess the most impor-
• public speaking and attendance at external tant allegation against Deben.
meetings It should also be noted that the Cabinet
• committee champion role Office, whose remit it was to govern public
• provision of evidence and data appointments, also made no assessment of
• acceptance of new appointments. whether Lord Deben’s interests were compati-
Surprisingly, perhaps the most obvious ble with his position as chairman of the CCC.
conflict – of a committee member making policy Next, in 2023, it was revealed that further
recommendations that may financially benefit payments to Sancroft from an environmental
themselves or organisations in which they have infrastructure investment company had not been
interests – is not listed. disclosed in the Lords’ Register of Interests.6
Finally, it has also been reported that Sancroft
Past members provided advice to the government of Qatar,7
We will now see how this has played out in prac- which supplied nearly half of Britain’s natural gas
tice, looking at three conflict of interest cases imports in 2020. It is therefore concerning that,
involving past members of the CCC. during his chairmanship, Lord Deben was highly
critical of the Truss government’s plan to lift the
Lord Deben ban on fracking.8
The first and most egregious concerns former He also supported a ‘tighter limit on [domes-
CCC chairman Lord Deben, who had several seri- tic] production’ and ‘a presumption against explo-
ously conflicting interests while in post. ration’ in the North Sea, implying that the UK
In 2013, it was revealed that he had retained should rely on imports instead.
his position as chairman of a company involved
in windfarm installations after his appointment.3 Dr Rebecca Heaton
He had told the House of Commons Energy and The second conflict of interest scandal involved
Climate Change Committee that he would divest Dr Rebecca Heaton, who was a CCC member from
himself of all such interests if appointed. 2017 to 2021, but was forced to step down after it
In 2019, it was revealed that Sancroft public concerns were voiced that she was also the
International, the sustainability consultancy he head of climate change at bioenergy company
chairs, and which employs members of his family, Drax.9 This was embarrassing because the CCC
took over £600,000 from businesses working in had produced a report in 2018 that was very
the environmental area. These clients included supportive of bioenergy.10 Drax has received over
Drax, which is the largest recipient of renewa- £5 billion in subsidies for burning trees.11
2
Chris Stark (SSEE). The funding partners of SSEE include a
Outgoing chief executive, Chris Stark was caught roll call of the most well-funded climate activist
by Guido Fawkes website promoting a particular foundations:
brand of heat pump.12 It is one thing for him to be • the Ashden Trust (led by the Rockefeller
generally in favour of heat pump technology, but family)
quite inappropriate to be promoting a particu- • The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation
lar brand. Kensa, the company in question is not (CIFF), set up by billionaire Chris Hohn
mentioned in Stark’s register of interests.13 • The European Climate Foundation (ECF)
• The Growald Family Fund
Current members
• The Rothschild Foundation.17
Helpfully, the Climate Change Committee
publishes its own register of interests. Bearing Dr Caldecott is also a member of the
in mind its own definition of a conflict of interest International Advisory Council for carbon credit
above and the case of Dr Heaton, it is time to turn trading exchange Climate Impact X. A reasonable
to current committee members. person might conclude that his other positions
might be at risk if he did not dance to the tune
Baroness Brown of the funding partners, and thus that his judge-
Baroness Brown, who is the chair of the CCC’s ment may well be impaired.
adaptation subcommittee, has interests that
Swenja Surminski
include being employed as a non-executive direc-
tor of Ørsted, the Danish green energy group, Dr Swenja Surminski is another member of the
which has twelve offshore and one onshore wind- CCC, and her interests include being the manag-
farms operational in the UK, with a further six – ing director of climate and sustainability at insur-
three offshore and three onshore – under devel- ance giant Marsh McLennan, and ‘Professor in
opment. Practice’ at the Grantham Research Institute, a
All will receive hundreds of millions in subsi- climate research facility based at the University of
dies from UK consumers.14 Baroness Brown is also London, and which is funded by a wealthy envi-
the chair of the board of the Carbon Trust,15 a ronmentalist. Again, a reasonable person might
‘partner with leading businesses, governments be concerned that her significant earnings from
and financial institutions to accelerate their route interests related to the climate agenda might
to net zero’. She is also a non-executive director of impair her judgement.
Ceres Power,16 which positions itself as a leader in Others
the production of green hydrogen, a technology
Other members of the CCC, such as Professor Piers
strongly promoted by the CCC in its Sixth Carbon
Forster, Professor Corinne Le Quéré and Professor
Budget.
Nathalie Seddon, hold senior academic positions
A reasonable person would probably
that are dependent upon the climate-related
conclude that if one directorship of a green
funding.
energy company was enough to force a resigna-
tion – as in the case of Dr Heaton – then the three Shareholdings
directorships held by Baroness Brown ought to
Several members of the CC also hold shares in
disqualify her from holding office at the CCC too.
companies that many might think are inappropri-
Ben Caldecott ate. For instance, interim chair Piers Forster holds
Dr Ben Caldecott is the Lombard Odier Associate shares in Ørsted, the Danish wind developer, and
Professor of Sustainable Finance at Oxford Professor Keith Bell holds shares in National Grid,
University, and also sits on the CCC. His interests which will benefit from the massive spending
also include being the director of the Oxford required to connect renewable generators to
Sustainable Finance Group, which is part of the the rest of the grid. Steven Fries, meanwhile, has
Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment holdings in National Grid, as well as renewable
3
energy developers Iberdrola and SSE. He also In summary, many members of the CCC seem
holds shares in oil and gas companies such as to have a significant conflict of interest problem
Shell, BP and Total. Finally, Nigel Topping holds and reasonable people might conclude that the
shares in Xpansiv, which claims to be accelerating advice they give is at risk of being tainted by their
the global energy transition. own financial and social interests.
Misleading models
Of course, there is a risk that having so many reduction in the number of calm weather days.22
members deeply connected to the climate They assumed that by 2050, there would be just
change agenda may lead to groupthink. Sadly, seven days when wind turbines would produce
there is compelling evidence that this is not just less than 10 per cent of their capacity. In 2021,
a hypothetical concern, because the models that there were at least 65 such days. In effect, they
the CCC produces have been found to bear little were relying upon climate change happening to
resemblance to reality. prevent climate change. The implication of this is
For example, their cost assumptions for that much more back up power or more storage
offshore wind do not stand up to scrutiny. Their would be required to cover the shortfall on wind-
Sixth Carbon Budget assumed offshore wind less days, which is of course much more costly.
prices falling from £45/MWh in 2020 to as low More recently, it was revealed that the CCC’s
as £40/MWh in 2050 (in 2019 prices). They even electricity system modelling is inadequate.23 It
suggested that prices as low as £23/MWh might only looked at a single year of weather data when
be possible. In the event, no offshore wind calculating the extent to which the UK could rely
contracts were awarded in the 2023 auction upon wind and solar power to meet the demands
round because the prices were set too low. The of Net Zero. This admission of a mistake was made
Government was therefore forced to increase its privately to Professor Chris Llewellyn Smith
offer for this year’s auction to over £100/MWh whose own report for the Royal Society consid-
in today’s money.18 Similarly, the CCC’s assumed ered 37 years of weather data. It was only by
cost of £78/MWh for hydrogen production has looking at such a long data series that the Royal
been left looking foolish by the Government’s Society team discovered we can get back-to-back
recent offer to the industry of £241/MWh.19 This cold years with low wind which decrease electric-
intrusion of reality into the CCC’s carefully crafted ity generation from wind and increase demand.
models cannot simply be waved away. The impact This means that the CCC’s models have under-es-
of these enormous discrepancies will certainly timated the amount of electricity storage that will
run into the tens or perhaps even hundreds of be required and thus the cost of Net Zero.
billions of pounds. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that
In 2021, it was revealed that the CCC had Parliament signed off the carbon budget under
used spurious figures in their assumptions false pretences.
about the cost of electric vehicles (EVs).20 They
had assumed the cost of small electric cars Weasel words to Parliament
would plummet to £13,000 by 2021, when in fact Sadly, the groupthink and misleading models are
most cost at least £20,000 at that time. In effect, then spread to Parliament when weasel words
Parliament was misled, because ministers based are used to describe the cost of renewables. In
their estimates of the overall costs of Net Zero on Apri 2022, when giving evidence to the Energy
the CCC’s assumptions. Correcting their spurious and Net Zero Committee, CCC member Professor
assumptions probably adds around £1.8 trillion Keith Bell claimed:24
to the cost of Net Zero.21 The heavy lifting will be done by variable renew-
It has also been shown that the CCC’s model- ables dependent on the weather, so solar and
ling to justify the feasibility of Net Zero included wind, both onshore wind and offshore wind in
a projection that there would be a dramatic particular. The reason is that on a simple levelised
4
cost of energy basis, these are the cheapest new £65/MWh, including carbon taxes. Professor Bell
forms of energy. failed to explain why we would wish to displace
This statement is both wrong and mislead- reliable gas with this more expensive ‘cheap’ new
ing. The upcoming Round Six Contracts for energy. Moreover, the ‘levelised cost’ is not a full
Difference renewables auction is offering offshore system cost and omits the extra costs of balanc-
wind, onshore wind and solar at £102, £89 and ing the grid when the wind is not blowing and
£85/MWh (in 2024 prices),25 respectively, far the sun is not shining. The true cost is certainly
higher than the current gas-fired price of around higher still.
Lack of transparency
Since at least 2018, the CCC has said it is ‘fully sive when challenged. In 2021, it was revealed
committed to openness and transparency’.26 They that the CCC had spent two years and probably
have also said: tens of thousands of pounds resisting attempts
Our reports, and any supporting data and to have their modelling spreadsheets released
under Freedom of Information legislation.27
research, are published in full on this website. If
Finally, in March 2024, outgoing chief exec-
you are unable to find the information you need,
utive Chris Stark was revealed to have asked offi-
the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act gives you
cials to ‘kill’ the story about the CCC’s inadequate
the right to ask us for recorded information we weather modelling with ‘technical language’.28
hold on any subject that falls under our remit. This is not the behaviour of an official who is truly
However, it appears that the CCC does not committed to openness and transparency and is
take these words seriously and becomes defen- accountable for the mistakes of his organisation.
Hypocrisy
Of course, defensive behaviour can then lead plans to ban gas boilers by 2035.30
to hypocrisy. In its Sixth Carbon Budget,29 the It was therefore surprising to find last year
CCC said that over 40% of emissions reductions that Chris Stark still has a gas boiler in his own
by 2035 will come from change by consumers, home.31 He warned that the costs of heat pumps
for example by driving EVs or installing a heat
remained too high, and it was very difficult to
pump. A reasonable person might expect the
chief executive of the CCC to be leading the way install heat pumps in flats like his. It is the height
on such behaviour change. After all, there are of hypocrisy to force a technology upon every-
many commentators insisting that heat pumps one else when you are not prepared to even try
are cheap and effective and the Government still it yourself.
Conclusions
The Climate Change Committee is in effect true costs of Net Zero. The financial discrepancy
beyond the control of Parliament and, to date, between the CCC models and reality could run
MPs have simply waved through recommenda- to trillions of pounds. Of course, this means the
tions in the various carbon budgets with extraor- CCC becomes very defensive when outsiders start
dinarily little scrutiny. This lack of accountability to challenge the narrative, and despite claims of
has allowed the CCC to fill its ranks with people transparency, they seek to obfuscate and cover
who have deep financial and social interests in up their errors.
the climate change agenda. This leads to group- The CCC has not behaved appropriately and
think, and the creation of spurious financial there are insufficient checks and balances to keep
models, which are not properly challenged, and it on the straight and narrow. With departure
which are used to mislead Parliament about the of Chris Stark on 26 April 2024, the CCC is now
5
without a permanent chair and permanent chief executive. The
Government should take this opportunity to disband it and return
control of energy and climate policy to MPs, who are accountable
to their constituents.
6
Endnotes
1 [Link]
2 [Link]
[Link].
3 [Link]
[Link].
4 [Link]
[Link].
5 [Link]
[Link].
6 [Link]
est-row-sustainability/.
7 [Link]
ing-qatari-ministers-sell/.
8 [Link]
[Link].
9 [Link]
10 [Link]
11 [Link]
12 [Link]
ing-heat-pump-brand/.
13 [Link]
14 [Link]
15 [Link]
16 [Link]
17 [Link]
18 [Link]
[Link].
19 [Link]
ro-hydrogen-fund-shortlisted-projects/hydrogen-production-business-model-net-zero-hydro-
gen-fund-har1-successful-projects#:~:text=strike%20price%20of%20%C2%A3241/MWh.
20 [Link]
conservative-mps/.
21 [Link]
about-the-cost-of-net-zero.
22 [Link]
23 [Link]
green-energy/.
24 [Link]
25 [Link]
[Link].
26 [Link]
ency/.
27 [Link]
about-the-cost-of-net-zero.
28 [Link]
zero/.
29 [Link]
30 [Link]
31 [Link]
boiler-himself/.
7
For further information about Net Zero Watch, please
visit our website at [Link].
