Electric cars and heat pumps making progress, UK climate advisers say
More people are buying electric cars and installing heat pumps than ever before, but those numbers need to increase even further, according to the government's climate advisers.
The independent Climate Change Committee said that the government needed to make sure that households benefit from the switch to cleaner technologies through lower bills.
"The government has made progress on a number of fronts, including on clean power, [but] they need to do more on making electricity cheap," Emma Pinchbeck, chief executive of the CCC, told BBC News.
In response Energy Secretary Ed Miliband thanked the committee for its advice and said it was committed to bringing down bills.
What does net zero mean?
Half of homes need heat pump by 2040, government told
UK homes install subsidised heat pumps at record level
By law, the UK must stop adding to the total amount of planet-warming greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by 2050. This is known as "net zero".
Reaching net zero carbon dioxide emissions globally is widely seen as essential to limit further warming.
Previous political consensus around the UK's target has broken down, however, with Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch branding it "impossible" and Reform using the phrase "net stupid zero".
But the committee argues it is achievable and could lead to long-term economic benefits.
"[The UK] can absolutely meet net zero by 2050," said Ms Pinchbeck.
Greenhouse gas emissions within the UK's borders have already fallen by more than half since 1990.
But that's mostly because polluting fossil fuels – particularly coal – have been increasingly replaced with renewable energy like wind and solar for electricity generation.
The UK's biggest emitters last year were transport and buildings, which will also need to get cleaner to help reach net zero.
The CCC sees signs of progress, including a near doubling of the number of electric cars on UK roads in the past two years. Nearly one-in-five new cars sold in 2024 was electric.
This has helped to reduce emissions from transport – not counting planes and ships – for the second year in a row, even though traffic levels rose last year.
While new electric cars remain more expensive to buy than their petrol equivalents, the CCC expects them to cost the same in a couple of years.
Many second-hand models are already as cheap, and electric cars can be more economical to run too.
"We see these transitions happen surprisingly fast once they get going, usually starting slowly and accelerating rapidly, where falling prices and rising demand reinforce each other," said Dr Emily Nurse, the CCC's head of net zero.
"When that's combined with effective policy, it really can lead to this rapid change."
Sales of electric heat pumps are growing quickly too, up by more than half last year, thanks partly to grants introduced under the Conservatives, the CCC said. But they still remain well below target.
The committee also praised the new government's relaxation of planning rules, which it says should encourage more people to install heat pumps.
But even after grants, they can be expensive to install and while they are much more efficient than a gas boiler, they are not necessarily cheaper to run.
That's because the cost of electricity is so high, something the CCC has repeatedly said needs tackling.
The single largest reason for the rise in household electricity prices in recent years is the increase in wholesale costs, driven by international gas prices, the CCC says.
"The only way to get bills down for good is by becoming a clean energy superpower and we continue to work tirelessly to deliver clean power for families and businesses," argued Energy Secretary Ed Miliband.
But the committee adds that electricity bills are artificially high because charges are added to them to support largely older renewable energy projects – which were more expensive – as well as energy efficiency upgrades.
On Monday the government announced plans to remove these costs for some businesses.
Removing them from household electricity bills too would be a quick fix to the UK's high prices, making it much cheaper to run an electric car or heat pump, the committee says.
But these costs would have to go somewhere, potentially onto general taxation.
It would take "about £200 off the average [household] bill but at a cost of about £6bn per year to the Exchequer," said Adam Bell, director of policy at Stonehaven Consultancy and former head of energy strategy at the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.
Additional reporting by Jonah Fisher and Miho Tanaka
A simple guide to climate change
Four ways climate change worsens extreme weather
What you can do to reduce carbon emissions
Sign up for our Future Earth newsletter to keep up with the latest climate and environment stories with the BBC's Justin Rowlatt. Outside the UK? Sign up to our international newsletter here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
39 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
From lacrosse myths to kilts: 5 things you may not know about Canadian symbols
OTTAWA - Parliamentarians likely will get a chance later this year to debate whether to adopt a livestock brand as an official national symbol. A bill to create the brand was introduced earlier in June by Saskatchewan Conservative MP Steven Bonk. If the bill passes, the brand will become Canada's 10th national symbol — joining O Canada, the coat of arms and the maple tree. Here are five things you may not know about the official symbols that say 'Canada.' 1. The beaver does not stand alone Everyone knows the beaver stands for ingenuity, craftsmanship and hard work. For 50 years, the beaver has been an official national symbol of Canada. These bucktoothed builders have long been associated with Canadian history. They were the foundation of the 17th century fur trade and have appeared on totem poles. The beaver even predates the Maple Leaf as a Canadian symbol. The animal appeared on the first Canadian postage stamp issued in 1851. But the beaver isn't the only animal on the list. While the loon that graces the dollar coin and the Canada geese that can be found hissing at joggers near almost every body of water in the country never made it to the official list, one breed of horse did. In 2002, the National Horse Act became law, making the breed known as the 'Canadian horse' a national symbol of equine excellence. The breed dates back to 1665, when King Louis XIV sent mares and stallions from the royal stables to New France. The Canadian horse emerged as a distinct breed about a century later, through the mixing of Norman, Breton, Arabian and other breeds. They're well adapted to Canada's harsh winter conditions. The Canadian horse typically has a dark coat and is relatively small. The versatile breed has been used in agriculture and logging and some were used as cavalry horses in the American Civil War. 2. This tartan is not just for Scots Canada's newest national symbol is the Maple Leaf Tartan, adopted through a ministerial decree in 2011. The tartan was first designed by Toronto businessman David Weiser in 1964, ahead of Canada's centennial in 1967. Weiser's design uses green, gold, red and brown to represent a maple leaf's life cycle. Canadian Forces pipers and drummers who don't belong to a specific military regiment wear the tartan when performing. The design is also officially recognized by Scotland in The Scottish Register of Tartans. 3. Red and white slight? What's more Canadian than red and white? The colours adorn the flag, athletes wear them proudly at international tournaments and many people will be wearing red and white face paint on Canada Day. But Canada has never formally adopted national colours. The belief that red and white are Canada's national colours comes from the Dec. 17, 1921 edition of the Canada Gazette, in which King George V issued a proclamation describing Canada's first national symbol — the coat of arms. The heraldic description of the shield talks about a wreath of maple leaves in 'argent and gules' — heraldic language used to describe white or silver and red respectively. The federal government says that while it was 'long believed' that this declaration made red and white Canada's national colours, the proclamation does not contain that language. While several countries do adopt their flag's colours as an official symbol, Canada never took that step. 4. National sport history obscured by Beers Contrary to popular belief, lacrosse was not Canada's national sport before hockey. In fact, both of them became national sports on the same day in 1994. For decades, many Canadians were convinced that lacrosse was the sole national sport — mainly because the father of modern lacrosse kept saying it was. William George Beers drafted the first known written rules for lacrosse in 1860, adapting them from games played by the Algonquin and Mohawk nations. Beers also established in 1867 the National Lacrosse Association of Canada — the country's first national sports governing body — and lobbied Parliament to adopt lacrosse as the national sport. The Canadian Encyclopedia says Beers began to claim lacrosse received this distinction but there is no evidence Parliament formally recognized the game as a national symbol. Almost 100 years later, a bill was introduced in April 1965 to make lacrosse Canada's national game. The text of that bill says 'there is an attempt' to appoint 'a lesser game' as Canada's national pastime. It does not identify that 'lesser game.' 'The purpose of this Bill is to rectify what was probably an oversight on the part of the Fathers of Confederation,' the bill reads. MPs debating the bill at the time noted the widely held belief that lacrosse was already the national sport, with sports publications and encyclopedias stating it as fact. The bill did not become law before Parliament was dissolved for an election later that year. It wasn't until 1994 that Parliament passed a bill making lacrosse Canada's national summer sport and hockey its official winter sport. 5. A Canadian icon doesn't make the cut Not all attempts to establish a new national symbol are immediately successful. Five versions of the National Horse Act went to the legislative glue factory between 1995 and 2002 before it finally became law. A bill to make the Maple Leaf Tartan a symbol was first introduced in the Senate in 2010 but did not make it past first reading. The tartan had to wait for the ministerial decree a year later. Two other national symbol bills never made it past first reading and it doesn't appear there was ever an attempt to revive them. A 1998 bill to adopt a 'symbol for the promotion of national unity' never passed. This apparently original symbol design, titled 'Canadian Unity Pledge,' shows two concentric circles, with the outer ring saying 'Canada' and 'strong free' in both English and French. The inner circle bears a maple leaf along with 'from sea to sea' in the official languages. Underneath the circles, a message reads 'Canada is Our Country, One Country, Strong and Free, From Sea to Sea.' A PDF version of the bill provided by the Library of Parliament only shows the symbol in black and white. There is no written description of what the colours were supposed to be, but the leaf was likely meant to be red. A legislative attempt to make the iconic dress uniform of the RCMP a national symbol also failed. A bill to make the red serge a 'symbol of Canadian sovereignty' was introduced in February 1990, but the Library of Parliament said it does not to appear to have progressed past first reading. While a Mountie wearing the red serge is an instantly recognizable Canadian image, the uniform is not in the roster of national symbols. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 30, 2025. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Yahoo
18 hours ago
- Yahoo
Conservatives happier than liberals? Register readers weigh in.
I was glad to read a fresh and inspiring guest essay June 26 by Nicole Russell about how conservatives are happier than liberals. The piece explains what the majority of your readers have known for a long time. Jeff Luke, Des Moines I have always felt that a major difference between conservatives and liberals was the ability of Republicans to discuss politics with Democrats without becoming angry. The June 26 opinion piece by Nicole Russell ('Study from 2022 shows conservatives happier…') bolstered my perspective. I have many friends who are liberal. Without exception, when conversations turn to politics, these friends' voices increase in volume and facial expressions change from friendly to confrontational. The analysis presented by Russell revealed several results of the study (60,000 Americans surveyed) including mental health, happiness, and strong views of meritocracy. Conservatives scored much higher in those categories, and the analysts of the study concluded the disparity was a direct link to the anger and happiness issues owned by liberals. One has only to turn on the news to watch both the protesters and politicians waving their fists, screaming obscenities, and destroying property. Stu Bassman, West Des Moines Nicole Russell's June 26 column about conservatives being happier than liberals didn't make much sense to me — and then it did. Russell explains that conservatives are happier than liberals based on the correlate with happiness that was studied by social psychologist Jaime Napier. Napier proposes that the correlate to happiness is the belief in a meritocracy where anybody who works hard can make it — no matter what your background. Napier claims that correlate aligns with conservative thinking. Russell goes on to explain that her view of liberal beliefs is that life is unfair and it's the government's job to make people happy. I think that's an incredibly inaccurate, narrow and biased view, but, for the sake of the point I want to make, I'll go along with it. I could see that, yes, one might be happier if they believe that everyone can be successful (no matter their circumstances) and the government has no responsibility to support others who have challenging circumstances. It would be a relief to believe that one did not need to think about or act on complex societal problems. It's simple, just work hard. On the other hand, one might be unhappy if they recognize that not everyone has the same starting point in life, some people have significant barriers and they believe that government has a role to play in creating a society that supports others in removing barriers. One might be unhappy when they recognize that the solutions are complex. If feeling discomfort/unhappiness is the price for recognizing that we live in a complex society where there are individuals who, for many reasons, cannot be successful without supports and that government shares some responsibility for solutions, I'll keep my liberal outlook and pay the price. Cynthia Erickson, Des Moines More: Rob Sand needs to speak about water | Letters The June 22 Opinion section included a letter writer's assertion that the 'rich' need to pay their fair share in income taxes. That statement gets stated frequently. It is hard to argue with that statement. However, I have asked several times in letters for someone to state what the income tax rate should be for rich people. No one ever does. I would like to ask again for someone to state what the numeric income tax rate should be for rich people. Doug Gulling, Urbandale I am a proud American, and there was a time when I felt an even deeper pride in our country. Like many people, I didn't always appreciate paying taxes — especially when the difference between gross and net pay is so noticeable. But as I matured, I came to understand the critical importance of the essential services our taxes fund. I received a solid education at a public school where I was taught civics and the role taxes play in keeping our government running. I spent most of my career as a registered nurse caring for veterans — men and women who served this country honorably. The funding that supported my work came largely from taxpayer dollars through Medicare, Medicaid and VA benefits. I also benefited personally from Pell Grants and scholarships that helped me pursue my education. I am deeply grateful for the opportunities I've had to serve, contribute, and live a meaningful, productive life. Of course, no system is perfect. I support reforms that make our government more efficient and responsive. Continuous improvement should be a shared goal, regardless of political affiliation. What I cannot support is the glorification of those who manipulate the system to avoid paying their fair share — particularly individuals like Donald Trump, who proudly claims it's 'smart' to avoid taxes. That mindset is not patriotic. It's not leadership. It's self-serving. Trump was born into wealth and has repeatedly demonstrated a disregard for the responsibilities that come with privilege. His behavior does not reflect the values of hard work, sacrifice, and shared duty that truly make America great. We need leaders who invest in this country, not just themselves. We deserve better. Kelli McCreary, Toledo Remember the old parable 'Upstream' or the 'River Story'? Iowans across the state are drowning in nitrates, pesticides and manure as they come down our rivers suffering from the ill health effects of these pollutants. The Des Moines Water Works and other municipal water treatment systems are tasked with cleaning up the rivers and our health care industry is burdened with caring for these Iowans who are getting sick and dying of cancer. We all know by now that Iowa is second in the nation in cancer incidence. But who's at the top of the rivers? Who's upstream? It's the Big Ag operators that encompass a combination of leading cooperatives like Landus and Titan Pro, large agribusiness firms such as Corteva Agriscience and Dairy Farmers of America, and the Iowa Farm Bureau. Iowa taxpayers are spending millions of dollars to clean up our water while Big Ag operators seem quite willing to let us do so. I wonder if they believe it is less expensive to clean up the water (for them) than it is for them to clean up the water (for all of us). Maybe it's time we heard from them; otherwise we might think they have no shame. Patsy Shors, Des Moines Fifty-three years ago, the United States implemented the Education Amendments of 1972. We know it as Title IX. June 23 was the anniversary of Title IX. What benefits do girls and women enjoy from this landmark amendment? Title IX gives female high school and college athletes equal opportunities in athletics and athletic scholarships. My grandmother played high school basketball in rural Iowa over 100 years ago. Iowa has consistently led the nation as a state that values equal rights for women. I am proud to be surrounded by people who value our rights as women. I participated in high school women's golf. I didn't know this was a fairly new right for young women. In the years since my graduation, women participating in high school athletics has risen from 500,000 to over 3 million! Title IX significantly expanded opportunities for women and girls. Today, nearly 40% of women hold college degrees, in part due to the availability of athletic scholarships. Realize that these rights are entirely dependent upon our knowledge and support. If we ignore recent obstacles in schools permitting males identifying as females into women's athletics, Title IX benefits disappear. Biologically male athletes who identify as women or girls are receiving women's scholarships, using women's locker rooms, breaking women's records, and winning local, state, and national championships in women's athletics in some states. As the legislative liaison for Concerned Women for America of Iowa, alongside our state director, Tamara Scott, we will defend female-only sports in Iowa if threatened. We appreciate the legislators who had the foresight to write and the courage to vote for Title IX 53 years ago. Happy anniversary, Title IX! Laura Carlson, Story City, legislative liaison for Concerned Women for America of Iowa Yes, 'we're all going to die' someday — but in Iowa, our odds are rising faster than most. We're now the second-highest state in the nation for cancer rates, and they continue to climb. If you're blaming alcohol, consider this: Most beers and wines now contain glyphosate. Pick your poison. In just two centuries, Iowa's deep-rooted prairie has been replaced by an intensive two-crop agriculture system. The result? Some of the nation's highest levels of nitrates, neonicotinoids, glyphosate, along with other toxic chemicals in our waterways. Add millions of confined pigs, chickens, and other livestock, and we've created a toxic recipe that's poisoning our land, our people, and our future. This isn't just Iowa's problem — it impacts communities downstream as well. We're all connected through the Mississippi River Watershed, and Iowa is a major contributor to the dead zone in the Gulf of America. Why does greed and short-term thinking keep winning over the common good — and the health of ALL life? Christine Curry, West Des Moines More: Nitrates are pummeling Des Moines. We can't farm Iowa this way any more. | Opinion Russell Saffell in his June 19 piece 'Veterans deserve change. US should reschedule cannabis now' says that 'it is not only scientifically outdated, but also morally indefensible' for marijuana to remain on Schedule I. Why? Because Schedule I is for drugs with 'with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.' But that's precisely what marijuana is. Let's be clear: A 'currently accepted medical use' isn't based on whether people are already using it widely. Or even if state legislatures say it's medicine: Voting that red is green doesn't make it so. Currently accepted medical use is designated based on evidence. And that's one thing that is absent with marijuana. Chronic pain is one of the primary conditions it allegedly 'treats.' Yes, one study suggested it might help, but many, many more studies since then have not backed up that finding. And that's to say nothing of the terrible side effects it has. Saffell is a veteran and state adjutant of VFW in Iowa. Does he know that, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs, of all veterans who died by suicide in 2022, almost 9% were diagnosed with CUD (cannabis use disorder)? Seems like a 'high potential for abuse' to me — with tragic consequences. Rescheduling marijuana will send the message that all of this is not such a big deal. The Biden White House once publicly agreed with the correct idea that marijuana is a dangerous drug. Then it made a 180-degree turn and went on to recommend rescheduling. That was a bad call. If the Trump administration follows suit and makes rescheduling real, it will be an even worse one. Leslie Carpenter, co-founder, Iowa Mental Health Advocacy I know that there are some Republicans who are not happy with President Donald Trump. They won't vote for him but do vote for the rest of the Republican ticket. I also know that many people say they don't vote for the party, they vote for the person. Party members in Congress vote with their party 90% of the time or more. There is even a position called a "whip" whose job it is to keep party members in line, even if it takes threats. In our current situation, this means that a vote for any Republican is support for Trump and his policies. Something to think about. Frank McCammond, Redfield Republicans call it the Big Beautiful Bill (H.R.1), but it's really a Billionaire Tax Scam — and it doesn't just hurt the nation; it hurts working families right here at home, while handing out breaks to the ultra-rich. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, over 80% of the bill's benefits would go to the richest 5% of Americans. Meanwhile, the bottom 10% would see their costs rise by $1,600, while the wealthiest 10% get a $12,000 giveaway. This bill would cut health insurance for 16 million people, slash food assistance for millions — including up to 18 million poor children — and raise costs for nearly 80 million low- and middle-income households. That means higher prices for everyday essentials like health care, utilities, and college tuition. At a time when so many families are already struggling to keep up, this plan does the unthinkable: takes from those with the least and gives even more to the ultra-wealthy and big corporations. Working Iowans shouldn't be footing the bill for tax breaks for billionaires. We deserve better. Call Sen. Chuck Grassley (319-232-6657) and Sen. Joni Ernst (319-365-4504) and tell them to stand with families — not the ultra-wealthy. Judy Stiers, Cedar Falls This article originally appeared on Des Moines Register: Celebrate Title IX by protecting female-only sports | Letters
New York Times
a day ago
- New York Times
A Public Lands Sell-Off Is Struck From the G.O.P. Policy Bill
Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, said on Saturday evening that he had dropped his contentious plan to sell millions of acres of public lands from the sweeping domestic policy package carrying President Trump's agenda. Mr. Lee made the announcement on social media after it became clear that the plan faced insurmountable opposition from within his own party. At least four Republican senators from Western states had said they planned to vote for an amendment to strike the proposal from the bill. The plan had also triggered intense pushback from conservative hunters and outdoorsmen across the American West, who had warned that it threatened the lands where they hunted and fished. 'Over the past several weeks, I've spent a lot of time listening to members of the community, local leaders and stakeholders across the country,' Mr. Lee wrote on X on Saturday. 'While there has been a tremendous amount of misinformation — and in some cases, outright lies — about my bill, many people brought forward sincere concerns.' The provision would have required the Bureau of Land Management to sell as much as 1.225 million acres of public property in 11 Western states. Proponents had argued that the region has a severe shortage of affordable housing and that developers could build new homes on these tracts. In his post, Mr. Lee said that, because of the strict rules governing the budgetary process that Republicans are using to pass the bill, he was 'unable to secure clear, enforceable safeguards to guarantee that these lands would be sold only to American families — not to China, not to BlackRock, and not to any foreign interests.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
