Now my blog is not a definitive ‘line to take from EUA’ or prescription of the way forward for its members, but a personal reflection or observation. It should, if done well, provoke readers to take time to think, and sometimes agree or disagree with the content. So, to my reflections on the article from last week.

The title of the piece read:- “Ditch net zero to fund Europe’s long-term safety. Investing in climate tech research and getting rid of targets will free up money for rearmament.” Before the howls of outrage start, I did warn you, it was an opinion piece that made me pause for thought, not change EUA policy.

The article suggested that the £50 billion spent each year on net zero policies should be split £5 billion on hi-tech cutting-edge research into net zero innovation and £45 billion on other things – including defence. The current MOD spend is around £55 billion a year.

The suggestion is that this research will find solutions to combatting climate change that can be rolled out across the globe, without the need to impoverish the UK (or other European nations) who are still taking net zero targets seriously. I must confess, that funding increased military spending out of the mouths of the world’s poorest is not a sustainable option.

So, is there anything in this worth considering?

Well innovation has made an impact already. Back in 1990, the baseline for carbon emissions, few would have heard of condensing boilers or their impact. Ten years later, low temperature heating systems were something few considered. By 2010, how many readers of this blog would have advocated smart connected hot water cylinders, working with a range of heating appliances, as a means to reduce carbon?

Perhaps innovation is the answer. In which case, shouldn’t we get serious about it?