A climate-shaped hole in our politics
We have to discuss where our energy comes from, not just how much it costs
It’s a sad indictment of British political debate that when people are asked why they are voting for the Green Party or Reform UK – or why they might prefer Andy Burnham to be Prime Minister – they will often reply that “it’s time for a change”.
As well as making the country sound like an infant who has soiled themselves, it empties the supposed “change” of any substance beyond personalities. That’s how you get people saying they are torn between voting for a party lead by Zack Polanski or Nigel Farage, when one wants to tax billionaires and save the climate, and the other wants ICE-style deportations and to “drill, baby, drill”. Both would certainly be a change.
Climate and energy policy are some of the main victims of this shallow political culture. This despite Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran reminding people that the UK’s reliance on oil and gas is a “cost-of-living” issue. The UK is reportedly going to import diesel and jet fuel made from Russian crude oil in third countries, though the government has defended this as a way to “phase in” new sanctions on the Kremlin.
There’s also the little matter of the climate crisis. A report out this week by the independent Climate Change Committee describes the threats to the UK from rising temperatures.
A press release notes: “By 2050, 92 percent of homes are likely to overheat, peak river flows will be up to 45 percent higher and water supply shortfalls could exceed five billion litres per day.” The report offers a list of steps the UK can take to adapt to and mitigate these risks, from installing air conditioners and heat pumps to investing in flood defences.
Of course, one of the best things to do would be to emit less carbon dioxide. As the CCC’s last (June 2025) progress report details, net zero by 2050 is not going to be easy. But it’s far less costly in every sense than runaway climate change – a conclusion endorsed by the Office for Budget Responsibility. As if to underline the point, in March the CCC said the entire cost of net zero would be less than a single Ukraine-style fossil fuel price shock.
Why is such an important subject being ignored? This is partly the fault of Westminster lobby reporters, who cover politics as a cross between sports and celebrity gossip. Despite the many hours of current affairs TV and radio, and not counting the 24-hour news channels and the endless podcasts, the media has still not found time to clear up whether new North Sea extraction would cut people’s bills. (It won’t).
As for the print media, most of it is actively misinforming the public on this question. Much like the basic facts about immigration (down by two thirds since Labour was elected, etc.), there somehow isn’t time or space for all that boring evidence. Better to talk about which party leader (or would-be leader) has the common touch.
The political parties have to take their share of the blame. Zack Polanski’s self-styled “eco-populist” turn in the Green Party has tended to emphasise the “populist” bit over the “eco” one. He has defended this on the grounds that people already know the Greens have good climate policies.
This might be sound electoral strategy, as their by-election and local council wins would suggest, (though I suspect it might also reflect Polanski’s priorities). But it does leave the discussion of climate and energy policy open to other actors.
Into that void has leapt Farage’s Reform, which is offering a straight anti-climate ticket, with the promise to scrap carbon targets and support for renewable energy, and to approve new fossil fuel projects, including a green light for fracking and coal plants.
As DeSmog has reported, Reform has received £24 million from donors with financial interests in fossil fuels since its founding as the Brexit Party in 2019 – two thirds of its income to date.
It’s often overlooked that Reform’s biggest donor, Thailand-based crypto billionaire Christopher Harborne – he of the undisclosed £5 million Farage “gift” now subject to a parliamentary standards probe – makes most of his cash from selling jet fuel via his company AML Global Fuel.
As with mass deportations, Kemi Badenoch’s Conservatives have more or less copy-and-pasted Reform’s climate policy, making themselves politically redundant while robbing the country of a centre-right alternative.
Meanwhile, Labour’s cratering popularity and resulting leadership contest threatens one of the few areas where the government is not hobbled by timidity. Energy secretary Ed Miliband has quietly got on with the energy transition, lifting the ban on onshore wind power, approving a record number of solar farms, and (with a fudge on drilling near existing projects) holding firm on Labour’s ban on North Sea licences. He has also helped frame the government’s response to the Iran war, with his “fossil fuel rollercoaster” line taken up by Starmer.
A leadership contest would be a good opportunity to build this into a wider programme for using state power to improve working people’s lives. But a Labour fratricide could also see climate dropped or relegated to appease a party faction or voter profile, or to remove Miliband as a potential rival. With an Energy Independence Bill in the works, this would be a terrible moment to abandon climate policy to “chaos without Ed Miliband”.
For all the talk of politicians being “out of touch”, it’s worth recalling that climate action is overwhelmingly popular, with recent polling by More in Common and IPPR finding that the Right’s jihad against net zero isn’t working. It’s also a potential wedge in Reform’s shaky electoral coalition, and an opportunity to tie them to greedy and polluting fossil fuel corporations and their bomb-happy political friends abroad.
That said, the biggest reason to fill the climate-shaped hole in our politics is that climate change is a scientific fact, and the case for action is based on a mountain of evidence. Call me old-fashioned, but I think people should tell the truth, whether or not it’s politically convenient, in step with the latest opinion polls, or trending online. A bit of truth-telling on this and much else would be a political “change” worth making. ■
About the author: Adam Barnett is UK News Reporter at DeSmog and a freelance journalist. He writes a politics column for the Big Issue and has reported for The Guardian and Private Eye
👫Agree with Adam? Share this story with your friends, family and colleagues to help us reach more people with our independent journalism, always with a focus on people, policy and place.