The Lead Untangles: The politicisation of net-zero

The consensus on net-zero has crumbled. What now?

Photo by Wouter De Praetere on Unsplash

The Lead Untangles is delivered via email every week by The Lead and focuses on a different complex, divisive issue with each edition. The entirety of The Lead Untangles will always be free for all subscribers.

Net-zero was once a policy almost everyone could agree on. The goal was clear: reduce the UK’s carbon emissions to net-zero by 2050, help tackle climate change and invest in a cleaner, more sustainable economy. It had broad political support, environmental backing, and a growing consensus that the UK could lead by example.

Fast forward to today, and net-zero has become a political football. From Reform UK’s loud anti-green rhetoric to Labour’s ambitious plans for green jobs, the debate is less about climate science and more about culture wars. But how did we get here, and what does it mean for ordinary voters?

How did the UK get to net-zero?

Net-zero officially entered UK law in 2019, under Theresa May’s government, which committed the country to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. This means the total greenhouse gas emissions would be equal to the emissions removed from the atmosphere, to limit global warming and climate change.

But the journey started earlier: carbon budgets were first introduced under the Climate Change Act 2008, and initiatives like renewable energy incentives, solar panel rollouts, and offshore wind investment laid the groundwork.

Early proponents came from across the political spectrum. Conservatives saw net-zero as a way to drive innovation and maintain the UK’s international credibility, while Labour and the Lib Dems framed it around job creation and social responsibility. By the late 2010s, targets on emissions reduction, renewable energy deployment, and energy efficiency measures were widely accepted, creating a rare moment of cross-party agreement.

So what happened?

The consensus began to fray as net-zero became tied to immediate costs for households and voters. Energy bills have risen sharply in recent years, and critics have linked these increases to the green transition. Concerns over job losses in traditional industries such as steel, automotive, and manufacturing have given climate-sceptics, and lobbyists a political opening. Businesses have complained that net-zero policies drive up costs, create regulatory uncertainty, and threaten the competitiveness of UK industries. This has given politicians an opening to present it as a social justice issue: while those on the left present it essential to climate fairness and lowering bills in the long term, those on the right frame it as an elite consensus that will disproportionately harm workers.

At the same time, frustrations over international cooperation have added fuel to the fire. Many voters ask: why should the UK shoulder the costs of net-zero if major emitters like the US, China, and India aren’t pulling their weight? These concerns feed into wider political talking points, questions about Britain’s global obligations, whether domestic regulations are hampering economic freedom, and whether the pursuit of climate goals is being framed as part of a “woke” agenda.

The Conservative leader, Kemi Badenoch, had previously called net-zero by 2050 “impossible” and recently pledged to scrap the UK’s climate change legislation and replace it with a strategy for “cheap and reliable” energy. The deputy leader of Reform UK, Richard Tice has also said his party would scrap “net stupid zero” policies that he claimed was destroying jobs in industrial heartlands.

Reform UK net zero assault risks 13,000 jobs and £1bn for Lancashire

That said, public support for net-zero remains pretty high. A YouGov poll earlier this year found that 61 per cent of people either strongly supported or somewhat supported the government’s commitment to cut carbon emissions to net-zero by 2050, while 24 per cent said they were opposed and 15 per cent said they didn’t know.

What does this government think?

This government has leaned into net-zero as both a climate and economic agenda. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband recently announced bold plans to create 400,000 green jobs by 2030 across solar, wind, and nuclear sectors, while ensuring training for trades like plumbing, electrical work, and carpentry. The goal is to build a clean energy workforce without leaving traditional industries behind. In the government’s manifesto, it also promised to create a new publicly-owned company, Great British Energy, that will be owned by the British people and deliver clean power.

But Labour’s approach isn’t without controversy. Some union leaders worry that poorly managed policies could alienate working-class voters concerned about jobs and the cost of living — giving more fodder to the right. Meanwhile, internal debates continue: Energy Secretary Ed Miliband pushes for ambitious green targets, while Chancellor Rachel Reeves prioritises aggressive economic growth. Rumours of spats between the Treasury and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, particularly over projects like Heathrow expansion, have highlighted this tension. Ultimately, the government remains committed, but green industry leaders and experts stress that clear political messaging and bringing voters and businesses along with the transition will be crucial.

It’s important to note that trade unions are not monolithic on net-zero. Some, like the GMB and Prospect, express caution: they worry green policies could harm workers in traditional sectors if retraining and protections aren’t strong enough. Others, including the TUC, support Labour’s green jobs.

So… will my bills go up?

One of the most persistent myths about net-zero is that it will break the bank. Critics argue that transitioning to renewables will push household energy bills higher, as energy companies pass on the cost of greening infrastructure. In reality, the situation is more complex. Rising energy costs are largely driven by global oil and gas prices, especially after the UK’s heavy reliance on Russian gas was exposed by the invasion of Ukraine, not by the net-zero transition itself.

Meanwhile, renewable technologies are becoming cheaper as the technology advances, and long-term investment in wind, solar, and nuclear energy is expected to stabilise costs. There will be upfront costs as the government invests in infrastructure, but over time, net-zero promises greater energy security, price stability, and lower overall costs.

The issue is that in the short term, the investment needed to overhaul Britain’s ageing energy system — amid high interest rates and supply chain pressures — can make renewables appear costlier than gas, driving up prices before the long-term savings kick in. For a government facing short election cycles and Reform UK snapping at its heels, those optics are politically toxic. Earlier this week, it was reported that the prime minister may be planning to quietly scale back or delay key green targets in an effort to keep energy bills down.

Long-term, the tricky part is public perception. Even if net-zero policies prevent further bill spikes, voters are already struggling with the high cost of energy bills, so they may not feel a benefit. Polling by More in Common found that 60 per cent of Britons don’t believe that energy bills will ever become affordable again, and only a quarter believe the government has a plan to bring them down.

Ultimately, net-zero has become a convenient punching bag amid soaring energy bills and the rising cost of living. But it’s more than an environmental or economic policy now; it has become part of the culture wars, straddling debates about fairness, competitiveness, and Britain’s role on the world stage. Labour’s challenge will be delivering the benefits while minimising the burdens and persuading voters that the transition is worth it in the end.

What people are saying

Ed Miliband, Energy Secretary: “We are absolutely up for this fight. The British people do want climate action, they want to see it done in a way that is good for energy security, lower bills and good jobs and that’s exactly what we’re doing.”

Nigel Farage, Reform UK Leader: “As our industries continue to close down and workers are scarified at the altar of green policies, only Reform are here to tell the truth about why. Net Zero is deindustrialising Britain.”

Dieter Helm, Professor of Economic Policy at the University of Oxford: “The reality is that net zero by 2030 is expensive and that by dashing flat-out towards it, the result will be even higher costs. The price is not coming down; it is going up.”

Gary Smith, GMB General Secretary: “At the moment, the transition feels like something being done to workers – that can’t continue. People need to see real jobs created where they live, and their local economy boosted, or we’re going to see more and more tempted by the siren calls of those who deny the reality of climate change.”

Mike Clancy, Prospect General Secretary: “The government have raised the ambition on energy policy, which is welcome, now they need to be bigger and bolder when it comes to energy jobs and put energy workers at the heart of this agenda.”

Former Prime Minister, Theresa May: “This country led the world in innovation during the Industrial Revolution, and now we must lead the world to a cleaner, greener form of growth. Standing by is not an option. Reaching net zero by 2050 is an ambitious target but it is crucial that we achieve it to ensure we protect our planet for future generations.

About The Lead Untangles: In an era where misinformation is actively and deliberately used by elected politicians and where advocates and opposers of beliefs state their point of view as fact, sometimes the most useful tool reporters have is to help readers make sense of the world.