Scrap the term ‘net zero’ — it’s too toxic, net zero committee urges

`;
document.body.appendChild(modal);

modal.addEventListener(‘click’, () => {
document.cookie=”mos-plan-select=; Max-Age=0; path=/; expires=Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 UTC;”;
});

modal.querySelector(‘.subscribe-link’)?.addEventListener(‘click’, (e) => {
e.preventDefault();
document.cookie=”mos-plan-select=; Max-Age=0; path=/; expires=Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 UTC;”;
setTimeout(() => {
window.location.href=”https://www.independent.co.uk/subscribe/app”;
}, 500);
});
});

The term “net zero” should be scrapped because it has “become a lightning rod for opposition to climate action”, the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee has recommended.

The influential committee of MPs argued that the term has become toxic among the public, warning that the “political consensus” in the UK around tackling climate change had “broken down” and that cost of living pressures in Britain had led to a “scapegoating of the transition” to net zero.

Calling for a major rebranding of the effort to tackle climate change, the committee said the term “net zero” had “lost much of its significant positive association”.

Instead, they argued it has become a distraction, saying it should be removed from the name of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) as well as from its “key communications”.

Reform UK has repeatedly used the phrase “net stupid zero” as part of an attempt to attack environmental policies, which the party says are driving up prices for consumers and costing jobs and growth.

The Conservatives, meanwhile, have dialled back their support for climate policies. The party previously led the way by introducing a legally binding target for the UK to hit net zero by 2050, but under Kemi Badenoch the party has announced it no longer supports the mission.

The report said: “For decades the UK has been on a journey reducing its carbon emissions and it has also made significant international commitments to address the threat of climate change.

“The political consensus that enabled the UK to be a world leader in tackling climate change and transitioning to clean energy has broken down. It broke because a gas price shock and the acute cost of living pressures contributed to a shift of sentiment and scapegoating of the transition rather than the fossil fuel dependence that had caused the crisis…

“The term net zero has become a distraction from the broader aims and the benefits of the energy transition and the politics of the energy transition have become mired in a stale debate on the cost and feasibility of achieving an emissions target.

“The public debate fails to reflect the wider benefits of engaging with the transition or the costs of not tackling climate change. Continued delivery of the UK’s targets for the energy transition will need more substantive communications of the need for change and the benefits will need to be more directly experienced by those being asked to change”.

The report adds: “The term net zero has lost much of its significant positive association. It increasingly acts as a distraction from the broader aims of the energy transition and as a lightning rod for opposition to climate action. As part of efforts to communicate the energy transition effectively, the term net zero should be dropped from the Department’s name and its key communications.”

Graeme Downie, a Labour MP who sits on the committee, told The Times: “We need to acknowledge there is no longer a political consensus and that terms such as ‘net zero’ distract from making progress on those priorities that matter most to people.

“Energy policy for a low-carbon economy needs to be pragmatic and focused on people and communities, bringing down costs to consumers and businesses in the short and long term, creating jobs and supporting innovation.”

The committee’s recommendations come despite the UK having been the first major economy to commit itself to the net zero target.

Asked about the recommendations, energy and net zero minister Martin McCluskey said he did not agree with that characterisation, and insisted that the energy transition was also important for weaning Britain off foreign fossil fuels.

Mr McCluskey told Times Radio: “It’s not just about tackling climate change, which is really important, and we need to carry on doing that. But it’s also about making our whole energy system more secure and making sure that our national security is protected as well.

“Maybe there’s a job for us, and I’ll take this on the chin. Maybe there’s a job for us to be doing much better at communicating that and that’s what we’re hoping to do with some of the announcements, like the one we’ve made this morning.”