Abandoning Net Zero

On 2nd October Kemi Badenoch announced that the Conservative Party would drop the UK’s Net Zero target if it came into office. An article from Energy Live quoted her saying that her party wants “to leave a cleaner environment for our children, but not by bankrupting the country. Climate change is real. But Labour’s laws tied us in red tape, loaded us with costs, and did nothing to cut global emissions. Previous Conservative governments tried to make Labour’s climate laws work – they don’t. Under my leadership we will scrap those failed targets. Our priority now is growth, cheaper energy, and protecting the natural landscapes we all love.” She now regards the 2050 net zero target as impossible and wishes to “maximise” oil and gas extraction from the North Sea. (Energy Live, 2025). The article comments that her position ‘rips up more than 15 years of cross-party consensus’. It notes that the Climate Change Act was passed in 2008 under Gordon Brown’s Labour government when Ed Miliband was energy secretary, and that it ‘committed the UK to cutting emissions by 80% by 2050. In 2019 Theresa May toughened the target to net zero by 2050, making Britain the first country to enshrine such a goal in law.’

An article published by the Grantham Institute on 8th October comments on a series of claims made by Kemi Badenoch which it regards as false (LSE, 2025). On the question of finance, the author refers to recent figures from the Office for Budget Responsibility which predict that “by 2055 the total savings from net zero would be larger than the total costs”. While Ms Badenoch did not deny climate change “she failed to acknowledge the growing impacts that climate change is having on the UK.” The article refers to the Treasury’s Interim Report of its ‘Net Zero Review’ published in 2020, which stated that “Climate change is an existential threat to humanity” and notes that Ms Badenoch, who had previously supported measures such as the ‘The ten point plan for a green industrial revolution’ (2020) “now promotes the myth that other countries are not cutting their emissions”. However, data compiled by the European Commission shows that in the period from 1990 to 2025, while the UK cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 50.3%, those of France fell by 28.8%, Germany’s by 45.4%, Italy’s by 26.5%, and Japan’s by 17.9%. (EC, 2025). Some of Ms Badenoch’s remarks have been interpreted to mean that she thinks the UK’s efforts to cut its GHG emissions are pointless, as it contributes less than 1% of total global emissions. The Grantham article points out that “it is unlikely that threatening to weaken action would persuade other countries to increase their efforts.” It replies to several other points made by Ms Badenoch, concluding that “it is extremely disappointing that the Leader of the Conservatives relies on so many false claims in making the case for abandoning climate change policy.”

Sam Fankhauser, writing in The Conversation, reviews the progress of the Climate Change Act through a series of five-year carbon budgets monitored by “a powerful independent body, the Climate Change Committee” which for much of its existence has been chaired by an “environmentally-minded Tory, Lord Deben (John Gummer)”. Fankhauser considers that the Climate Change Act has been effective and claims that “the UK model has been emulated around the world”. Data from Climate Change Laws of the World indicates that nearly sixty countries have adopted domestic climate framework laws (Averchenkova et al., 2024). The International Climate Councils Network (ICCN), launched in 2021, now has more than twenty members (ICCN, 2025). Fankhauser clearly regards the Climate Change Act as having influence far beyond the UK, concluding that undoing the act “would signal that the UK no longer values the long-term stability that has driven clean investment and made its climate policy admired around the world.” (Fankhauser, 2025).

Carbon Brief published an article in early October in response to Ms Badenoch’s views, seeking to correct “inaccurate comments” from the “UK’s political right” (Carbon Brief, 2025a). The authors outline the background to the UK’s Climate Change Act, its proposals for action, the anticipated costs and benefits, the international actions it may have inspired, its future, and the likely consequences of its repeal. They make it clear that the Act initially enjoyed cross-party support, and that the net-zero target is in line with the policy of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The section on costs and benefits stresses the conclusion of sources including the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) that “that it would be cheaper to cut emissions than to face the consequences of inaction.” In 2006 the Stern Review estimated that the cost of action could be limited to about 1% of GDP, far less than the cost of inaction, which could exceed 5% of GDP. “Since then, estimates of the cost of cutting emissions have fallen, as the decline in low-carbon technology costs has outperformed expectations. At the same time, estimates of the economic losses due to rising temperatures have tended to keep going up.” A recent estimate from the Climate Change Committee put the “net cost of reaching net-zero at £116bn over 25 years – roughly £70 per person per year – or just 0.2% of GDP.” In contrast the OBR estimated in July 2025 that “the UK could take an 8% hit to its economy by the early 2070s, if the world warms by 3C.”

Measuring the influence of policy decisions is not easy, but the number of countries that have “passed comprehensive climate laws since 2008” is put at sixty-nine, and some are said to have been directly inspired by the UK. Carbon Brief claims that three quarters of global emissions are now covered by national net-zero targets, and that around “a third of global emissions come from countries that are each responsible for 1% of global emissions or less.”

The future of the Climate Change Act is placed in the context of the UK’s series of five-year carbon budgets, and of legislation, such as the commitment made in 2021 by a Conservative government to cut emissions to 78% below 1990 levels during the sixth carbon budget period, running from 2033 to 2037. (The UK is currently in the period covered by the fourth carbon budget, covering 2023-2027). In September an inquiry was launched “exploring the Government’s long-term plans to decarbonise the UK economy on the path to net zero by 2050” (EAC, 2025). The UK Government is due to publish its revised delivery plan for the Sixth Carbon Budget by the end of October. The Environmental Audit Committee is to consider the measures needed to achieve the Seventh Carbon Budget, and how its costs will affect households and businesses. The Climate Change Committee has already published its latest advice on this budget, “detailing how much emissions need to reduce by and how this can be supported by technology, behaviour change and a growing economy.”

Repeal of the Climate Change Act would require a new bill in parliament, and approval from both Houses. “Within the make-up of the current UK parliament, it is likely that such a bill would face significant challenges.”  New climate commitments would be needed for the UK to comply with existing international laws and treaties, such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. “Repealing the Climate Change Act could also put the UK in opposition with its international trade agreements” some of which contain rules on climate protection. The article also refers to the recent “advisory opinion” from the UN which states that nations can be held legally accountable for their greenhouse-gas emissions (Carbon Brief, 2025b). The highest court of the UN, the International Court of Justice, concluded that “reparations” might be due to “those harmed by human-caused climate change”.

References

 

Averchenkova, A., et al., 2024, Impacts of climate framework laws, LSE, online, accessed 24 October 2025

https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/129305/1/Impacts-of-climate-framework-laws.pdf

Carbon Brief, 2025a, Factcheck: What the Climate Change Act does – and does not – mean for the UK, 7 October 2025, online, accessed 24 October 2025

https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-the-climate-change-act-does-and-does-not-mean-for-the-uk/

Carbon Brief, 2025b, ICJ: What the world court’s landmark opinion means for climate change, 25 July 2025, online, accessed 24 October 2025

https://www.carbonbrief.org/icj-what-the-world-courts-landmark-opinion-means-for-climate-change/

EAC, 2025, The journey to net zero: How will it affect household budgets into the 2040s? MPs launch new inquiry, Environmental Audit Committee, 23 Sept. 2025, online, accessed 27 October 2025 https://committees.parliament.uk/work/9361/the-seventh-carbon-budget/news/209377/the-journey-to-net-zero-how-will-it-affect-household-budgets-into-the-2040s-mps-launch-new-inquiry/

EC, 2025, GHG emissions of all world countries, European Commission, online, accessed 27 October 2025

https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2025#emissions_table

Energy Live, 2025, Tories will scrap Climate Change Act, Energy Live News, 2 Oct. 2025, online, accessed 27 October 2025

https://www.energylivenews.com/2025/10/02/tories-will-scrap-climate-change-act/

Fankhauser, 2025, Expert Comment: Conservative plan to scrap net zero target puts UK climate leadership at risk, The Conversation, 7 October 2025, online, accessed 27 October 2025

https://theconversation.com/tory-plan-to-scrap-net-zero-target-puts-uk-climate-leadership-at-risk-266853

ICCN, 2025, International Climate Councils Network, online, accessed 24 October 2025

https://www.climatecouncils.org/members/

LSE, 2025, Badenoch makes false claims in attack on Climate Change Act, 8 Oct. 2025, online, accessed 27 October 2025

https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/badenoch-makes-false-claims-in-attack-on-climate-change-act/

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Directed technology and the environment

The subject of the previous post was Daniel Susskind’s book Growth : A Reckoning . Its author outlined measures that he believed could enable continued economic growth that did far less harm to society and the environment than has previously been the case. An important factor in this kind of growth would be steering technological progress in desirable directions through measures such as economic incentives. Susskind treats this idea broadly, but a more detailed exploration is found in the paper Environmental Policies and directed technological change by Gugler, Szücs and Wiedenhofer (2024). The authors examine how different environmental policies “can steer innovation towards eco-friendly technologies”, and produce numerical estimates of their effectiveness. The policies evaluated are those “designed to address environmental market failures”. Economists have seen climate change as a type of free market failure: a failure to maximise society’s welfare, since greenhouse gas emissions ar...
Read more

Growth and its Tradeoffs

Daniel Susskind’s 2024 book Growth: A Reckoning has received some enthusiastic reviews. Kate Barker described it as “an excellent book, developing a clear argument and not afraid to look really big questions squarely in the eye” (Barker 2024).  Susskind is a professor at King’s College, London, and Robert Bellafiore Jn. wrote that his book “considers the debates over growth’s causes, its recent elevation as a priority for governments, policies for promoting it, and rising concerns about its downsides” describing the work as “a concise and informative study of the idea, its past, and its potential future” (Bellafiore, 2024).  Alexander Bishop wrote at greater length in his article “Why not degrowth?” He noted that for Susskind growth “is a recent development. For most of the world’s history, from when humans started farming until roughly 1800, there was no meaningful growth. This is the period that Susskind calls “the great stagnation”. It is only since the industrial revoluti...
Read more

Dragons and Denial

According to the Emissions Gap Report 2024 from the United Nations Environment Programme the world is on track for a global temperature rise of 2.6-2.8°C this century, and without improved policies “we are heading for a temperature rise of 3.1°C” (Andersen, 2024). Comment on the UNEP report referred to a ‘catastrophic’ rise in temperature , to greenhouse gas emissions which rose last year “by 1.3 percent over 2022 marks” and to the need for a “six-fold increase in mitigation investment” in order to achieve net zero (Musto, 2024). Our failure to take adequate action will be explored in this post using three sources. The first is “ The Dragons of Inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation ” which is mainly concerned with the different types of restraint on individual action (Gifford, 2011). The second is the more recent paper “Understanding and Countering the Motivated Roots of Climate Change Denial” which builds on Gifford’s psychology of ina...
Read more