A useful enemy? Why Tories and Reform are calling net zero policy into question

The Guardian

10 hours ago

Just as Labour forges ahead with net zero policies, the chief energy spokespeople of the UK's two main rightwing opposition parties are openly questioning long-settled climate science, in what seems like a mission to discredit and confuse the whole issue.
It is a development that would have been unthinkable just three years ago, when the four-decade-long cross-party consensus on the climate still held firm. Even up to last year's general election, every mainland party other than Reform UK campaigned on a commitment to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
But now the Conservative leadership has abandoned that target, and Reform – riding high in the opinion polls and celebrating a 30% vote share in the local elections – wants to make it the key battleground, after immigration, for the next general election. How on earth did we get here?
In truth, Reform, which was founded in 2018, has long had climate-sceptic tendencies – despite Nigel Farage's short dalliance with pro-green politics in 2021, when he was paid to promote tree-growing by a carbon credit trading company. The party's doubt about climate science, however, appears to be worsening.
Richard Tice, its energy spokesperson, told the Guardian: 'Scientists do not all have a consensus on this. Some view things slightly differently … Do I think that [the carbon dioxide that humans are putting into the atmosphere] will definitely change the climate? No. There is no evidence that it is.'
This is not in accordance with the views of the vast majority of scientists. Tice suggested that rather than net zero, the answer to climate breakdown would be 'planting trees' and adapting. 'Temperatures were higher 3,000 years ago and humans adapted,' he said.
More surprising is that the Conservatives' Andrew Bowie, the acting shadow energy secretary, who once declared he wanted Scotland to be 'one of the lead nations worldwide in achieving net zero', has taken a similar line.
He told the Guardian that the world's leading authority on climate science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was 'biased' and that the net zero by 2050 target was 'arbitrary and not based on science'.
This claim was rejected by climate scientists, who confirmed that the UK's legally binding target of reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 – put in place by Theresa May – sprang from the best global scientific advice. Emily Shuckburgh, the director of Cambridge Zero, the University of Cambridge's climate initiative, said: 'The 2050 target is not arbitrary but based on what science says is required globally and an assessment by the Climate Change Committee of what is appropriate for the UK to deliver in that context.'
The breakdown of the climate consensus, which began after Boris Johnson left Downing Street in 2022, appears complete. The main difference on the issue now between Reform and the Conservatives is that the former would scrap net zero altogether and the latter may keep it, but for a later date.
Why have both parties turned so decisively away from climate policy? Opinion polls show most people in the UK are concerned about the climate crisis and support policies to tackle it. Reform voters are no different, according to recent polling by More in Common commissioned by the campaign group Global Witness. It found that two-thirds of UK adults are worried about increasing damage from the climate crisis, and 71% of Reform-leaning voters support higher taxes on oil and gas companies.
Luke Tryl, the UK director of More in Common, said net zero was not an important issue to most people who backed Reform. 'It's not what drives them,' he said. 'Seven out of 10 say they vote Reform because of immigration. Where there are concerns on net zero, it's generally over fairness – that those with the broadest shoulders should bear the burden.'
But he is clear that despite widespread media coverage attacking net zero, and despite Reform's good showing in polls, 'any idea that Britain has turned into a nation of net zero sceptics is for the birds'.
So is this positioning for the sake of business? Reform and the Conservatives frequently claim to be supporting business and jobs through their stance, but actually business voices have been clear in their support for net zero. Tania Kumar, the head of net zero policy at the Confederation of British Industry, said: 'Net zero and the new green economy are an economic growth opportunity for the UK. Businesses understand that.'
A different reason was suggested by Nick Mabey, a founder director of E3G, a green thinktank, who suggested that opposing net zero was in line with the small-government, anti-statist approach of some on the right. 'They see it as state-intrusive, it doesn't fit with their deregulation instincts,' he said.
Sign up to Down to Earth
The planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essential
after newsletter promotion
But people tend to like regulation that keeps them and their environment safe – witness the sewage scandal, a clear demonstration of what companies do when lightly regulated. Mabey suggested pursuing deregulation was more in the interest of 'elite' backers of populists than their voters.
Reform's environmental policy is extremely complex. Despite its strong stance against net zero, it does not see itself as anti-environment. It supports an amendment to the planning bill that would require swift bricks in all new houses, blocked by the government, and wants to take sewage out of British rivers, in part by banning foreign investors from owning water companies. Tice speaks enthusiastically of the need to plant more trees, recycle more and adapt to the impacts of the climate crisis, even though he casts doubt on the underlying science.
Net zero seems to be some kind of 'useful enemy', argues Shaun Spiers, the executive director of Green Alliance, a thinktank. 'The cost of living crisis is biting and populist politicians are casting around for something to blame it on,' he said. 'Net zero, which sounds remote and technocratic, is a convenient target. It's replaced the EU as the thing on which all our ills can be blamed, often by the same people.'
And there is good money in it too, he added. 'It's also worth noting that there is serious money behind the assault on net zero: it is not disinterested.' Reform and the Conservatives have prominent donors and supporters with a climate-denying outlook. For instance, Kemi Badenoch and her family recently spent a week as guests of the donor Neil Record, who chairs Net Zero Watch, an offshoot of the UK's main climate sceptic thinktank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
Record also helped fund Badenoch's campaign for Tory leader, giving £10,000. He wrote in the Telegraph that it was 'debatable in detail' whether burning fossil fuels increased carbon dioxide and caused dangerous global heating.
One of the biggest donors to Reform is the shipping magnate Terence Mordaunt, the head of First Corporate Shipping. His personal company, Corporate Consultants, has given hundreds of thousands of pounds to Reform. He was previously chair of the Global Warming Policy Foundation and is now a trustee.
Despite the feelings of Reform voters, Tice is clear: the party will make net zero its second most important battleground, after immigration, and his party appears united on that. But among Tories in parliament there is still a strong green caucus – the Conservative Environment Network (CEN), which still has 50 MPs. Badenoch's review of policy, including net zero, is still ongoing, despite her public attacks on net zero.
Sam Hall, the director of CEN, warned that Badenoch was putting her party on a collision course with not just Labour and the British public but the laws of physics.
'The net zero target is driven not by optimism but by scientific reality: without it, climate change impacts and costs will continue to worsen,' he said. 'Abandon the science and voters will start to doubt the Conservative party's seriousness on the clean energy transition, damaging both growth and the fight against climate change.'