In October 2008, because of a perceived need for Britain to contribute to the decarbonisation of the global economy, Parliament passed the Climate Change Act, requiring the Government to ensure that by 2050 ‘the net UK carbon account’ (CO₂ and ‘other targeted greenhouse gases’) was reduced to a level at least 80% lower than that of 1990. Only five MPs voted against it. Then in 2019, by secondary legislation and without serious debate, Parliament increased the 80% to 100%, creating the Net Zero policy, under which any remaining emissions must be offset by equivalent removals from the atmosphere.ⁱ

Unfortunately, it’s a policy that’s unachievable, potentially disastrous and pointless –irrespective of whether or not Britain’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions influence global temperatures.

1. It’s unachievable

1. A modern industrial economy depends on fossil fuels. Modern industry and infrastructure require fossil fuels or oil derivatives for a vast range of products and materials.ⁱⁱ Examples include: ammonia for fertilisers, cement and concrete, primary steel, plastics, sulphur, ethylene, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, phosphates, anaesthetics, semiconductors, synthetic graphite for electrodes, carbon fibres, lubricants, solvents, paints, resins, adhesives, insulation, tyres and asphalt. Many vehicles and machines – used for example in agriculture, mining and quarrying, mineral processing, building, heavy transport, shipping, aviation, the military and emergency services – cannot operate without fossil fuels. Commercially viable alternatives for essentially all the above have yet to be developed.ⁱⁱⁱ

1.2 Shortage of skills. Britain lacks the necessary technical managers, electrical, heating and other engineers, electricians, plumbers, welders, mechanics and other skilled tradespeople required to meet the 2030 target required for Net Zero; a problem that’s exacerbated by the Government’s house building plans.^iv

2. It’s potentially disastrous

2.1 Wind power limitations. As Britain’s latitude limits solar power, wind is the most practical renewable energy source. However it faces serious constraints e.g.

• the high costs of subsidies, construction, operation and maintenance, especially with high interest rates;

• the complex engineering and planning challenges of expanding a stable high-voltage grid by 2030, ^v

• its vast scale requiring increasingly scarce space, materials and components ^{vi vii};

• intermittency (see 2.2 below).^viii

These difficulties and others described below raise serious doubts about Britain’s ability to generate by 2030 sufficient electricity for today’s needs let alone for EVs, heat pumps, industry and in particular the data centres supporting AI.^ix

2.2 Back-up and storage challenges. The Government aims for 95% renewable electricity by 2030 but has not published a fully costed engineering plan for grid stability when there’s little or no wind or sun; a problem exacerbated by the expected retirement of elderly nuclear and gas power plants. Proposed solutions – new gas-fired plants with carbon capture and underground storage (CCS)^x, ‘green’ hydrogen and batteries – face long lead times, high costs and unproven commercial viability.^{xi xii} Battery storage is limited by short duration, degradation, safety risks and high cost.^xiii Yet, without reliable back-up, electricity blackouts are likely, bringing major problems for business and serious health risks for everyone, particularly the most vulnerable. The blackout in Spain on 28^th April 2025 (probably the result of lack of ‘grid inertia’^xiv) caused at least 8 deaths ^xv; and probably many more over the whole period affected by the outage. A winter blackout in Britain could be far worse.

2.3 Overall cost. As there’s no comprehensive delivery plan, it’s impossible to produce an accurate estimate of the project’s overall cost. However estimates indicate a likely cost of several trillion pounds.^xvi The borrowing and taxes required to fund this would put a huge additional burden on households and businesses and, particularly in view of the economy’s many current problems^xvii, would further stress Britain’s already fragile economy.

2.4 High energy prices. Renewable system costs – including subsidies, carbon taxes, grid balancing, grid expansion, constraint payments, storage and back-up – have contributed to Britain having the highest industrial and amongst the highest domestic electricity prices in the developed world.^xviii The additional costs of for example investment in ‘green’ hydrogen and CCS will make this even worse, exacerbating the on-going destruction of our industrial base and undermining the Government’s key mission of increased economic growth. 

2.5 Dangerous dependence on foreign suppliers. Policies restricting North Sea oil and gas increase uncertain reliance on imports of oil and gas and of European electricity. More critically however Britain’s dependence on China’s goodwill, exemplified by the latter’s effective control of the supply of key materials (e.g. lithium, cobalt, graphite, nickel, copper and so-called rare earths), poses strategic risks including potential Chinese control of supply chains and embedded vulnerabilities such as ‘kill switches’; this dependence poses a major risk to Britain’s economic and overall national security.^xix

2.6 Infrastructure vulnerability. Britain’s growing number of offshore wind turbines and undersea cables are becoming increasingly vulnerable to sabotage.^xx Likewise an expanding and complex grid infrastructure offers an obvious target for hostile hackers aiming to destroy our energy and economic security.^xxi

2.7 Environmental and social problems. Renewable energy expansion is mineral-intensive: the vast mining and mineral processing operations are causing severe environmental damage and human suffering throughout the world, often affecting fragile ecosystems and the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people.^xxii Note also that renewables’ increasing demand for key minerals for which demand exceeds likely supply may well threaten their future viability.^xxiii

3. It’s pointless

3.1 ‘Exporting’ emissions is senseless. Closing GHG emitting activities in Britain in pursuit of Net Zero and then importing the relevant products from countries that have weaker environmental regulation and often use coal-fired electricity – thereby increasing global emissions – makes no sense. It means also that key industries, for example chemicals, fertiliser, ceramics, glass and primary steel, face extinction.^{xxiv xxv} Likewise, importing products and materials (see 1.1 above), for example solar panels and other products manufactured using fossil fuels, contributes to the increase in global emissions. A related problem is the vast amount of wood imported for the subsidised Drax power plant: burning wood emits more CO₂ than coal ^xxvi.

3.2 Britain’s contribution is insignificant. The USA ^xxvii plus most non-Western countries – together the source of over 80% of global GHG emissions – don’t regard emission reduction as a priority and, either exempt (by international agreement) from or ignoring any obligation to reduce their emissions, are focused instead on economic and social development, poverty eradication and energy security.^xxviii As a result, global emissions are increasing (by 66% since 1990) and are set to continue to increase for the foreseeable future. As Britain’s domestic emissions are only about 0.7% of global emissions, further reductions would make no discernible difference.^xxix

Summary: Net Zero means Britain is legally obliged to pursue an unachievable, disastrous and pointless policy – a policy that imperils our national security and could result in Britain’s economic devastation.

NOTE: Nothing above addresses the ‘Net’ in Net Zero because offsetting residual emissions via GHG removal is highly controversial and uncertain. In particular it would require comprehensive international agreement about for example environmental risk, possible leakage, national transparency and third party verification – an outcome that evidence from international climate negotiation suggests is extremely unlikely to happen.^xxx

Endnotes

i http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/27/part/1/crossheading/the-target-for-2050

ii See Vaclav Smil’s important book, How the World Really Works: http://tiny.cc/xli9001 Also see this: http://tiny.cc/5no0101 and this: https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/In_a_barrel_of_oil

iii Regarding steel for example see the penultimate paragraph of this interesting article: https://www.construction-physics.com/p/the-blast-furnace-800-years-of-technology.

iv A detailed Government report: http://tiny.cc/bgg5001 See also pages 10 and 11 of the Royal Academy of Engineering report (Note 10 below). Also see: http://tiny.cc/0mm9001

v https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/02/09/orgem-net-zero-backlog-risks-grid-target/

vi See Andrews & Jelley, “Energy Science”, 3rd ed., Oxford, page 16: http://tiny.cc/4jhezz

vii See paragraph 2.5 above. Also: https://energydigital.com/sustainability/mckinsey-2030-battery-raw-material-outlook

viii For a comprehensive view of wind power’s many problems, see this: https://watt-logic.com/2023/06/14/wind-farm-costs/.

ix Re the AI dilemma: http://tiny.cc/axxy001 and http://tiny.cc/ikty001

x See this report by the Royal Academy of Engineering: http://tiny.cc/qlm9001 (Go to section 2.4.3 on page 22.) This interesting report contains a lot of valuable information.

xi https://watt-logic.com/2025/12/30/offshore-pipeline-closure-risk/

xii Re CCS: http://tiny.cc/emi9001, and https://heimildin.is/grein/24581/. Re hydrogen: https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2024-2-14-when-you-crunch-the-numbers-green-hydrogen-is-a-non-starter.

xiii Why batteries are not the solution: https://nenpower.com/blog/what-are-the-main-challenges-in-integrating-battery-energy-storage-with-renewable-energy/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

xiv An energy specialist reviews the facts and risks here: https://watt-logic.com/2025/05/09/the-iberian-blackout-shows-the-dangers-of-operating-power-grids-with-low-inertia/

xv See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Iberian_Peninsula_blackout.

xvi A report published by the Institute of Economic Affairs says that net zero could cost at least £7.6 trillion between now and 2050: https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Cost-of-Net-Zero-Turver-1.pdf And in this presentation Professor Michael Kelly also indicates how the cost would amount to several trillion pounds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkImqOxMqvU And re continuing uncertainty: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/02/17/miliband-miss-net-zero-targets-unless-spends-extra-75bn/

xvii A worrying view of the current state of Britain’s economy: http://tiny.cc/nli9001

xviii For a comprehensive view go here: https://iea.org.uk/were-number-one-in-unaffordable-electricity/ Then follow the links to Government Tables 5.7.1, 5.3.1, 5.9.1 and 5.5.1. Note that the UK’s industrial electricity price is well above that of our international competition. And note that our domestic electricity prices are also exceptionally high. Also see these useful reports https://watt-logic.com/2025/05/19/new-report-the-true-affordability-of-net-zero/ and http://tiny.cc/n7j0101

xix See http://tiny.cc/0gvj001. An article by Richard Dearlove (ex-head of the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6)) on national security risk and net zero: http://tiny.cc/wbev001/. Re ‘kill switches’: http://tiny.cc/vgvj001.

xx Re vulnerability concerns: http://tiny.cc/9ruf001 and http://tiny.cc/xau9001. This essay by Dieter Helm (Professor of Economic Policy at Oxford) covers vulnerability and much else: http://tiny.cc/dtyf001

xxi Re hacker risk to the electric grid: https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/power-at-risk-uk-energy-grid-cyberattack-threat-rpWxY_2/

xxii See http://tiny.cc/gtazzz, http://tiny.cc/unx8001 and https://eia.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/EIA_US_Wind_Turbine_Timber_Report_1024_FINAL.pdf. And harrowing evidence is found in Siddharth Kara’s book Cobalt Red : http://tiny.cc/nmm9001. For more detailed views of minerals’ environmental and economic costs: http://tiny.cc/klz9001 , http://tiny.cc/swd1101 and http://tiny.cc/qj0u001

xxiii A problem that’s reviewed here: http://tiny.cc/6dzq001

xxiv As explained here: http://tiny.cc/chg5001

xxv A current example: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c70zxjldqnxo

xxvi See this: https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/drax-is-still-the-uks-largest-emitter/. And this Public Accounts Committee report: http://tiny.cc/qpwh001 And note the irony of castigating ourselves for not planting enough trees in Britain: https://www.itv.com/news/2026-01-07/uk-risks-missing-climate-targets-without-rapid-tree-planting

xxvii Note: The fact that Trump is abandoning plans for renewables is not really such a huge change for the US as, despite his climate policies, the oil and gas industries flourished under Biden: http://tiny.cc/2ww1001

xxviii This essay explains how over the past 30 years non Western countries have taken control of international climate negotiations: https://cliscep.com/2025/12/08/the-west-vs-the-rest/

xxix This comprehensive EU analysis provides detailed information by country re global greenhouse gas (GHG) and CO₂ emissions: https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2025

xxx This report sets out many of the issues: https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-112823-064813 – and, re the difficulties and uncertainties of international climate negotiation, see endnote xxviii above.