Who really runs the United Kingdom

Chapter 1

Section 1.3 – From Cameron to Net Zero: Ratchet Politics in Action

The passage of the Climate Change Act in 2008 should have sparked debate in the years that followed. The financial crash had exposed deep fragility in Britain’s economy, the decline of heavy industry was accelerating, and households were already facing higher energy costs. A sovereign Parliament, conscious of its duty to balance prosperity and sustainability, might have reassessed the commitments it had just made. But that never happened. Instead, successive governments discovered that the Act contained a built-in ratchet mechanism: once the first carbon budgets were set, each subsequent one had to be more ambitious. Every government, regardless of party, found itself locked into a spiral of ever-stricter targets.

This section explores how the coalition government of 2010, David Cameron’s green rebranding, Theresa May’s Net Zero amendment, and the early 2020s crises consolidated the straitjacket. It shows how the logic of ratchet politics, once embedded in law,made reversal almost impossible.

The Coalition Years: Cameron and Clegg’s “Greenest Government Ever”

In May 2010, Britain entered its first coalition government since the Second World War. The Conservatives, under David Cameron, formed a government with the Liberal Democrats, led by Nick Clegg. Many expected the coalition to moderate the radicalism of the Climate Change Act. After all, the country was facing an unprecedented fiscal crisis, with the Treasury preparing an austerity programme of spending cuts. Surely, it was assumed, climate policy would be a casualty of the economic squeeze.

The opposite occurred. Cameron and Clegg declared their intention to lead the “greenest government ever.” The Liberal Democrats, with Chris Huhne and later Ed Davey in the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), drove forward renewable subsidies with even greater zeal than Labour. Offshore wind auctions expanded, feed-in tariffs for rooftop solar were introduced, and the Green Deal was launched to retrofit homes with energy efficiency measures.

Cameron himself embraced the symbolism. He famously ordered a small wind turbine to be placed on his house in Kensington, while posing with huskies on a trip to the Arctic. These gestures mattered. They signalled that climate politics was no longer confined to Labour and the left. The Conservative Party had internalised the logic of the Climate Change Act.

Yet behind the slogans, contradictions abounded. Austerity was imposed on public services, local authorities, and welfare recipients. Yet billions were funnelled into subsidies for wind farms, solar panels, and biomass plants. Ordinary citizens were told “there is no money” for libraries, policing, or social care, but their energy bills quietly rose to pay for renewable expansion. The political symbolism of being a climate leader outweighed the practical needs of the public.

The EU Dimension

Britain’s commitments were further locked in by the European Union. The 2009 EU Renewable Energy Directive required the UK to source 15% of its total energy from renewables by 2020 , a legally binding target. Meeting this obligation required an acceleration of offshore wind and, controversially, large-scale biomass burning at plants like Drax in North Yorkshire.

The absurdity of the biomass policy illustrates the distortions of the ratchet system. Millions of tonnes of wood pellets were imported from American forests, shipped across the Atlantic, and burned in UK power stations. This was classified as “carbon neutral” because international accounting rules did not count emissions at the point of combustion. Yet scientists repeatedly warned that the real-world emissions from harvesting, drying, transporting, and burning biomass were often greater than those of coal. Still, the CCC endorsed the policy, and ministers complied, because the system demanded targets be met on paper, whatever the underlying reality.

This illustrates a broader point: once carbon budgets and EU targets were accepted, form triumphed over substance. Policymakers became obsessed with accounting tricks, classifications, and statistical definitions, rather than genuine reductions. Sovereignty was doubly eroded , by Westminster’s self-binding Act and by Brussels’ directives.


From “Green Crap” to Net Zero

Cameron’s flirtation with greenery was not without turbulence. By 2013, rising energy bills and the unpopularity of the Green Deal made him privately dismiss environmental levies as “green crap.” Yet this did not result in structural change. The rhetoric shifted, but the machinery of the Climate Change Act rolled on. The ratchet effect meant that even if ministers wanted to soften targets, they could not without tearing up the entire Act. A political impossibility.

The Paris Agreement of 2015 added another layer. Cameron’s government committed Britain to “pursue efforts” to limit global warming to 1.5°C, a pledge that had no clear engineering or economic path but became an international legal and moral benchmark. Once again, climate commitments were multiplied without public consent.

The Brexit referendum of 2016

briefly raised hopes that leaving the EU might restore sovereignty over energy and climate policy. Some Leave campaigners argued that Brussels’ renewable directives had distorted Britain’s energy mix. But the reality was sobering: Britain’s real constraints came not from Brussels but from its own Climate Change Act. Even outside the EU, the carbon budgets remained binding. In fact, Brexit became an excuse for greater ambition, as ministers boasted that Britain could be “even more of a climate leader” on its own.

The culmination came in 2019, when Theresa May. A prime minister on the brink of resignation, used a statutory instrument to amend the 2008 Act to commit Britain to Net Zero emissions by 2050. There was no referendum, no general election fought on the issue, and minimal parliamentary debate. The CCC recommended the change; May signed it into law. The most consequential economic commitment in modern history was enacted by a government in its dying days.

The Ratchet in Action

The Net Zero amendment illustrated the full force of ratchet politics. Once a system of escalating carbon budgets existed, each government was compelled to outdo its predecessors. No minister wanted to be accused of “falling behind.” Targets became the measure of virtue.

Gordon Brown’s Labour government (2008) introduced the original 80% reduction target.

David Cameron’s coalition (2010–15) locked in EU directives and offshore wind expansion.

Theresa May (2019) raised the bar to Net Zero.

Boris Johnson (2020–22) declared Britain would host COP26 and announced a “Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution.”

Rishi Sunak and now Keir Starmer continue the trajectory, with Net Zero embedded in every department’s mandate.


At no stage did the British public endorse this progression. It happened automatically, because the legal framework made reversal unthinkable.


The Social and Economic Fallout

By the early 2020s, the results were visible. Britain faced some of the highest energy costs in Europe, widespread fuel poverty, and industries relocating abroad. Blackout warnings from the National Grid became routine. And yet, ministers insisted Britain was a “world leader” because emissions on paper were falling.

This was statistical sleight of hand. Much of the reduction came not from domestic innovation but from de-industrialisation. Heavy manufacturing was outsourced to Asia, with Britain importing finished goods while exporting emissions. Biomass was counted as green despite its real-world emissions. The system was less about decarbonising Britain than about decarbonising Britain’s spreadsheets.

Meanwhile, the public was never asked whether they wanted to bear the costs. Net Zero was presented as destiny, not choice. When backbench MPs raised concerns, they were told the matter was already decided. Democracy had been replaced by managerial inevitability.


The Pandemic and the “Green Recovery”

The COVID-19 pandemic of 2020–21 offered a chance to reconsider priorities. With the economy contracting, jobs vanishing, and the health system under strain, one might have expected climate policy to take a back seat. Instead, it was rebranded as opportunity. Ministers declared the need for a “green recovery.” Billions were pledged for offshore wind, hydrogen pilots, and electric vehicle subsidies, even as small businesses collapsed and public debt soared.

The Treasury’s Green Book was rewritten to embed carbon valuations into every spending decision. Infrastructure projects were judged not just on economic returns but on their contribution to Net Zero. This meant that traditional investments in roads, housing, or industry could be vetoed if they were deemed insufficiently green. Once again, the ratchet tightened.

The 2020s Crises

By the early 2020s, three overlapping crises converged:

1. Energy insecurity. Britain’s dependence on gas imports, after decades of declining North Sea production, left it exposed to global price shocks. The closure of the Rough storage facility in 2017 meant the UK had only a few days of reserves, compared to months in other European states.


2. Rising costs. Household energy bills soared, driven partly by global prices but also by the cumulative impact of renewable subsidies, grid balancing costs, and carbon levies.


3. Sovereignty erosion. Even after Brexit, Britain remained bound by the Climate Change Act and the Paris Agreement. Domestic debates were irrelevant: the trajectory was fixed.



The invasion of Ukraine in 2022 accelerated the crisis, but it did not cause it. Britain’s vulnerabilities were the result of decades of policy choices, enshrined in law and immune to democratic correction.


Conclusion: A System Beyond Politics

The story of the 2010s and early 2020s is not one of open debate but of ratchet politics in action. Once the Climate Change Act created binding carbon budgets, each government had to be “greener” than the last. The machinery of quangos, NGOs, and international agreements ensured continuity regardless of elections.

Cameron, May, Johnson, and now Starmer are different faces of the same process. Each added new layers of commitment. Each avoided confronting the fundamental question: should Britain subordinate sovereignty, prosperity, and energy security to a single ideological goal?

By 2025, the answer appears to be yes , but it is an answer never given by the people, only by their governors. The Climate Change Act did not simply legislate for emissions cuts. It legislated for the hollowing out of democracy, replacing choice with inevitability.

Endnotes

1. UK Government, Climate Change Act 2008 (2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019.


2. European Union, Renewable Energy Directive 2009/28/EC.


3. Chatham House, Woody Biomass for Power and Heat: Impacts on the Global Climate, 2017.


4. UK Parliament, Hansard, 2013 (David Cameron “green crap” remark).


5. UNFCCC, Paris Agreement, 2015.


6. HM Treasury, The Green Book: Central Government Guidance on Appraisal and Evaluation, 2020 update.


7. National Grid ESO, Future Energy Scenarios, 2021.