If you listen to ministers, Britain is in a race against time to “save the planet”. Every policy announcement, every planning override, every electricity bill surcharge is justified in the name of climate emergency. And yet, when one examines the actual numbers, the story collapses into something far closer to national self-harm than global salvation.
Start with the climate itself. The Met Office confirms that the UK’s provisional mean temperature for 2025 was 10.09°C, around 0.3°C higher than 2024, in a year that was also the sunniest since records began in 1910.[1] Such year-to-year variation is not remotely unusual in a maritime climate and tells us little about long-term trends. Yet this modest fluctuation was immediately presented as “clear evidence of climate change” and amplified in media headlines as “the hottest year” or “balmy Britain”. Ten degrees Celsius, in reality, remains a cool temperate average by any normal human standard.[2]
The deeper problem is not whether the climate changes , it always has, but whether the policies now being imposed can plausibly influence it. According to the UK government’s own figures, the UK accounts for roughly 0.7% of global CO₂ emissions.[3] Of that, households are responsible for about 26% of the UK total.[4] Simple arithmetic leads to an uncomfortable conclusion: even if British households reduced their emissions to absolute zero , no heating, no travel, no electricity, no food imports , the effect on global emissions would be around 0.18%. That is not “hard to measure”. It is mathematically invisible in the global data.
This is the core dishonesty at the heart of the Net Zero project: the British public is being told to accept sweeping reductions in living standards, vast landscape industrialisation and enormous costs in exchange for a climatic impact that is, in physical terms, negligible.
The political origin of this policy is not hard to trace. In December 2015, the Paris COP21 summit produced a legally binding agreement committing signatories to hold global temperature rises to “well below 2°C” and to “pursue efforts” to limit warming to 1.5°C.[5] It was a diplomatic triumph and a practical fantasy. At the time, and still today, the majority of global emissions come from a handful of countries: China, the United States, India and Russia.[6] Many of the 195 signatories could happily sign because their emissions were either tiny or already in long-term decline.
The UK went further than almost any other country. In 2019, Parliament amended the Climate Change Act to make Net Zero by 2050 a legal requirement, making Britain the first major economy to bind itself in law to eliminate its net carbon emissions.[7] This was done with remarkably little public debate and almost no serious discussion of deliverability, cost, or system risk.
Since then, policy has acquired an almost theological quality. What began as a long-term aspiration has been transformed into what ministers now call “the race to Net Zero”, despite the awkward fact that almost no other major economy is running at anything like the same pace or in the same direction. The Labour Party’s 2024 manifesto went further still, pledging to make Britain a “clean energy superpower by 2030”, a target so close and so vast in scope that even the National Grid’s own system planners quietly admit it cannot be delivered.[8]
The economic consequences are no longer speculative. The Office for Budget Responsibility has warned repeatedly that Net Zero implies hundreds of billions of pounds of additional public and private investment, much of it loaded onto household energy bills or general taxation.[9] The Climate Change Committee itself estimates that the transition will require investment on a scale of around £50 billion per year for decades.[10] None of this includes the full cost of grid reinforcement, system balancing, backup generation, or curtailment payments.
Those hidden costs are already exploding. In 2023 alone, constraint and balancing costs , payments to wind farms and others to switch off because the grid cannot use their power , reached around £1.4 billion.[11] That is not paid by “the system”. It is paid by consumers.
At the same time, Britain is engaged in the large-scale industrialisation of its countryside for energy that often arrives at the wrong time, in the wrong place, and in the wrong quantities. The National Energy System Operator’s own data shows that vast volumes of new generation are being connected years before the transmission system required to move or stabilise that power will exist.[12] The result is a grid that is becoming more expensive, more complex, and less stable , not more secure.
Meanwhile, ministers continue to tell the public that the solution lies in heat pumps, electric cars, rooftop solar, home batteries and “flexibility”. But even Ed Miliband himself once acknowledged the reality. In 2009 he said: “If we were really relying on renewables, then we would be putting ourselves in a vulnerable position.”[13] That vulnerability is now policy.
The international context makes this even harder to justify. China continues to increase coal consumption and is commissioning new coal-fired power stations at a pace that dwarfs the entire UK generating fleet.[14] India’s emissions continue to rise as it industrialises. The United States, despite subsidies and rhetoric, is not dismantling its fossil fuel system. Against this background, Britain’s self-imposed economic contraction is not leadership. It is symbolic sacrifice.
None of this is an argument for pollution, waste, or environmental neglect. It is an argument for proportion, engineering reality, and honesty. A megawatt that cannot be delivered is not energy security. A climate policy that cannot materially affect the climate is not environmentalism. And an energy transition that makes power more expensive, less reliable and more dependent on imports is not sovereignty.
Net Zero, as currently pursued, is not a plan to save the planet. It is a plan to impoverish one country for a rounding error in global climate statistics.
Footnotes / Sources
1.Met Office, UK Climate Provisional Statistics 2025 (published Jan 2026).
2.Met Office long-term UK climate averages dataset.
3.Our World in Data / Global Carbon Project, national emissions shares.
4.DESNZ, UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Final Figures 2024.
5.UNFCCC, Paris Agreement 2015, Articles 2 and 4.
6.Global Carbon Project, Global Carbon Budget 2024.
7.UK Parliament, Climate Change Act 2008 (2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019.
8.Labour Party Manifesto 2024; NESO / National Grid Holistic Network Design & Beyond 2030 reports.
9.OBR, Fiscal Risks and Sustainability Report, multiple editions.
10.Climate Change Committee, Sixth Carbon Budget Delivery Pathway.
11.DESNZ / Ofgem / ESO, constraint & balancing costs data 2023–2024.
12.NESO, Connections Reform, HND, and Beyond 2030 technical annexes.
13.Ed Miliband, speech/interview February 2009.
14.IEA / Global Energy Monitor, coal capacity additions 2023–2025.
SAY NO TO THE DESTRUCTION OF OUR LAND 
Leave a comment