Britain’s failed net zero experiment is a wake-up call
A net zero revolt is underway in the West, driven by the unsustainable economic costs of aggressive net-zero mandates, says Bjorn Lomborg
A new pragmatism is infusing the climate debate in the West, driven by voters weary of soaring energy bills and annoyed by increasingly hysterical and patronising climate rhetoric. From Washington to Westminster, Berlin to Canberra, the political class is confronting a simple truth: aggressive net-zero mandates are delivering present economic pain for unmeasurable and far-off climate gain.
The starting shot might have been the US election of Donald Trump, but the clearest warning comes from the United Kingdom. The UK’s net-zero law, enacted in 2019, committed the country to zero emissions by 2050. It was hailed as bold leadership, but the reality has been economic sabotage. Industrial electricity prices surged 124 per cent between 2019 and 2024 – quadruple the US increase – leaving the UK with the highest rates in the western world at 26.63 pence per kilowatt-hour.
And the Labour government’s renewable-heavy plans will only inflate costs further. At a recent parliamentary hearing, top energy executives laid bare the facts. Chris Norbury, CEO of E.On UK, testified that even if wholesale prices were to plummet to zero, consumer bills would remain just as high as today, due to escalating policy-driven expenses.
Reform UK, now leading national polls and poised to form the next government, first demanded an end to net-zero targets, condemning their design and cost. The Conservatives, staring at electoral oblivion, hastily followed suit, pledging to repeal the Climate Change Act. Prime Minister Keir Starmer is reportedly preparing to delay or dilute key green commitments to curb voter revolt.
Even the Tony Blair Institute, hardly known for climate skepticism, now urges suspending carbon taxes on gas to slash energy prices through 2030, prioritising cheap power over emission cuts like the US and China do.
The UK’s plight is no isolated incident – it’s a harbinger of a retreat from the global net zero experiment recently championed by politicians even in blue US states and across Europe, as well as further abroad. In Australia, the conservative Liberal Party has abandoned the promise of net zero in 2050, and will instead prioritise lower energy prices. Germany’s far-right AfD is now leading national polls, railing against “elitist” green burdens and vowing to halt decarbonisation. Japan’s new Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi prioritises nuclear revival for energy security over aggressive renewables.
Even the EU is rolling back environmental laws, watering down sustainable finance rules amid farmer protests and deregulation pushes. Its climate promises for 2040 were watered down and crucially the promises can be further loosened if it – inevitably – ends up having a negative impact on the EU’s economy.
Corporations who sold the world on their green credentials are retreating too: Wells Fargo abandoned its net-zero promise in March 2025, while BlackRock exited the Net Zero Alliance in January, citing political backlash against ESG investing.
This broadening dissent mostly doesn’t dismiss the reality of the climate issue, but insists that we shouldn’t deny the climate policy costs either: net zero will cost hundreds of trillions of dollars and deliver benefits much smaller. Moreover, even if all rich countries were to cut to zero emissions by mid-century, the climate models clearly show that the impact would avert less than 0.1°C of the projected warming by the end of the century, while imposing 8-18 per cent hits to GDP already by mid-century.
No longer plausible
It is now becoming clear that the rosy claims of green growth or just modest costs from a forced green transition are no longer plausible. Instead, if green politicians truly do believe that climate action justifies exorbitant costs and making power unaffordable for millions, they now have to make that argument openly. And this is a losing argument. The UK’s slide from energy powerhouse to price pariah emphasizes this.
Enter philanthropist Bill Gates, whose recent memo ahead of the COP30 climate summit calls for a strategic pivot. He lays out three tough truths: Climate change is serious but “will not lead to humanity’s demise” or the end of civilization; temperature is not the best progress metric; and health and prosperity are our best defenses against it.
This means shifting from obsessive emission cuts which have shaped climate and energy policy across the UK, Europe and other western countries. Instead, Gates highlights, we need to focus on what boosts human welfare most. For the world’s poor, that means tackling hunger, poverty, and disease directly. This will help people live much better lives and improve their resilience in a warmer climate. For rich nations, it means addressing jobs, education, immigration, defense and energy head-on.
Politicians still peddling painless green transitions must now defend the indefensible: unaffordable energy for negligible impact
To respond to climate change smartly, we need to pivot from making energy more expensive to innovation which will eventually make green energy cheaper: investing in R&D to achieve breakthroughs like more advanced nuclear, carbon capture, and geoengineering, and far more efficient green energy generation and storage, rather than driving up all energy prices while subsidising today’s intermittent and uncompetitive renewables.
Politicians still peddling painless green transitions must now defend the indefensible: unaffordable energy for negligible impact. The net zero era is fracturing. It is time for honesty, innovation and policies that serve people the best.
Bjorn Lomborg is president of the Copenhagen Consensus, visiting fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, and author of “False Alarm” and “Best Things First”.