25 September, 2026

What is Net Zero? According to the UN, it’s a global state where greenhouse gas emissions have been cut to the lowest level possible, with what’s left removed from the atmosphere and stored in stable pools. Simple as that.

However, if you read the news, you’ll have noticed that this week the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee recommended dropping “net zero” from government communications and even the department’s own name. Its reasoning: the term has “lost much of its significant positive association”, acting as a distraction from the transition’s broader aims and “a lightning rod for opposition to climate action”. Yes, the net zero committee would like everyone to stop saying net zero.

We can see why they got there. Reform UK’s “net stupid zero” and Claire Coutinho’s claim, when shadow Energy Secretary, that Net Zero had become a “religion” show that the phrase has become shorthand for a culture war, even as the net zero economy already supports 1.1 million jobs and generates £105 billion a year. Avoiding explicit use of “net zero” might temporarily distract the detractors, but the objection, really, is to the action and not the word, so whatever replaces “net zero” won’t work forever.

Some businesses have already started compromising on terminology. BSI’s latest Net Zero Barometer found 53% of UK business leaders have changed how they talk about net zero, reframing it around resilience and cost savings, – a strategy they call “climate coding”. Two-thirds increased their net zero action over the past year regardless. Decarbonization, sans populist lightning rod.

The need for action is not worth questioning. The Climate Change Committee puts the net cost of reaching net zero at around 0.2% of UK GDP a year, savings included. On the other hand, doing away with net zero could add 56% of GDP to UK public debt by the early 2070s according to Office for Budget Responsibility estimates. If anyone is in any doubt about the economics of it, ask them which of these they think is worse!

So from where we’re sitting we say call it energy security or call it cutting costs; just don’t cut the action. If a new name buys the space to keep decarbonizing without the political distraction, that could be a trade worth making. But a loud and public rebranding exercise risks becoming an exercise in futility, creating a new name for the haters to hate on and distracting from the fiercely urgent task at hand.

By Mitchell Keip