EDITOR’S OPINION: Weighing up the evidence

1 June 2026

The government’s unwavering determination to meet the country’s net zero commitments is arguably one of the few policy areas where the public has a rough idea of its beliefs and objectives. It is also an issue that incites polarised opinions, with increasingly entrenched views on either side of the debate that seem to invite little room for balance or evidence-based deliberation.

Depending on which side of the line you’re on, you either think that energy secretary Ed Miliband is an eco-fanatic bent on wrecking the UK economy in a bid to meet his unachievable climate change goals or that investment in green technologies is the only way to gain energy independence, reduce global temperatures and drive growth.

Perhaps it’s the nature of modern political discourse, but with echoes of clashes over Brexit, battle lines have been drawn and loyalties divided without any time being ‘wasted’ on reasoned argument. Those calling for the abandonment of net zero policies in favour of drilling for oil highlight the costs of clean power with little reference to the resultant energy savings and boost to jobs, while those advocating further investment in renewables point to record-breaking levels of green energy while choosing to ignore the consequences that the decline of fossil fuel industries has on large parts of the country.

The transition to a greener economy has created thousands of jobs in sectors such as wind energy, solar power, electric vehicle manufacturing, and building insulation, yet there is no denying that not everybody is going to be a ‘winner’ when it comes to reducing carbon emissions. In Aberdeen, a city built on the success of the country’s North Sea exploration, average property prices fell by 5.5% last year and increasing numbers of the working-age population are expected to be signing on for benefits.

During the current period of economic uncertainty, subsidising renewable technologies and upgrading infrastructure might be considered an unnecessary burden on the public purse. However, there is also a strong case to be made that the long-term costs of failing to address climate change are likely to be far greater. Damage from flooding, extreme weather, and environmental degradation could impose significant financial burdens on future generations.

Historically, technological breakthroughs have been major drivers of economic growth, and the green transition may provide similar opportunities. While it is clear that the transition to cleaner forms of energy will require considerable upfront expenditure, it could be argued that the long-term economic gains might easily outweigh these costs.

Many would also argue, of course, that the whole net zero debate shouldn’t be framed in economic terms at all – after all, can you put a price on the potentially devastating consequences of rising global temperatures? Unfortunately, that is one area of contention where we don’t have to look too far for compelling evidence.

Chris Jones is managing editor of EIBI