EDITOR’S OPINION: What’s in a name?

1 October 2026

The cross-party Energy Security and Net Zero Committee has called for a major rebranding of the country’s efforts to tackle climate change, claiming that the term ‘net zero’ has become a distraction and has lost much of its previously positive associations.

It has advised DESNZ to remove Net Zero from its name, as well as from its ‘key communications’ in order to make its messaging ‘less technocratic’ and instead focus on the ‘wider societal benefits’ of climate action.

The original political consensus around net zero has undoubtedly evaporated in recent times, but is that any reason to assume that the words themselves have become toxic? As the first major economy to create a legally binding target to bring greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050, the UK has a rare opportunity to be able to boast about taking the lead on a global issue and it would be a shame to see waters muddied by some inconsequential quarrels over wording.

The original political consensus around net zero has undoubtedly evaporated, but is that any reason to assume that the words themselves have become toxic?

Net zero also has wide public recognition, with the last DESNZ Public Attitudes Tracker showing that 91% of the UK public had heard of the term, and over 60% supported the government’s ambitions. While a fair proportion of those respondents may be confused about some of the details (with many mistakenly believing that it commits the country to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to absolute zero rather than balancing remaining emissions with carbon removal), there is at least a general understanding of the policy’s broad objectives.

While those seeking to retreat from those commitments may use derogatory language, with Reform UK making regular references to ‘net zero stupid’, you don’t have to support their stance to have some comprehension as to what they are objecting to.

Meanwhile, despite being in government when net zero targets were first set, and Rishi Sunak’s government making the decision to add the name to the energy department, the Conservative Party has now pledged to withdraw from any such obligations. Its revised stance under Kemi Badenoch has already come under criticism, however, for vastly overestimating the cost of net zero, apparently after someone had accidentally double-counted some figures provided in a report by the Climate Change Committee.

All of which further goes to emphasise the importance of accuracy when it comes to both figures and terminology. Net zero is a term that first gained world-wide recognition when the goal was enshrined in Article 4 of the 2015 Paris Agreement and today there are now around 140 countries that have committed to some form of net zero targets. So any attempt at a re-brand is unlikely to enhance clarity and understanding and could in fact result in an unwelcome distraction to the urgency of addressing the very real repercussions of climate change.

Chris Jones is managing editor of EIBI