- MPs have called for “net zero” to be removed from the name of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and from key government communications.
- The committee says misinformation and concerns over energy costs have damaged the phrase’s positive association.
- Andy Burnham has reaffirmed Britain’s commitment to reaching net zero by 2050 and announced new funding for community-led clean-energy projects.
The phrase 'net zero' is becoming an increasingly awkward piece of political language in Britain.
The Commons Energy Security and Net Zero Committee has argued that the term has lost much of its positive association and has become a “lightning rod” for opposition to climate action.
Its recommendation is striking: drop 'net zero' from the name of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and from the government’s key communications.
The committee said the phrase increasingly distracts from the broader aims of the energy transition, particularly the potential benefits of cheaper energy, greater energy security and economic opportunities. It also pointed to the rise of misinformation around climate policy.
The recommendation does not amount to a call to abandon the UK's 2050 net-zero target. Instead, it is an argument about how the transition should be communicated and presented to the public.
And that distinction has become particularly relevant because Burnham has chosen the same day to make a strong public case for keeping the target.
Why the words have become a problem
Net zero broadly means balancing the amount of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere with the amount removed.
The target has been part of UK climate policy for years. But the political debate around it has increasingly become entangled with household energy bills, the cost of upgrading infrastructure and arguments over how quickly Britain should move away from fossil fuels.
The committee's report said delivering cost benefits for consumers and businesses should be the single biggest step the government takes to build support for the energy transition. It also called for stronger action against misinformation and better communication about the transition.
That helps explain why MPs are questioning the language rather than simply the policy.
If people hear 'net zero' and immediately associate it with higher bills, restrictions or costly changes, the term itself can become a barrier to persuading them about the wider energy transition.
The committee therefore wants the government to talk more about tangible outcomes, including energy security and costs, rather than relying so heavily on the net-zero label.
The government, however, has rejected the idea that removing the phrase would solve the underlying problem, describing the proposal as an unnecessary distraction from climate change and the transition to clean power.
Burnham is taking the opposite route
Burnham's message on Thursday (17) could hardly have been more different.
The prime minister reaffirmed his determination to reach net zero by 2050, saying Britain could no longer pretend that climate change was a distant problem.
He pointed to the UK's recent experience of heatwaves, droughts and wildfires as evidence that the effects of a changing climate are already being felt.
“The climate crisis is not a distant threat. It is here and with us now,” Burnham wrote.
But his approach is also about making the green transition feel less like a top-down climate policy and more like something communities can benefit from.
He announced nearly £30 million for “People's Power” projects, allowing local communities to develop and have a stake in clean-energy schemes such as solar panels, wind farms and hydro projects. The initiative is intended to help make energy more affordable while giving communities a direct role in the transition.
Burnham has described the green transition as an opportunity to reindustrialise Britain, linking climate policy to jobs, local investment and energy security.
That could prove important as the government faces difficult choices over the UK's future energy mix.
Decisions on the Jackdaw gas field and Rosebank oil field are still pending, and approving either project could intensify criticism from Labour MPs and environmental campaigners who argue that continued fossil-fuel development conflicts with the country's climate commitments.
At the same time, supporters of domestic oil and gas argue that Britain needs reliable energy supplies while the transition to renewables takes place.
The result is a political balancing act: the government needs to maintain its long-term climate target while convincing households and businesses that the transition will not simply mean higher costs.
That may explain why the committee wants to change the language around net zero.
For Burnham, however, the answer appears to be different — keep the target, but make the benefits more visible and give people a direct stake in the energy transition.
The question now is whether changing the words can change the politics, or whether the real test will be whether Britain can make its green transition affordable enough for people to support it.
