The Conservative take on net-zero policies are that they are somehow reckless - basically a kind of national own goal because Britain is giving up on fossil-fuel led prosperity while countries such as China and India grow more rapidly because they carry on polluting.
In Conservative thought it is either economic growth or the environment...
But in reality it's really not that simple.
People worry that net zero means shrinking the economy and chasing businesses away. That’s a genuine fear, and the move to renewables does need money, restructuring, and higher prices - at least at first.
But this argument zeroes in on just the costs and skips over some major benefits.
The International Energy Agency and others say the hift to renewable energy can create jobs, boost growth, and make energy supplies more secure over time.
And on the other side there's the ENORMOUS COST of sticking with fossil fuels, all that lost land for starters.
So the real question: it’s not “net zero versus no pain.” It’s which kind of pain you prefer—and when you want to deal with it.
Conservatives will claim that Britain’s Net Zero effort is basically pointless since bigger polluters aren’t onboard.
But the big polluters such as India and China these are also pouring money into renewables. China leads the world in solar panel production and invests big in wind power.
Climate policy isn’t a race where one country wins only if everyone runs together. When nations move early, they can shape markets and technologies—and snag an edge in new industries.
Calling net zero “national self-harm” comes from a blinkered, short-term economic view. It assumes sticking with business as usual is safer than taking a leap.
But major shifts—from factories to the internet always mean pain for some.
And NOT shifting may mean more pain for more people in the longer term!
