If not net zero, then what?

8 October 2025 - There is a clear role for companies of all sizes to speak up and share positive stories of how net zero is transforming their businesses, local communities, regions and the wider economy, writes Bev Cornaby, director of the Corporate Leaders Group UK.

If you're paying attention, it's getting increasingly hard to ignore the climate crisis.

2024 was the first ever year on record since pre-industrialisation where global surface temperatures rose above 1.5 degrees Celsius. The impact of this is being felt globally with extreme weather events on the increase - extreme wildfire activity has more than doubled, for example. And for anyone going on holiday to Southern Europe this year, you would have felt the burn with temperatures reaching over 40C in multiple countries. The highest temperature recorded was 46.6 degrees Celsius in Portugal in June, beating a previous record of 44.9 in 2017. And these temperatures are not without consequence; the economic loses for this are estimated to be at least €43bn.

But at the same time, if you read the news as regularly as I do, then you won't have missed some of the scathing comments on net zero by politicians globally. Last week, the US Energy Secretary Chris Wright called net zero targets a "colossal train wreck". While in Australia, MP Andrew Hastie has said "net zero policy is a straitjacket for our economy and our country".

In the UK, both Reform and the Conservatives have started to attack the UK's own net zero target, stating costs as a primary reason, saying they would both repeal it if they get into government. It's worth noting that it was the Conservatives, with the support of business, that put the target into law, acknowledging at the time that government was not making a choice between lowering emissions and higher economic growth – instead stating that "we can, and must, have both". However, the party now sees it as an "impossible" goal to meet "without a serious drop in our living standards or by bankrupting us".

Reform, meanwhile, claim that net zero targets are to blame for higher energy bills and act as a barrier to reindustrialisation. If elected, Reform would use the government's weight to oppose renewables and support the extraction of fossil fuels. They claim this would save £30bn every year for the next 25 years, and save households £500 per year. However, much of the £30bn is through private investment, meaning stopping it would actually harm the economy, as planned investment wouldn't happen. What's more – because many of Reform's actions would imply the government abandoning signed contracts – these steps would make it harder for the private sector to trust and work with government, raising the cost of capital and adding more headwinds to a struggling UK economy.

Critics of net zero also fail to account for the economic cost of the impacts of climate change. Extreme weather is now becoming the new normal in the UK. We have experienced prolonged periods of dry weather during 2025 leading many regions to officially enter into drought conditions, resulting in hosepipe bans in multiple counties. In areas such as the East of England, where I am, the ground has been rock hard for months. So while fruit harvests have surprisingly flourished, many other harvests have dried up, with crops being shorter and going golden earlier than usual due to water stress. UK livestock farmers are also struggling, as a lack of rain has dried up fields of usually lush grass, costing them both in supplementary feeds and having underfed livestock that were delayed in going to market. The full economic cost of this year's drought is not yet known, but it's expected to be measured in billions of pounds.

These events also impact people's pockets. Food prices have been on the rise for a while with some figures showing a 40 per cent rise in the last five years. Climate change is seen as a contributory factor in this – when extreme weather events cause a ‘bad harvest' in one area, the remaining good crops are worth more money, which results in a higher cost to customers. Putting this in individual monetary terms, a British household likely paid an extra £605 for food in 2022/2023 due to climate impacts and historical fossil fuel prices. By 2050, it's expected households will have £1,247 added to their food bills – something being referred to as ‘climateflation'. And these figures are just on the increased cost of food; climate change and nature loss are also expected to increase insurance premiums and water bills.

Any kind of economic change, regardless of the reason, does require investment. And we know that the investment needed to achieve net zero does come with a real cost, with the Climate Change Committee (CCC) estimating it at around 0.2 per cent of UK GDP per year on average. However, the contribution of the ‘net zero economy' is also significant and predicted to surpass those costs, meaning net zero offers a net economic benefit. In 2024, green industries' total contribution to the UK economy was £83.1bn, with growth in these sectors three times that of the UK economy as a whole. And investment in the UK net zero economy is growing year on year; in 2024, it reached £23bn, which includes net zero related foreign direct investment. But climate action is not just an economic opportunity, it creates savings, new jobs, and increased resilience to fossil fuel price shock, with those benefits felt across all regions of the UK.

So why, when we are clearly seeing the impacts – both physically and economically – of climate change, as well as starting to reap the economic benefits from tackling it, are some attacking net zero targets? And what is the alternative?

A key issue may be in the term itself. A new study of over 7,000 Brits, while showing that a large majority support climate action and are proud of the UK's efforts to tackle it – a pride we need to build on – also highlights how the public's level of support for climate action is dependent on the language used. When asked if they support a hypothetical council's net zero targets, support rose from 50 per cent to 64 per cent when respondents were informed of the potential benefits on offer such as cleaner energy supply and new jobs. When net zero was not mentioned at all - just the aforementioned benefits - support rose even higher to 75 per cent, showing the term itself is the issue and not the solution to it. This is nothing new – having worked in sustainability for over 20 years, I can tell when someone does not understand the term, and it needs explaining in language that is personally relevant to them. It is something many others are increasingly acknowledging, with suggestions emerging for alternative language that may resonate more.

While the support and economic case for net zero is apparent, and the critics sums do not add up, there is a far bigger threat we can't ignore: the most vocal critics are seeking to revert back to a dependency on fossil fuels. Such a move would not just undo the transition and roll back much needed investment in communities that are already reaping the benefits, it could also further increase the extreme weather events that are already costing our economy and disrupting lives. It's vital that the language of net zero does not obscure what is at stake, and that in trying to appeal more broadly, we do not accidentally leave the doors open for others to inflict greater damage on our economy.

If we really see net zero as good for people, good for communities, good for nature, and good for economy then we need the whole of the UK economy to champion it. There is a clear role for businesses of all sizes to speak up to share the positive stories of where it is transforming their businesses, their local communities, whole regions and our country. And we need this to happen now; by speaking up, all businesses can play a role in re-instilling the pride and support that led to the UK being seen as a global climate leader in the first place.

First published in BusinessGreen 22 September 2025