Dave Allen: Reclaiming the Net Zero narrative

Waterman’s climate expert, Dave Allen, explores why Net Zero has become a somewhat politically controversial topic in recent times, and explains why reclaiming the public’s perception will be crucial for ensuring continued support for positive action.

For much of the past decade, ‘Net Zero’ functioned as a rare point of political consensus. Governments, businesses, and much of the public accepted the idea that cutting greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by mid-century was both necessary and achievable.

Today, that consensus has fractured. To some, Net Zero has become a political liability, portrayed as elitist, expensive, and disconnected from everyday concerns.

So, what’s gone wrong, and, perhaps more importantly, how do we get climate action back on track?

Net Zero commitments were made during a period of relatively stable energy prices. Inflation, housing pressures, and energy shocks, especially following geopolitical crises (such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine), have reshaped voters’ priorities. Policies associated with higher energy bills, costly home retrofits, or changes to transport now feel threatening rather than aspirational. When climate action is framed as an added burden during a cost-of-living crisis, it is unsurprising that public support weakens.

Climate change is a long-term, global problem; Net Zero policies often impose short-term, local costs. For many people, the promised benefits, such as avoided climate damage, cleaner air, green jobs, feel distant or uncertain, while the costs appear tangible and immediate. This imbalance has allowed opponents to define Net Zero as a project that asks ordinary people to sacrifice now for unclear future gains.

Net Zero has increasingly been drawn into broader culture-war dynamics. In some political narratives, it is portrayed as the agenda of elites, technocrats, or international institutions imposing change on working-class, or older communities. Once climate policy becomes a marker of identity rather than a shared problem-solving effort, it becomes easier to oppose as a matter of principle.

Governments often announced ambitious targets without clearly explaining how transitions would work in practice or who would bear the costs. When timelines slip or policies are revised or weakened, scepticism grows. The result has been a credibility gap: people doubt not only the policies, but the competence and honesty of those promoting them.

Despite these challenges, public concern about climate change itself has not disappeared. What has eroded is confidence in how it is being addressed. Re-engagement is possible, but it requires a shift in approach.

“Net Zero” is a technical accounting concept, not a motivating story. People care about a reduction in flood risk, warm homes, affordable energy, reliable transport, good jobs, and healthier communities. Climate policy should be communicated through these tangible outcomes, not abstract targets. Insulation is about lower bills and comfort. Clean energy is about energy security and price stability. Active transport is about health and liveable streets.

Public trust improves when governments acknowledge that transitions involve trade-offs. Pretending that climate action is cost-free invites backlash when reality intrudes. Equally important is fairness. Policies must visibly protect low- and middle-income households and avoid placing disproportionate burdens on those with the least flexibility. If people believe the transition is fair, they are far more willing to support it.

Recent energy shocks have highlighted the risks of fossil fuel dependence. Climate action can be reframed as a strategy for national resilience: insulating countries from volatile global markets, reducing reliance on imports, and strengthening domestic industries. This type of framing resonates across political divides and shifts the narrative away from sacrifice toward stability and self-interest.

Top-down mandates often provoke resistance. Local projects, community energy, place-based retrofit schemes, locally tailored transport solutions etc are more trusted and visibly beneficial. When people see climate action improving their own towns and neighbourhoods, it stops feeling imposed and starts feeling owned.

The all-or-nothing framing of Net Zero deadlines has contributed to cynicism. A more credible approach emphasises steady progress, learning, and adjustment over time. Celebrating incremental wins builds confidence that change is possible, even if the path is imperfect.

The political toxicity surrounding Net Zero does not mean climate action is doomed. It signals that the language, priorities, and delivery mechanisms need recalibration. Climate change remains a real and escalating risk. But durable solutions require public consent, not just expert agreement. Re-engaging people means grounding climate action in everyday benefits, fairness, and trust, turning a distant target into a shared national project. If that reset can be achieved, climate action may yet move from a political liability back to a source of collective purpose.