Net Zero Isn’t the Problem – It’s the Politics Around It

Not a climate scientist, just someone who’s lived through real change and sees where we’re heading if we get this wrong.

By Sean Ash 

Let’s be honest.

Adapting to environmental policies can be frustrating. The cost of living is high, families are stretched, and changes like congestion charges, ULEZ zones, or the phasing out of diesel cars often feel like another blow to working people. For many, it feels like we’re being punished for problems we didn’t create.

And we’re not wrong to feel that way.

Now let me be honest about who I am. I’m no expert in climate science. I’m not an ecologist. I don’t have a degree in environmental studies. I’m just a regular working-class lad trying to weigh up the argument. I’m trying to put two and two together, just like you. I’m not coming at this from some elite position. I’m coming at it from the same place as most people, trying to figure out what’s true, what’s fair, and what kind of future we’re heading towards.

Recently, as a disabled driver on the Motability scheme, I was offered an upgrade to a new vehicle. But this time it meant moving to an electric car. And I’ll be honest, the thought petrified me. It wasn’t the technology that worried me, it was the lack of infrastructure. I worried about running out of charge on the motorway and being stuck, with no one nearby to help. Being in a wheelchair, that kind of risk isn’t just inconvenient. It can be dangerous. The idea of waiting 30 or 40 minutes at a charging point, in a petrol station, alone and exposed, makes you think twice. So I understand the hesitation. We all have real worries about moving forward. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t work towards doing it. 

Let’s also be honest about how much our own behaviours have changed, and how policies we once resisted have shaped us for the better.

I remember driving around in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Back then, we were careless. We’d eat sweets or chips in the car, finish a can of fizzy drink, and chuck the wrappers or tins straight out the window. That was normal. No one really batted an eyelid.

And when they brought in the smoking ban, most smokers hated it. I was a smoker myself, and I remember thinking, “How am I going to enjoy a pint if I can’t light up inside?” But now, I couldn’t imagine going back to smoke-filled pubs. It would feel disgusting. Even as someone who once took part in it.

The same goes for recycling. There was a time we thought it was a faff, separating food waste, plastics, cardboard. But now it’s second nature. We don’t just follow these policies. We believe in them. And when we see someone toss litter out of a car window today, we feel disgusted. We’ve changed. Not because we were forced to, but because the right policies helped us grow.

Think back also to when seatbelts were made compulsory. People protested, called it overreach, said it was unnecessary. Yet now, the idea of driving without one seems unthinkable. These weren’t Net Zero policies, but they show something important. They show how resistance to change is normal, but so is progress. We resist, then we adapt, then we accept. It becomes part of who we are.

We are running a financial deficit. That’s not a hypothetical. It’s reality. And most of us agree that the country needs to balance its books. We want spending under control. We want public money spent wisely. Because no one wants to be in their overdraft. We want the country to live within its means and be financially healthy. That’s just common sense.

So why do we accept running an environmental deficit?

Why are we comfortable borrowing from the planet with no plan to repay it? Why are we okay poisoning our own air, depleting our land, and warming the climate, knowing full well the interest on that debt will be paid by our children and grandchildren?

Surely the goal should be the same as with money. Not just to balance the books, but to run at a surplus. A future where we’re not just surviving, but thriving. Where our energy is clean, our air is safe, and our country is respected for leading the way.

We’re being told by parties like Reform UK that Net Zero is a financial burden, a job killer, a backward step. They want to scrap it. They say we need to go back to manufacturing. And in principle, I don’t disagree. Britain should be producing things again. But we need to produce the right things. Not coal. Not oil. Not a return to fracking. The future isn’t buried under the floor. The future is above it, in innovation, clean tech, and sustainable infrastructure.

The vision Reform UK offers often feels rooted in nostalgia. They want to return to a Britain of the past. But those days are gone. We’re no longer backed by gold. Our economy runs on trust, services, digital innovation, and global finance. Trying to dig our way to prosperity now is like trying to win a Formula One race with a steam engine.

The same kind of thinking that led to Brexit is behind this, a curated memory of Britain always leading the world in industry and heroism. And while there’s nothing wrong with pride in your country, it becomes dangerous when it blinds us to present realities and drags us back to outdated models.

Of course, Net Zero policies come with costs. People are frustrated. Energy bills are still too high. Clean air zones and emissions charges can feel like cash cows, especially when families are already under pressure. And yes, some of these policies were pushed too hard and too fast. I get that. I’ve felt that. We need to bring people with us, not steamroll them.

But climate change will not wait. The floods, the fires, the heatwaves, the global instability, these are not warnings anymore. They are realities.

And yes, it’s true that the UK produces only about one percent of global emissions. But let’s not downplay that one percent. Because we live in it. We breathe it. We raise our children in it. And do we really want to live in an environment like Beijing during the Olympic Games, thick with visible smog, air quality so poor you can feel it in your lungs? That’s not the future we want.

And more importantly, it’s often the one percent that sparks the greatest change. It was the one percent that led the charge to abolish slavery. The one percent that pioneered labour laws, welfare systems, and democratic reforms. The one percent who pushed science forward, who stood up to injustice, who inspired the rest to follow.

So no, we shouldn’t use our small share of emissions as an excuse to do nothing. We should see it as a reason to lead. Because if Britain, with our history, our influence, and our innovation, doesn’t show others how to live better, then who will?

Some people argue, rightly, that even batteries and green tech have environmental costs. That’s true. But we’re not aiming for perfect. We’re aiming for better. We’re aiming for responsibility, not recklessness.

The real job killer is being left behind. Look at the mining communities who were left to rot. Not because the world stopped needing energy, but because no one helped them make the shift. If we handle Net Zero the right way, it won’t destroy jobs. It will create new ones. Green energy, construction, technology, skilled trades. Britain could lead the way if we choose to invest properly.

So the question is not whether we manufacture. It’s what we manufacture, how we manufacture, and whether we’re building a future that works for people now and for the generations to come.

We are heading in the right direction. But we need to make sure we take people with us. That means policy that lifts, not punishes. Incentives, not penalties. Education, not enforcement. Progress, not punishment.

Because in the end, the question is not whether we can afford Net Zero. It’s whether we can afford to live without it. And would you rather your children inherit a coal job that no longer exists, or a future they can breathe in?