The term net-zero has lost all currency

Even if you support a green economy, the term net-zero has lost all currency

This is not a big reveal of climate denialism on my part, instead it’s pure frustration about how net zero’s ubiquity is becoming a net negative.

Overused by proponents, and weaponised by opposition, these two words are playing their part in sinking transition aspirations.

At its heart, the phrase “net zero” is a communications nightmare. “Net” has – at best –vague tax connotations and, at worst, it sounds like a deliberate fudge. “Zero” doesn’t exactly scream opportunity or aspiration either.

Despite worming its way into almost every utterance about our energy future, this shortcut is increasingly failing to connect.

Like “low-traffic neighbourhoods”, “15-minute cities” or even – whisper it, “woke” – it’s become a shape-shifting bogeyman in the hands of various political interests.

It can be whatever people want it to be, and not in a good way.

Opposition to the concept of “net zero” has become a rallying cry for populist politicians who have seized upon its vagueness and negative sounding-ness to attack. Speaking in Aberdeen, Nigel Farage once again called for scrapping “net stupid zero” – a rallying cry as his party climbs in UK and Scottish polls.

On the other side, politicians, organisations and charities feel obliged to pepper speeches with “net zero”, almost regardless of topic. This empty repetition nullifies the impact. The positive case can only be made by actually talking about people, or miraculous engineering, or the tangible differences that renewable technology drives.

When someone who wants to make the case for climate policies, or renewable projects says “net zero” and stops, they’re depriving the audience of things they care about whilst also leaving a vacuum to be filled.

While the UK public is still broadly supportive of climate change policies, an erosion is underway. Earlier this year, the Tony Blair Institute found that: “Net-zero policies, once seen as the pathway to economic transformation, are increasingly viewed as unaffordable, ineffective, or politically toxic.”

So, what’s the alternative?

Speaking at All Energy last month, Andrew Lever from the Carbon Trust hinted at the change that’s required to reconnect with disillusioned audiences. He said they’re no longer leading on climate change, instead they talk about the “greatest opportunity for global prosperity”.

Cleaner air, cleaner water and lower emissions can easily be framed as highly beneficial byproducts of the technology needed to power the tech we all use daily, end our overexposure to international price shocks and – in time – reduce all of our bills.

Not quite as catchy as a two-word phrase, but there’s a secondary point here. The casual use of “net zero” also breaks a key rule of good communications by essentially creating a blank canvas, onto which a listener can project their own preconceptions, rather than what it does or enables.

Future energy opportunity, job security, energy prosperity. If there is a need to be snappy, then any one of these terms starts to show more of the working than ‘net zero’. And showing that working is critical.

The climate debate, and renewable deployment more broadly face a gathering storm of opposition. To engage with the substance of the debate, rather than the other side’s characterisations, leaders must be brave enough to admit “net zero” is a communications shortcut that is no longer worth taking.

Tom Gillingham is a partner with Charlotte Street Partners