Copy article

Will Net Zero cost Britain more money in the long-run?

ended 20. July 2026

Let's do the maths… will pursuing Net Zero actually cost the UK taxpayer more money in the long run? Is drilling in the North Sea needed to help lower bills for Brits in the short term? 

  • How much is Net Zero costing the UK taxpayer in the short term?
  • How much will Net Zero cost the UK taxpayer in the long term?
  • Any opinions on what needs to happen?

Responses today.

10 responses from the Newspage community

Copy all

Copy

Editor
Michelle Lawson
Director at Lawson Financial
We need to be aware of our planet and environment but Net Zero is one of the biggest global cons in my opinion. It will only work if all countries adopt it and when you have the likes of the USA, India, China and Russia etc not conscious of it, it becomes pointless for the UK due to the size of our nation. Every bit helps but when we are spending such significant sums of money and not seeing any real gains other than higher energy costs ourselves and investment from overseas rather than homegrown investment the point is also lost. Net Zero are just two words that get banded around for the feel good factor but when there are wars going on along with global cultural differences it becomes an impossibility. So much money has been wasted which could have been used to improve our fundamentals first.
Copy

Editor
Nouran Moustafa
Practice Principal & IFA at Roxton Wealth
Net Zero is not free, and government must stop pretending every green pound is automatically good value. The Spending Review commits £59bn over five years about £12bn annually while the OBR estimates an £803bn fiscal cost by 2050, averaging £30bn a year, although around two-thirds is lost tax revenue rather than direct spending. More North Sea drilling would support jobs, tax receipts and energy security during the transition, but it would not materially cut household bills because oil and gas are traded internationally. Britain needs pragmatism, not slogans: maintain viable domestic production, invest in nuclear, grids and storage, and test every policy against affordability, reliability and growth. Stop the ideological nonsense and focus on getting Britain working again.
Copy

Editor
Samuel Mather-Holgate
Managing Director & IFA at Mather and Murray Financial
Burnham is right to reopen the argument: Net Zero cannot become a blank cheque written by taxpayers and billpayers. North Sea drilling will not magically slash household bills, because oil and gas are traded in global markets, but it can help with energy security, jobs and the transition away from imports. The honest answer is that Net Zero is expensive in the short term and probably cheaper than unmanaged climate and energy shocks in the long term — but only if it is done with discipline. Britain needs renewables, nuclear, grid investment and domestic gas as a bridge, not a purity contest. The public will back Net Zero if it lowers bills and creates work. They will not back it if it feels like another costly lecture from Westminster.
Copy

Editor
Harvey Dhillon
Founder & CEO at Zmartly
The honest answer is: it depends what you count. And the thing everyone forgets to count is the tax that quietly disappears.

Fuel duty raises about £24 billion a year, roughly £835 per household. As petrol cars give way to electric ones, that money stops arriving. The Office for Budget Responsibility expects the Treasury to lose around £20 billion a year on average out to 2050 in motoring taxes. It reckons about two-thirds of Net Zero's cost to the public finances is this lost tax, not new spending.

So the real short-term bill is a growing hole in the tax base. Yet the OBR also says doing nothing is more expensive still: unchecked warming could add far more to the national debt by the 2070s than the switch ever will.

What needs to happen is dull but urgent. Government has to spell out how it will replace fuel duty, most likely some form of road pricing, and say so early. A cost you plan for is always cheaper than one you pretend isn't coming.
Copy

Editor
Katrina Young
Futurist | Chief Technology Officer CTO/CDO Ethical AI & Digital Transformation Strategist at KYC Digital
Start with the distinction politicians often blur. The Climate Change Committee estimates that reaching Net Zero will cost the economy around £116 billion net over 25 years, after operating savings. The bigger taxpayer challenge is declining revenue, particularly fuel duty as drivers switch to electric vehicles. This is as much a tax reform problem as an energy transition. In the short term, households still bear costs through bills and taxation. Moving levies between them changes how costs are collected, not necessarily what the public pays. The long-term maths is harder to ignore. The OBR has warned that unchecked climate change could leave the UK economy significantly smaller by the 2070s, with costs exceeding those of an orderly transition. More North Sea drilling may protect jobs and Treasury revenue, but oil and gas are sold at international prices, so it is unlikely to materially cut bills. Britain needs honest accounting, tax reform and better delivery.
Copy

Editor
Tony Redondo
Founder at Cosmos Currency Exchange
The UK emits just 1–1.5% of global CO2, having cut its footprint by over 52% since 1990 by scrapping coal from the grid. China's energy mix is still 58% fossil fuels, India's 73%, and both keep expanding coal capacity. Data show the UK has the highest industrial electricity prices in the G7 and the developed world, crippling industrial competitiveness. Asia's growth can eclipse a year of UK cuts in months. Analysis shows UK business electricity sits 45% above the G7 median, up to 50% higher than France and Germany, and four times US rates. Yet Britain sits on vast shale gas reserves but maintains a fracking ban, leaving it reliant on imported gas rather than a domestic supply that could bolster energy security. The CCC's Seventh Carbon Budget puts Net Zero costs at 0.2–0.5% of GDP annually to 2050; the OBR sees costs peaking near £35bn in 2029. EV uptake will also cost the Treasury £20–30bn a year in fuel duty while levies and grid upgrades keep pushing household bills higher.
Copy

Premium
Helen Llewellyn
Founder at Elemental Tribe
Net Zero is costing in money and in trust. Farmers are seeing land prices rocket (ask my sister about that) all because someone wants to plant trees to say they have offset carbon.

Offsetting carbon is like saying I ate a massive bag of sweets but my body wil stay healthy because I paid someone else to go to the gym for me.

Net Zero does not think of the consequences to the land or wider livelihoods, nor to the food security of an Island nation.
Copy

Premium
Sue Terpilowski
MD at Image Line Communications
I can offer Stefano Sommadossi, of NatPower UK, to comment on whether pursuing Net Zero will ultimately cost UK taxpayers more, and whether further North Sea drilling would meaningfully reduce household bills.
Stefano can argue that the real financial risk is not Net Zero itself, but delivering it through fragmented policy, delayed grid connections and poorly coordinated infrastructure investment.
His key points would include:
• Net Zero requires significant near-term investment, but infrastructure should not automatically mean taxpayer subsidy. Privately financed models can deliver grid connections, energy storage and clean-power infrastructure without placing the full capital burden on the public.
• The long-term cost of remaining dependent on fossil fuels includes continued exposure to volatile international gas and oil prices, as well as the escalating economic cost of climate change.
• Additional North Sea production may have a role in managing an orderly transition and protecting
Copy

Luke Loveridge
Strategic Advisor at Eco Approach
The term 'net zero' needs to be dropped - it doesn't mean much to anyone and has become politicised. What is important is our energy and climate security. We've been held to ransom twice in the last four years with Ukraine and Iran costing us £100bn to £200bn. Energy efficiency, nuclear, wind and solar with storage is what we need to become energy secure. Lower, stable bills, alleviating fuel poverty and carbon reduction all flow from this.
Copy

Astrid Davies
Founder CEO at ADCL
"NetZero" is a fallacy & is a convenient linguistic stick with which to beat this Government (because at least they were trying to move the UK towards it). However, relying on further extraction is short-termism at its finest. We needed to have invested in renewables sensibly, as other countries have, and we wouldn't be in this mess. It's not a matter of this reducing bills - the energy companies still make "more money than [they] know what to do with", remember (a quote from a former BP CEX as I recall). It is about realpolitik, power balances & lobbying influence. "NetZero" could be called "Can of Beans" and it would be the same. Let's not kid ourselves here. Until renewables offer training and employment opportunities at scale that the oil & gas industries continue to do, they won't be seen as the sexy option for investors. And investors will always seek to protect their investment. What needs to happen? Invest in renewables at all levels. Do it now, before it's too late.