Sunak’s Net Zero Backsliding: Inaction Man Strikes Again

As he stood behind a lectern proclaiming “Long-Term Decisions for a Brighter Future”, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, with seemingly no sense of irony, announced a significant roll-back of the UK’s net zero commitments. Sunak announced delays to plans to ban petrol and diesel cars and gas boilers and then announced that the government was scrapping a range of so-called “proposals”, such as mandatory carsharing and taxes on meat. The fact that these were never government policy in the first place appeared to have passed him by.

Despite Sunak’s assurances that the government is still committed to the 2050 date for carbon neutrality, it is clear that the UK is now backsliding on its commitments to tackle climate change. Sunak has been reported to be personally disinterested and disengaged with the issue of the environment, which is reflected in his willingness – eagerness even – to gamble with the future of the planet in a vain bid to resuscitate the Tories’ stalling campaign to regain popularity.

With the Conservatives languishing in the mid-20s in the polls, it seems that Sunak has become desperate to be seen taking action and to try and shake off the ‘Inaction Man’ nickname bestowed upon him by Labour. With Inaction Man’s premiership having been little more than a cacophony of electoral failure for the Tories, he appears to have become fixated on the results of the Uxbridge by-election, in which the Tories scraped a win by campaigning against the expansion of the Ulez Ultra Low Emission Zone. As such, he has concluded that the Tories’ ticket to popularity is to scrap Net Zero legislation.

This move smacks of desperation. Reports suggest that internal No. 10 polling shows that reaction to the move is largely negative, with existing Tory voters being the only group to overwhelmingly back a watering down of climate commitments, and that the changes fail to resonate with many of the disillusioned traditional Conservative supporters (such as those in the so-called ‘Blue Wall’) that Sunak is seeking to woo.

In policy terms, this announcement has finally created a clear dividing line between Labour and Conservative policy on the environment. Although the Labour Party itself has not been immune to delaying climate commitments (for example postponing the plan to spend £28 billion per year on green policies as part of a programme of watering down costly policies), Shadow Cabinet ministers were quick to decry Sunak’s backsliding. At the launch of POLITICO Pro Energy & Climate UK, Labour shadow climate secretary Ed Miliband recommitted to the ambitious policy of removing fossil fuels from the UK energy network by 2030 and promised to reverse Sunak’s delay on the ban of new petrol and diesel cars.

In my opinion, Sunak has handed Labour a huge opportunity. Currently, much of Labour’s lead in the polls is driven by the extent of the government’s incompetence as opposed to a genuine belief in Labour Party policy. However, given that there is overwhelming support among the public for greater action on climate change, Labour has a chance to paint a more radical vision of reaching net zero, and showing that measures to protect the environment can be good for the economy.

Rather than heeding the advice of Tony Blair, who has warned against more ambitious climate policies for fear of alienating voters, Starmer could use Net Zero as a way of showing that Labour has a genuine vision for government beyond fiscal responsibility, and show that embracing green policies, far from costing households money, can go hand in hand with reducing inequalities and improving living standards. US President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act is a clear example of how this can work in practice.

All above, Sunak’s Net Zero backsliding shows that the Tory government is out of ideas and options. What remains to be seen is whether Labour can successfully frame the discourse surrounding environmental policy in terms of jobs, the economy and prosperity and use it as a way to create a clean break with Conservative climate inaction.