Would renaming the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero really make it easier for the government to persuade the public of the benefits of net zero? The select committee with the same name seems to think so, warning in a new report that the current messaging on the energy transition at the moment is ‘overly technical’ and that the ‘term net zero has lost much of its significant positive association’. The cross-party committee of MPs, chaired by Labour’s Bill Esterson, adds: ‘It increasingly acts as a distraction from the broader aims of the energy transition and as a lightning rod for opposition to climate action. As part of efforts to communicate the energy transition effectively, the term net zero should be dropped from the department’s name and reduce [sic] its use in regular communications and public statements, instead focusing on wider societal benefits.’
It’s interesting that the committee wanted to examine the poor public reputation of net zero, as it shows an acceptance that politicians have not handled the communications around the policy particularly well. Those who believe in the agenda are rightly anxious that they are losing the argument, and the committee reported that ‘we were told that this ambition has not been consistently translated into a clear and compelling public narrative about how these goals were derived and decided and why these goals matter in practice or about how they can be achieved’. What was missing from the inquiry and subsequent report, though, was an acceptance that the cause of the net zero proponents was in fact hampered by the lack of debate and scrutiny when parliament was legislating on this.
As with many of the hot button issues in today’s society, MPs were largely in agreement that ‘something must be done’ about Britain’s carbon emissions. The problem was not their agreement about the problem, but their desire for consensus around the solution, as though one automatically followed from the other. This is a regular logical leap in politics, where one particular solution of many is alighted on as the only possible way forward, with anyone daring to raise detailed objections derided as not taking the problem seriously. At the time, it can feel comforting to politicians that they’ve got such agreement on the policy, but in the years that follow, problems with the design always emerge. We’ve seen this not just on legislation around climate change, but on other matters including biological sex and gender, where the conviction about ‘doing the right thing’ means few parliamentarians pause to check that they actually are managing that in legislation. Had there been more debate when, for instance, Theresa May’s government was legislating on net zero back in 2019, we might not find the public so shocked and unsettled by the impact on their lives. We might also not have ended up in a situation where two sides are shouting past one another, which is a continuation of the lack of debate embodied in the ‘consensus’ that politicians congratulate themselves on.
The committee’s report tries to deal with some of the culture war aspects of the net zero debate in a clumsy way, arguing first that the government needs to be better at talking about net zero (or whatever new name they want to give it) in relevant language, but it then takes an odd turn in its recommendations. It expresses concern ‘at the increasing use of “credibility laundering” of internet myths relating to the energy transition’, and says: ‘We would like to see social media platforms encouraged or mandated to emphasise credible information sources over those working to engender outrage and misinformation. The latter is an important point, but the inclusion of ‘those working to engender outrage’ is a troubling line from politicians, who are not known for their wisdom when it comes to dealing with the media. One man’s polemic is another man’s attempt to ‘engender outrage’ – indeed, some people are perfectly capable of feeling outrage merely on viewing a clip of a government minister published by their own department, if that politician is particularly infuriating. The solution with a debate that has become rather poisoned is never to restrict the terms on which it is conducted, as that helps no one. Nor will a rebranding of a policy which is not controversial because of its name, but because of its design. The public deserves far more credit than that.
Comments