Net Zero Has a Branding Problem – And It Might Be Costing Public Support
- jontracey4
- 1 day ago
- 3 min read
Mention the phrase "net zero" and you'll often get a strong reaction.
For some people, it's an essential goal that will help tackle climate change, improve energy security and modernise the UK's energy system. For others, it's become synonymous with higher costs, more regulations and government interference.
But what if both sides are arguing about the wrong thing?
What if the real problem isn't the idea itself, but the way it has been presented to the public?
That's the question I explore in my latest YouTube video.
Why "Net Zero" Has Become Such A Toxic Phrase
Over the last few years, net zero has evolved from a technical policy objective into a political battleground.
Open a newspaper and you'll find headlines blaming net zero for everything from rising energy bills and expensive holidays to delayed infrastructure projects and economic stagnation.
At the same time, supporters often talk about emissions targets, carbon budgets and long-term environmental goals.
The problem is that most households aren't thinking about any of those things.
They are thinking about:
How much their energy bill costs.
Whether the lights stay on.
Whether the UK is vulnerable to global energy shocks.
Whether the energy system feels fair.
The phrase "net zero" doesn't communicate any of that.
A Thought Experiment
In the video, I propose a simple thought experiment.
Imagine that the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero was renamed to:
The Department for Energy Independence and Affordability
Nothing else changes.
The same people.The same objectives.The same long-term transition.
Only the name changes.
Suddenly the department is judged on two things that everybody understands:
Energy Independence
How reliant is the UK on imported energy?
How exposed are we to global gas prices?
How resilient is our energy system when international events disrupt markets?
Affordability
Are energy bills going down?
Are households benefiting?
Is energy becoming more accessible and predictable?
Instead of focusing on abstract targets decades in the future, the conversation becomes about outcomes that people experience every day.
Accountability Matters
One of the biggest advantages of this approach is accountability.
If a government department includes "affordability" in its title, it becomes much harder to avoid difficult questions.
When bills rise, people naturally ask:
"What is being done about it?"
Success becomes easier to measure.
Failure becomes harder to hide.
Whether you support or oppose current energy policies, that's a healthier conversation than arguing over terminology.
Rethinking Ofgem
The thought experiment doesn't stop there.
I also explore whether Ofgem should be rebranded and repositioned as a more visible consumer-focused organisation.
Most people know their energy supplier.
Very few people understand what Ofgem actually does.
A regulator that is clearly seen as being on the side of consumers could improve transparency, trust and accountability throughout the energy market.
Where Does Great British Energy Fit?
Another area explored in the video is the role that Great British Energy could play.
Rather than being just another government-backed organisation, could it act as a genuine public option within the market?
Could it provide a benchmark for affordability and simplicity?
Could it help improve competition by forcing suppliers to demonstrate better value and service?
These are exactly the kinds of questions that deserve debate.
Watch The Full Video
This isn't a video about scrapping net zero.
It's not about taking sides in a political argument.
It's about asking whether the UK has accidentally made an important energy strategy harder to support because of the way it has been branded and communicated.
If we focused on affordability, independence and accountability instead, would public support look very different?
I explore that question in detail in the video.
▶ Watch here: https://youtu.be/45QH5XnbWak
Once you've watched it, I'd genuinely love to hear your thoughts.
Is net zero the problem?
Or is the way we talk about it the real issue?
Comments