During the 2024 UK general election campaign, politicians and newspapers have used a series of “scary-sounding numbers” to mislead voters about net-zero.
While some of the numbers are accurate in isolation, they have been used in false or misleading ways, shaved of context and typically designed to exaggerate the cost of cutting emissions.
Current prime minister Rishi Sunak, his energy secretary Claire Coutinho and a string of right-leaning newspapers have all been guilty of this approach.
The most common tactics for misleading voters about net-zero include: focusing on the cost of action without mentioning the cost of business-as-usual; mentioning the costs of cutting emissions but not the benefits; and omitting the costs of failing to tackle dangerous climate change.
Below, Carbon Brief factchecks a series of claims made around the election campaign, each of which involves a big number about “costs”. The article explains who made each claim, where the relevant number came from – and the missing context that makes the claim false or misleading.
stat_minus_1
subdirectory_arrow_left
MISLEADING
Hundreds of billions
“We’ve just found a recording that they have put out there from the deputy chancellor from the Labour Party admitting that their [climate] plans will cost hundreds of billions of pounds.”
– Rishi Sunak during BBC leaders’ debate – 26 June 2024
Where it comes from
In what appears to have been a coordinated move, Sunak attacked Labour’s net-zero plans during the final leaders’ debate hosted by BBC News, by citing an article published online the same evening in the Daily Telegraph. The article, which appeared on the newspaper’s frontpage the following morning, is based on public comments by Labour’s Darren Jones in March 2024 about the cost of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050, which is also government policy. The target was legislated in 2019 under Conservative former prime minister Theresa May.
What it excludes
Sunak misleads voters by omitting the fact that his own government – as well as the Conservative manifesto – also support the net-zero by 2050 target. He also ignores the costs of inaction on climate change and the evidence that accelerated action would yield significant economic benefits.
In 2019, the Climate Change Committee estimated that the net cost to the whole economy of reaching net-zero by 2050 would amount to £1.4tn, offset by savings from lower fossil fuel bills of £1.1tn. As set out by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) in 2021, this amounted to a net cost of £321bn over nearly 30 years – consistent with the “hundreds of billions” cited by Labour’s Darren Jones. Furthermore, the OBR estimated that only a quarter of the costs of reaching net-zero would come from public spending and that delaying action towards the target could double the overall cost to the UK. It added that failing to act on climate change would have far greater impacts on the economy and public finances, concluding: “Unmitigated climate change would ultimately have catastrophic economic and fiscal consequences.”
In a 2023 report, the OBR found that continued reliance on gas could be more than twice as costly for the exchequer as reaching net-zero. Separate analysis for trade group Energy UK concluded: “[A]n accelerated transition [to net-zero] could boost the UK’s economy by £240bn in 2050 more than current trajectories…Under the most ambitious scenario, the GDP of each area of the UK would be 5.4%-7.5% greater in 2050 than under the current trajectory.”
close
FALSE
£116bn
“Labour are still not being honest about the costs of their energy policy. Independent energy experts have warned that Labour’s 2030 target would need an extra £116bn of investment, which means one thing…higher taxes for millions of Brits.”
– Claire Coutinho tweet – 25 June 2024
Where it comes from
The figure is based on analysis by consultancy Aurora, which said a total of £116bn would need to be invested during 2025-2035 to reach Labour’s 2030 clean power target. This works at an average of £10.6bn per year, according to Aurora.
What it excludes
The current secretary of state’s phrasing is false. The same Aurora analysis said a total of £105bn would need to be invested during 2025-2035 to meet the government’s own target of clean power by 2035, averaging £9.5bn per year. As such, the “extra” investment is only £11bn over 11 years, or £1bn a year.
Coutinho’s claim that higher investment would mean higher taxes is also false, as electricity sector investment is predominantly from the private sector and paid for via bills. Moreover, Aurora has said, based on the same analysis, that consumer energy bills would be lower under Labour’s 2030 target than under a 2035 clean power goal – or under the current, less ambitious trajectory. Aurora said: “Either scenario will be highly challenging to implement, stretching the limits of deliverability. However, if delivered, increased investment could lead to lower total system costs once the long-term savings from lower gas consumption are included.”
close
FALSE
£30bn
“Ditching Net Zero could save the public sector over £30bn per year for the next 25 years.”
– Reform manifesto – 17 June 2024
Where it comes from
Reform, a climate-sceptic party led and majority owned by Nigel Farage, offers almost no information on how it arrived at this figure. According to the OBR, public-sector spending on net-zero is estimated at around £8bn per year. The only other number mentioned by Reform is for renewable energy subsidies, which it puts at £10bn per year. These are paid by consumers, not the government, such that scrapping them would not save the public sector any money. Instead, Reform proposes to tax renewables by an equivalent amount, which would likely end investor confidence in the UK across the board.
What it excludes
Reform is claiming, implausibly, that the government could save more than it currently spends. It also focuses on the costs of reaching net-zero while ignoring benefits, as well as the cost of business-as-usual. The CCC has estimated that reaching net-zero will entail net investment costs of £44bn per year out to 2050, offset by operational cost savings of £29bn per year, with the annual cost in total averaging £15bn. This excludes wider GDP impacts: the CCC said that the size of the economy, the number of jobs and real disposable incomes would all grow under a net-zero pathway. The CCC’s monetary estimates also exclude the cost of climate impacts, the sizeable health benefits of improved air quality and other externalities. The IEA recently concluded that accelerating climate action towards net-zero “could lead to major reductions in household energy bills”, again purely looking at economic costs and benefits. According to the OBR, the UK government spent £51bn on energy bill support during 2022-23, after gas prices rocketed.
close
FALSE
£2tn
“The UK cost of net-zero has been estimated by the National Grid and others at some £2tn or more. It is so big that no one really knows.”
– Draft Reform manifesto – 19 March 2024
Where it comes from
In 2020, National Grid Electricity System Operator (ESO) estimated the cost of building and operating a net-zero energy system at a cumulative total of £2.8-3tn by 2050. This is the total cost of building and operating the country’s energy system for 30 years.
What it excludes
The Reform statement is false. The same National Grid ESO report said: “Scenarios where we hit net-zero in 2050…incur broadly the same costs as the scenario where we miss our net-zero target.” As such, based on the National Grid ESO analysis, there would not be any additional cost to hitting net-zero relative to running an energy system that does not meet the target. Moreover, in 2021, the Treasury stated: “The costs of global [climate] inaction significantly outweigh the costs of action.”
close
FALSE
£2.8-3tn
“National Grid ESO, the company which manages our electricity supply, has estimated decarbonising Britain’s entire energy system will cost between £2.8tn and £3tn between now and 2050, working out at between £108bn and £115bn a year.”
– Sun comment by Ross Clark – 23 June 2024
Where it comes from
In 2020, National Grid Electricity System Operator (ESO) estimated the cost of the country’s energy system at a cumulative total of £2.8-3tn by 2050. This is the total cost of building and operating the energy system for 30 years.
What it excludes
The climate-sceptic columnist’s statement is false. The same National Grid report said: “Scenarios where we hit net-zero in 2050…incur broadly the same costs as the scenario where we miss our net-zero target.” As such, based on the National Grid ESO analysis, there would not be any additional cost to hitting net-zero, relative to running an energy system that does not meet the target. Furthermore, the £108-115bn annual cost cited by Clark can be compared with the £265bn spent by UK consumers on energy in 2022 – when fossil fuel costs spiked due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine – including more than £100bn on imported oil and gas alone. These 2022 figures did not include investment in new infrastructure.
close
FALSE
£1,000
“[R]estoring the 2030 ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars will cost an estimated extra £1,000 per household per year from 2022 until 2050.”
– Sunday Telegraph article and editorial – 15 June 2024
Where it comes from
The Sunday Telegraph article and accompanying editorial are based on a dossier compiled by free-market thinktank the Institute of Economic Affairs, which, in turn, cites a 2022 report published by consultancy the Centre for Economic and Business Research (CEBR). The CEBR work was funded by Fair Fuel UK, the motoring lobby group run by climate-sceptic Reform candidate for London mayor Howard Cox. The newspaper omits this detail from its article.
What it excludes
The Sunday Telegraph claim is false, because the underlying report from CEBR makes the “simply perverse” assumption that the relative cost of petrol and electric vehicles (EVs) is unchanged for the next 30 years. The assumption that EVs will continue to face a purchase price premium over petrol cars is directly contradicted by the evidence of falling costs, including recent data showing that EVs are now close to up-front price parity in the UK. The Climate Change Committee (CCC) concluded that an earlier combustion-engine car ban would deliver £6bn in cost savings, because EVs have much lower running costs than petrol cars, again directly contradicting the CEBR and Sunday Telegraph claims. When Sunak delayed the combustion-car ban from 2030 to 2035, the CCC said this was “likely to increase…motoring costs for households”, adding that EVs were “significantly cheaper than petrol or diesel vehicles to own and operate”.
check
TRUE
£265bn
“The UK spent a staggering £265bn on energy in 2022 – the most recent data available – including more than £100bn on imported oil and gas alone”
– Tweet by Carbon Brief’s Simon Evans – 8 February 2024
Where it comes from
This is the cost of energy – the majority of it being fossil fuels – bought in the UK in 2022 at market prices, reflecting the cost to consumers of heat, power and transport fuel. The data was the most recently available at time of publication and covers the first year of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, when Russia restricted gas supplies to Europe and sent fossil fuel prices rocketing. In the pre-crisis year of 2021, the UK spent £184bn on energy.
What it excludes
These figures do not include investment in energy-related infrastructure, such as power plants, pylons, boilers, cars or heat pumps. Many conversations about the cost of reaching net-zero ignore the substantial costs of the status quo, which is heavily reliant on volatile fossil fuels.
The post Factcheck: How ‘scary-sounding numbers’ are being used to mislead the UK about net-zero appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Factcheck: How ‘scary-sounding numbers’ are being used to mislead the UK about net-zero
CANBERRA, Monday 27 October 2025 — More than 100 Australian scientists and researchers have called on the Labor Government to address deforestation in the new nature law reforms, warning that the impacts under the current Act “compound the damage caused by repeated mass bleaching events driven by climate change” to the Great Barrier Reef.
Environment Minister Murray Watt will soon table the draft bill to reform Australia’s broken nature law, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act. Leading environmental groups Greenpeace Australia Pacific, the Australian Marine Conservation Society, and the Australian Conservation Foundation coordinated the open letter with 112 leading Australian scientists, calling for the reforms to close loopholes in the Act that allow for rampant and unchecked deforestation, especially in the Great Barrier Reef catchment.
Read the letter here.
Elle Lawless, senior campaigner at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said:
“Now is the time to act decisively for nature, and design a nature-first nature law that will do what it is set out to do: protect our environment. Toxic runoff from deforestation in the Great Barrier Reef catchment is poisoning the reef and suffocating the precious and fragile marine ecosystem. The Great Barrier Reef is a global icon, and we need a strong, robust EPBC Act that will safeguard and protect it. This is one of the most important pieces of legislation our country and our environment has and, done right, has the power to make serious and desperately needed positive changes to protect nature.”
Professor James Watson FQA, from UQ’s School of the Environment, said:
“Australia’s State of the Environment report, released by the federal government in 2021, shows that our oceans, rivers and wetlands are in serious decline. That report, and the Samuel review of the EPBC, make the point that there is a desperate need for stronger national nature laws that help protect these precious places for generations to come.
“Australia’s top environmental academics and experts have been sounding the alarm for decades: the large-scale destruction of Australia’s native woodlands, forests, wetlands and grasslands is the single biggest threat to our biodiversity. It’s driving an extinction crisis unlike anywhere else on Earth — and it’s threatening the Great Barrier Reef, one of the world’s seven natural wonders, right before our eyes.”
Continued mass deforestation threatens the Great Barrier Reef’s World Heritage status. In 2026, the World Heritage Committee will review Australia’s progress in protecting the reef and may consider placing it on the World Heritage in Danger list if major threats like deforestation are not addressed.
Recent figures from the Queensland Government show deforestation in Queensland is the worst in the nation and worsening under the current national environment law. Deforestation in the Great Barrier Reef catchment accounted for almost half (44%) of the state’s total clearing, an increase on the previous year.
Greenpeace Australia Pacific is calling for the EPBC reforms to meet four key tests:
- Stronger upfront nature protection to guide better decisions on big projects, including National Environmental Standards.
- An independent Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to enforce the laws and make decisions about controversial projects at arm’s length from politics.
- Closing deforestation loopholes that allow for harmful industries to carry out mass bulldozing across Australia.
- Consideration of the climate impacts on nature from coal and gas mines when assessing projects for approvals.
“We will continue to engage with the government constructively in the reform process but also hold decision-makers to account over these critical tests,” Lawless said.
—ENDS—
Leading scientists call for EPBC reforms to strengthen Great Barrier Reef protection
22 October 2025
The Hon Anthony Albanese MP
Prime Minister
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600
Sent via email
To the Prime Minister, Federal Environment Minister, and Members of the Albanese Government,
As researchers who study, document and work to recover Australia’s plants and animals, insects and ecosystems, we are keenly aware of the value of nature to Australians and the world.
Australia has one of the worst rates of deforestation globally. For every 100 hectares of native woodland cleared, about 2000 birds, 15,000 reptiles and 500 native mammals will die. As scientists and experts, we have sounded the alarm for more than 30 years that the large-scale destruction of native woodlands, forests, wetlands and grasslands was the single biggest threat to the nation’s biodiversity. That is still the case today, and it is driving an extinction crisis.
New figures show that Queensland continues to lead the nation in deforestation. The latest statewide landcover and trees study (SLATS) report shows that annually 44% of all deforestation in Queensland occurs in the Great Barrier Reef catchment areas, where over 140,000 hectares are bulldozed each year.
Deforestation in Great Barrier Reef catchments is devastating one of Australia’s most iconic natural wonders. When forests and bushland are bulldozed, erosion causes debris to wash into waterways, sending sediment, nutrients and pesticides into the Reef waters. This smothers coral, fuels crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaks, and reduces water quality. These impacts compound the damage caused by repeated mass bleaching events driven by climate change.
The Great Barrier Reef sustains precious marine life, supports local and global biodiversity, and underpins tourism economies and coastal communities that rely on its survival. Continued mass deforestation threatens these values and could jeopardise the Reef’s World Heritage status. In 2026 the World Heritage Committee will review Australia’s progress in protecting the Reef and may consider placing it on the World Heritage in Danger list, if key threats to the Reef, including deforestation, are not addressed.
This mass deforestation happens due to a loophole in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act, our national nature law. Exemptions allow deforestation to continue largely unregulated by the EPBC Act through a grandfathering clause from 2000 known as “continuous use”. Without meaningful reform, deforestation will continue to drive massive biodiversity loss. This loophole must be closed as part of the proposed EPBC Act reforms. The law is meant to safeguard our wildlife and our most precious places like the Great Barrier Reef. Please support closing major deforestation loopholes in the EPBC Act as an urgent and priority issue for the Federal Government.
Sincerely,
Professor James Watson, University of Queensland
Dr. Michelle Ward
Mandy Cheung
Mr Lachlan Cross
Timothy Ravasi
Gillian Rowan
Dr Graham R. Fulton, The University of Queensland
Dr Alison Peel
Dr James Richardson University of Queensland
Luke Emerson, University of Newcastle
Dr Hilary Pearl
Dr Tina Parkhurst
Dr Kerry Bridle
Dr Tracy Schultz, Senior Research Fellow, University of Queensland
Dr. Zachary Amir
Prof David M Watson, Gulbali Institute, CSU
Naomi Ploos van Amstel, PhD candidate
David Schoeman
Associate Professor Simone Blomberg, University of Queensland
Professor Euan Ritchie, Deakin University
Dr Ian Baird, Conservation Biologist
Paul Elton (ANU)
Melissa Billington
Hayden de Villiers
Professor Brett Murphy, Charles Darwin University
Professor Sarah Bekessy
Professor Anthony J. Richardson (University of Queensland)
Prof. Winnifred Louis, University of Queensland
Dr Yung En Chee, The University of Melbourne
Dr Jed Calvert, postdoctoral research fellow in wetland ecology, University of Queensland
A/Prof Daniel C Dunn, Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, University of Queensland
Lincoln Kern, Ecologist
Professor Corey Bradshaw, Flinders University
Dr. Viviana Gonzalez, The University of Queensland
Prof. Helen Bostock
Dr Leslie Roberson
Bethany Kiss
Assoc. Prof Diana Fisher, UQ, and co-chair of the IUCN Marsupial and Monotreme Specialist Group
Dr Jacinta Humphrey, RMIT University
Professor Mathew Crowther
Christopher R. Dickman, Professor Emeritus, The University of Sydney
Fiona Hoegh-Guldberg, RMIT University
Dr Bertram Jenkins
Dr Daniela ParraFaundes
Dr Jessica Walsh
Dr. GABRIELLA scata – marine biologist, wildlife protector
Katherine Robertson
Professor Jane Williamson, Macquarie University
William F. Laurance, Distinguished Professor, James Cook University
A/Prof Deb Bower
Dr Leslie Roberson, University of Queensland
Ms Jasmine Hall, Senior Research Assistant in Coastal Wetland Biogeochemistry, Ecology and Management, Australian Rivers Institute, Griffith University
Dr Kita Ashman, Adjunct Research Associate, Charles Sturt University
Genevieve Newey
Matt Hayward
Jessie Moyses
Natalya Maitz, PhD Candidate, The University of Queensland
Christina Ritchie
Liana van Woesik, PhD Student, University of Queensland
Benjamin Lucas, PhD Researcher
A/Prof. Carissa Klein, The University of Queensland
Conrad Pratt, PhD Student, University of Queensland
Dr Ascelin Gordon, RMIT University
Professor Nicole Graham, The University of Sydney
Professor Murray Lee, University of Sydney Law School
Dr Tracy Schultz, Snr Research Fellow, University of Queensland
Libby Newton (PhD candidate, Sydney Law School)
Hannah Thomas, University of Queensland
Professor Richard Kingsford, Director of the Centre for Ecosystem Science, UNSW Sydney
Dr Anna Hopkins
Lena van Swinderen, PhD candidate at the University of Queensland
Professor Jodie Rummer, James Cook University
Dr Nita Lauren, Lecturer, RMIT University
Dr Christina Zdenek
Madeline Davey
Dr Rachel Killean, Sydney Law School
Dr. Sofía López-Cubillos
Dr Claire Larroux
Dr Alice Twomey, The University of Queensland
Zoe Gralton
Dr Robyn Gulliver
Ryan Borrett, Murdoch University
Adjunct Prof. Paul Lawrence, Griffith University, Brisbane Qld
Professor Susan Park, University of Sydney
Dr Holly Kirk, Curtin University
Deakin Distinguished Professor Marcel Klaassen
Dr Megan Evans, UNSW Canberra
Dr Amanda Irwin, The University of Sydney
Dr Keith Cardwell
Professor Don Driscoll, Deakin University
Susan Bengtson Nash
Distinguished Professor David Lindenmayer
Dr Madelyn Mangan, University of Queensland
Dr Isabella Smith
Geoff Lockwood
Dr Paula Peeters, Paperbark Writer
Prof Cynthia Riginos, University of Queensland
Dr. Sankar Subramanian
Associate Professor Zoe Richards
Dr Jessie Wells, The University of Melbourne
Professor Gretta Pecl AM, University of Tasmania
Dr April Reside, The University of Queensland
Oriana Licul-Milevoj (Ecologist)
Dr Yves-Marie Bozec, University of Queensland
Dr Julia Hazel
Dr Judit K. Szabo
Ana Ulloa
Dr Andreas Dietzel
Philip Spark – North West Ecological Services
Jonathan Freeman
Dr/ Mohamed Mohamed Rashad
The recent discovery of Grimpoteuthis feitiana, a new species of Dumbo octopus found deep in the Pacific, is a reminder of something both humbling and urgent: we still know so little about the ocean that shapes our lives. This fragile, finned creature, gliding silently more than a kilometer beneath the waves, has lived in these waters long before we mapped them, and its story is only now coming to light.
What moves me most about this discovery is not just the Dumbo octopus itself, but how it bridges science and culture. Its name draws inspiration from the flying apsaras of China’s Dunhuang murals, those graceful, winged figures that seem to dance through air and imagination. It reminds me that the deep sea has always held a place in our collective human story, — not only in myths and art, but in the ways we relate to nature, learn from it, and find meaning within it.
Pasifika connection to the ocean
For us in the Pacific, the ocean is more than a body of water. It is our identity, our culture, our history. Our ancestors read the seas to navigate, to survive, to connect communities scattered across islands. Discoveries like this Dumbo octopus awaken something deeper in me, — a sense that the ocean is alive with stories and wisdom we are only beginning to rediscover. And with that understanding comes a responsibility to protect it.
Each new species like the Dumbo octopus, each glimpse into the deep, is a warning as much as it is a wonder. The creatures of the abyss live slow, deliberate lives in fragile ecosystems, shaped by balance and patience. Deep-sea mining, pollution, and climate change threaten to erase them before we even learn their names. Protecting the Pacific’s oceans is not an abstract act of conservation; it is an act of cultural preservation, of love for our home, and for the unseen life that sustains us all.
Grimpoteuthis feitiana is more than a scientific discovery. It is a reminder that the ocean is still full of life, mystery, and wisdom — and that we have a duty to ensure these depths remain wild, healthy, and alive, for us and for the generations yet to come.
Reflection by Raeed Ali
Pacific Community Mobiliser
Leading scientists call for EPBC reforms to strengthen Great Barrier Reef protection
How Should the Measles/Mumps/Rubella Vaccine Be Administered? Should You Ask a High School Baseball Coach?
Do Americans Approve of Our Country’s Execution of Innocent People?
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change3 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Greenhouse Gases3 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change1 year ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Renewable Energy3 months ago
US Grid Strain, Possible Allete Sale