Britain has committed itself to one of the most ambitious net zero programmes in the world. Targets are set. Timelines are clear. Policies—subsidies, mandates, bans—are steadily pushing the economy towards decarbonisation.
On its own terms, this is a success story.
Emissions are falling. Coal is disappearing from the energy mix. Electric vehicles are becoming more common. Renewable generation continues to expand. Compared to a decade ago, the direction of travel is unmistakable. By the time of the next election the change will be irreversible.
But there is a more awkward question beneath the surface.
What is the green transition actually for?
In China, the answer has been clear. The transition to electric vehicles, batteries, and renewables was not just an environmental policy. It was an industrial strategy. The state identified sectors it wanted to dominate, scaled them aggressively, and built the supply chains to support them. The result is that China now sits at the centre of global production in many of these industries.
Britain has taken a different path.
Here, net zero has been treated primarily as a problem of behaviour. The focus has been on changing what people consume rather than what the country produces. Incentives encourage households to adopt electric vehicles. Regulations push energy suppliers towards renewables. Targets shape corporate behaviour.
All of this reduces emissions. But it does not necessarily build industries.
That distinction matters.
If the transition is driven by consumption, the economic benefits tend to flow elsewhere. Electric vehicles are purchased, but often built abroad. Solar panels are installed, but largely imported. Battery supply chains remain external. The UK decarbonises, but does not capture much of the value created by that process.
This is not a failure of intent. It is a consequence of design.
British policy has been cautious, fiscally constrained, and shaped by a preference for market-led solutions. Governments have been willing to nudge and regulate, but far less willing to pick sectors, build capacity at scale, or tolerate the risks that come with industrial strategy. After 2 years in power the Government is finally starting to become more radical, nationalising the UK’s last remaining virgin steel producer. But it is a long way short of the ambition shown by China which is building whole industries shaped by Government policy.
The result is a transition without a clear industrial anchor.
There are exceptions. Offshore wind has been a relative success, supported by consistent policy and a degree of domestic capability. But even here, much of the manufacturing sits outside the UK. The pattern repeats across other sectors: strong deployment, weaker production.
None of this means the transition is misguided. Reducing emissions is a necessary goal, and progress should not be dismissed. But it does mean that the economic opportunity attached to net zero is being only partially realised. We are still constrained by a market led orthodoxy which has long since run out of steam. The crisis of the modern era need Government’s to be braver about taking a leading role themselves. The current Government has flirted with these ideas briefly before returning to market solutions. It is running out of time to find it’s courage.