The UK doesn't have a net zero problem. It has a sequencing problem.
When you place aggressive transition targets on top of economic fragility, prosperity gets squeezed — and that ultimately weakens climate progress itself.
I’m pro-environment. I’m pro-Britain. And I don’t believe those positions should conflict.
But right now, the tension is becoming harder to ignore.
The Economic Backdrop We Can’t Ignore
This isn’t abstract. Over recent months:
Inflation has fallen to around 3%, sparking rate cut expectations
Household energy bills are forecast to fall modestly
Yet unemployment has hit a five-year high
Retailers are cutting staff and hours due to rising costs
Ministers are reconsidering wage policy to protect employment
In simple terms: Relief is coming in some areas. Fragility is growing in others.
This is the economic soil into which net zero policy is being planted.
Where It Gets Specific: UK Industrial Energy Costs
Here’s where the sequencing argument becomes concrete.
UK industrial electricity is among the highest-cost in Europe:
Large industrial users in the UK pay around 40% more than France (2025/26)
UK steelmakers have paid £845 million more for electricity than French competitors since 2016/17 — money that could have funded electric arc furnace investment instead
UK prices are roughly 125% higher than the EU14 median for large users
Very large users pay 22.39p/kWh — more than five times Finland’s 4.37p/kWh
On windy days, we curtail or export excess supply. On still days, we rely on imports or storage we haven’t built yet.
That isn’t a renewables problem. It’s an infrastructure sequencing problem.
Compare this to France: decades of nuclear investment mean industrial electricity runs at roughly 2.5× gas prices. In the UK, it is closer to 6×. The gap isn’t gas. It’s policy design — network charges, balancing costs, levies, and the lack of industrial protections that exist in Germany, France, Spain and Italy.
The consequence is predictable: manufacturing relocates.
Stellantis closed its Luton van plant. Battery production, AI computing, steel electrification — all gravitate toward cheaper energy jurisdictions.
You cannot compete globally when electricity costs are two to three times your peers.
The Fiscal Squeeze Nobody’s Talking About
Here’s the mechanism:
If growth stalls → tax revenue stalls → government has less to spend → can’t fund transition or services.
When the economic base weakens:
Corporation tax receipts fall
Income tax receipts fall
The government has less money to invest
That means less capital for grid upgrades, storage, nuclear, hydrogen and clean tech rollout.
Ironically, it means less scope for the transition that could drive growth in the first place.
This is the policy trap:
Pursue net zero too aggressively at the expense of growth → weaken the economy → struggle to afford the transition or public services.
The Global Growth Context
It matters where growth is happening:
China and India account for over 40% of projected global GDP growth
Asia‑Pacific contributes roughly half of all global growth
Europe barely features
Growth follows cheap energy, competitive industry and domestic investment.
If the UK weakens itself by transitioning faster than peers without protecting competitiveness, we don’t lead the climate narrative. We marginalise ourselves within it.
Countries with strong economies set climate negotiation rules. Countries in managed decline negotiate from weakness.
The Mental Health & Financial Wellbeing Thread
Here’s what often gets missed: financial anxiety and energy poverty directly affect mental health.
Persistent cost-of-living pressure erodes resilience and trust. From my NHS transformation background, I’ve seen how financial strain drives anxiety, absenteeism and reduced productivity across families and workplaces.
A transition that improves household financial security builds public and mental health support. A transition that feels like managed decline loses both.
For employers, this is not politics. It is a performance issue.
A Better Order of Operations
We don’t need to abandon net zero. We need to sequence it intelligently:
Energy affordability (for households and industry)
Grid and storage infrastructure
Domestic industrial competitiveness
Then accelerated transition targets
This isn’t anti-environment. It recognises that prosperity enables progress.
Cheap, reliable energy strengthens households and businesses. Strong households save, invest and build wealth. Competitive industry funds innovation and attracts long-term investment. When those conditions exist, the transition accelerates and sticks politically.
What This Actually Means
For government: Fix industrial electricity costs first. Contract for Difference protections being proposed for steel are a start, but need extending across energy-intensive sectors and clean tech manufacturing. Grid investment cannot wait.
For investors: Countries that crack this sequencing — energy affordability + competitive industry + transition — will dominate clean tech for the next 20 years. The UK can still be that place, but not if we hollow ourselves out first.
For employers & HR teams: Financial wellness isn’t optional. If your people are stressed about energy bills and job security, productivity, retention and engagement all suffer. This is a business case, not charity.
Final Thought
Britain can decarbonise and grow.
But growth cannot be treated as secondary to net zero. Net zero should be the by‑product of a strong economy — not a constraint placed upon a weakening one.
If we get the sequencing right, we lead. If we get it wrong, we shrink.
That choice is economic before it is environmental. And ironically, it’s the choice that makes the climate transition actually work.
If you had to prioritise today: industrial energy reform first, or faster transition targets first?
That’s it for this week. If something here made you think differently, forward it to someone who needs to hear it.
Adam Thorpe
Founder, Beyond Arc