Andrew Bowie: The Government’s ideological pursuit of net zero is forcing them to drive us into the arms of China

When MPs were recalled to Parliament to debate the crisis engulfing British Steel, no one could have been in any doubt as to how we ended up at this point—or why.

There is no escaping the fact that we were staring down the barrel of this crisis, at the eleventh hour, in large part because of Labour’s sheer incompetence.

That the UK found itself on the brink of losing a vital steel producing capacity – is a damning indictment of the decisions made by Keir Starmer and Jonathan Reynolds. The implications for our infrastructure, industry, and national security are nothing short of profound.

Labour entered government and promptly binned an industry-backed plan that would have delivered meaningful modernisation in Teesside and protected jobs in Scunthorpe. In its place, they pursued a fantasy: an ill-thought-out scheme driven more by their union paymasters than practical sense. Unsurprisingly, it unravelled. They were forced into a last-ditch intervention to stem the fallout.

Let’s call it what it was. Damage control.

This latest Labour crisis also lays bare the deeper issues facing our country as a result of the unthinking rush toward net zero by 2050. Like every other energy-intensive industry, steelmaking has been squeezed by increasingly stringent green targets, costly levies, and spiralling energy prices. As the drive to meet an arbitrary 2050 deadline intensified, so too did the pressure on foundational industries.

The result? British firms became less competitive, less profitable, and more vulnerable. That left one of the UK’s most vital industries unviable. And since then, China – who stepped in at the time – has proven itself to be an unreliable partner.

As the world has changed in the last few years has become more volatile, we’ve seen the true face of China –  a country who has shown a record of targeting critical infrastructure, undermining strategic sectors, and stealing intellectual property.

This isn’t about one site, one sector, or one deal. It’s a pattern. Across the board, net zero zealotry has opened the door to greater Chinese involvement in our energy infrastructure. We must pause and ask why Chinese companies are so often the most eager, or indeed the only, investors in exorbitantly expensive green projects like offshore wind. And we must confront where this road leads.

Take solar power. We cannot ignore that the vast majority of the world’s solar panels are made in China, by a supply chain riddled with slave labour, environmental abuse, and geopolitical manipulation.

That’s why Kemi Badenoch, Claire Coutinho and I have been honest with the British public about what net zero by 2050 truly means: what it costs, who pays, and who stands to benefit. We’ve been frank that successive governments, including Conservative ones, took the wrong path.

We’ve acknowledged that businesses, consumers and taxpayers are now paying the price. And we’ve been clear-eyed about the kind of partners we’ll be relying on if we continue blindly down this road. Unlike Labour, who are not only offshoring emissions but also their moral compass, we’re taking a different approach – one that puts national interest first, not last. One grounded in realism, not ideology.

After this week, one would hope Labour might begin to do the same.

But then again, just days after the parliamentary crisis over steel, one of their Ministers was getting on a jet to China, ready to once again shake the government’s begging bowl at the CCP. The Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds started twisting and turning at record speed – walking back from the tough talk on China he was peddling just days prior.

Now, instead of standing up for our national interest, he is readying the launch a new trade commission in a desperate attempt to once again kowtow to Beijing – whilst Rachel Reeves spends her time defending this engagement rather than fixing the economic mess she has made.

The government now has an opportunity to take off the blinders imposed by Ed Miliband and confront the reality of what its energy policy truly entails. It has a chance to accept that China is no ally. And it still has time to course-correct before we lock ourselves further into a strategy that threatens both our prosperity and our security.

So the question now is this: will the government act in the national interest, or once again sacrifice it all on the altar of ideology?