Ted Christie-Miller: Repealing the Climate Change Act would be deeply un-Conservative

Ted Christie-Miller was the founder of the climate programme at the thinktank Onward. 

In 2008, in the midst of the greatest economic crisis in a generation, something extraordinary happened in British politics. The vast majority of MPs voted for the Climate Change Act. Only three didn’t. For once, Westminster rose above the usual tribalism and backed something genuinely historic. It was supported by almost every Conservative MP.

About a decade later, in 2019, I founded the climate programme at the think tank Onward. On its advisory board at the time were three rising Conservative stars: Kemi Badenoch, Claire Coutinho, and Neil O’Brien. Our task was clear: how can Britain transition to a green economy in a pragmatic, pro-innovation, voter-friendly, and market driven way? In short: what does a Conservative route to green growth really look like?

Fast forward, and today’s Conservatives have thrown the Net Zero baby out with the bath water. I think this is bad politics, bad economics, and deeply un-Conservative.

Let’s start with politics. Conservative voters are not sceptics on climate – quite the opposite. Polling shows that almost three-quarters of them support the UK’s net zero target, and more than four in five back the expansion of renewable energy. Across the electorate as a whole, 84 per cent want investment in clean energy such as wind and solar, and two-thirds of Conservative-intending voters say they support net zero despite the noise from parts of the party. Even Reform voters support targets to reduce our emissions.

To rip that up now would be to torch one of the few genuine cross-party achievements of the last two decades; you alienate your voters; you give the Labour Party the chance to appear the only ‘serious’ party on climate; and you abandon the political centre-ground – the very ground that wins elections.

Quick reminder: no party has ever won by chasing populist right-wing sentiment. Why vote for diet Farage when you can have full fat?

Second, it’s bad economics. After leaving a Westminster think tank, I started a company in the clean economy. My business helps build the projects that cut emissions, generate jobs and growth, and attract investment.

Let me tell you: entrepreneurs and investors don’t risk their capital when politicians flip-flop on policy so glaringly. Innovation flourishes when there is certainty. Durable policy creates durable markets.

The Climate Change Act gave people who wanted to do business in Britain assurances. It told them: here is the path, here are the rules, go out and compete. And they did. From offshore wind to battery storage to carbon removal technologies, entire industries have been built on the back of that stability.

Tear it up, and you don’t just weaken climate policy. You pull the rug from under thousands of entrepreneurs, billions in capital, and one of the fastest-growing global markets. You make Britain look unserious, uninvestable, and uncompetitive. What is the serious thinking behind this policy? To indulge in a bit of anti-green posturing? To land a headline in the Telegraph? The costs are far greater than the clicks.

And let’s deal with the energy bills myth. It is true that Britain now has some of the highest household energy bills in the world. And Conservatives aren’t wrong when they point to the way environmental and social levies are loaded onto electricity: roughly 20 per cent of an electricity bill comes from them. I spent years arguing with successive Conservative governments that we should rebalance those costs, taking taxes off electricity so we make it cheaper for families to switch from gas boilers and petrol cars to clean power.

But let’s be clear: that is not why bills have gone through the roof. The main reasons are far more basic. We are dangerously dependent on gas for both power and heating. When Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine, wholesale prices spiked tenfold, and Britain – with its threadbare gas storage, stalled nuclear programme, and draughty housing stock – was left badly exposed.

The Climate Change Act resulted in some increased electricity taxes, which can and should be removed. But it also gave us the industries – offshore wind, solar, battery storage – that are now cheaper than gas and which are slowly pulling bills down. Without that framework, we would have no alternatives at all.

So the problem isn’t the Act. The problem is successive Conservative governments didn’t follow through: they dithered on nuclear, cut support for insulation, and failed to rebalance electricity levies. To now blame the Act for high bills is like blaming the referee when you’ve spent a decade kicking the ball into your own net.

Third, scrapping the CCA is deeply un-Conservative. What does Conservatism stand for, if not stability, reliable institutions, and long-term stewardship? That is exactly what the Climate Change Act delivered. It set out a clear framework that gave businesses and investors’ confidence to plan, innovate, and invest for the long term.

Repealing the Act would do the opposite. It would inject chaos into energy policy. It would spook investors, undermine Britain’s reputation, and send a message that nothing here is durable – not even the flagship legislation passed almost unanimously by Parliament.

Think about that. The party of tradition, responsibility, and “taking the long view”, behaving like a student union, tearing up its own rules when it gets desperate.

Don’t get me wrong, the Labour fantasy isn’t the answer either. 100 per cent clean power by 2030 is unnecessarily fast and will likely increase bills as a result. You don’t rebuild a national grid with a manifesto slogan. But that’s the problem. One side is trading in recklessness. The other in fantasy. Neither is serious.

What Britain needs is a sensible path: realistic, credible, long-term climate policy that attracts capital, secures jobs, and strengthens our energy security. In other words, build on the inheritance of the Climate Change Act – not tear it apart for the sake of a few cheap headlines.