Terrifying 😨

So what's the main target of Helm's polemic? Of course, Secretary of State Ed Miliband who made net zero "such a divisive political chasm." No mention of the politicians and newspapers (incl the Times) on the right who have systematically undermined the UK's climate consensus.

His advocacy of the "polluter pays principle" is part of the standard economist's response. And it's correct. But if we took this seriously (we never did), you can't at the same time complain about the costs of the green energy transition and call for help for the biggest industrial polluters.

Interestingly, Helm does not dismiss net zero altogether (though he feeds the conservative attack on the UK's net zero policy). In fact, he wants an even stronger net zero target that includes carbon imports, which would make UK climate policy even more onerous.

What of the alternative that Helm suggests, "a bottom-up coalition of unilateralist countries on carbon targets"? Germany tried this in the G7 in 2023, but when the US rejects climate science and China and Russia continue to push fossil fuels, there are few large emitters to make such a club work.

For one, a "top-down legally binding treaty" is not on the agenda at #COP30 in Brazil. This idea died back in 2009, at the Copenhagen COP. In many ways, the 2015 Paris Agreement offers all the benefits that Helm seems to want out of "bottom-up" climate action. Why rehash these decades-old debates?

We've heard it all before - the #COP process is not working, we don't need a "top-down legally binding treaty", better to work "bottom-up" with a few unilateralist countries, UK climate leadership is pointless - but he offers few if any viable alternatives.