🚨 THEY SET THE TARGETS. YOU GET THE BILL.

The Climate Change Committee recommends. Ministers decide. Parliament makes the targets law. The public deserves to know what the programme will cost — and who pays.

Britain can be given a legally binding emissions target decades into the future. But what does meeting it mean for your household, your business and the countryside around you?

How much must be spent? What must be built? Which costs reach our bills? Which reach our taxes? Who carries the risk if the programme costs more than promised?

The answer needs to be clear enough for the people expected to finance it to understand.

That is the case behind our petition: make them show the evidence before the law drives further expensive commitments.

👥 THE CCC DRAWS THE PATHWAY

The Climate Change Committee is an appointed statutory advisory body. It recommends emissions targets, develops pathways for meeting them and reports on progress. Ministers must consider its advice.

Its Seventh Carbon Budget advice reaches into electricity generation, home heating, transport, industry, farming and land use.

The Committee puts costs and expected savings into its calculations. Those calculations depend on assumptions about technology, prices, construction and how quickly people change the equipment they use.

Advice on a pathway carries enormous influence. It should face equally serious scrutiny.

🏛️ MINISTERS ACCEPT. PARLIAMENT APPROVES.

The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero leads the Government’s emissions-reduction policy. Ministers choose how to respond to the CCC and which policies to pursue.

On 2 June 2026, Ed Miliband, then Energy Secretary, told Parliament that the Government had accepted the CCC’s recommended Seventh Carbon Budget level.

In the same statement, he explained that the delivery pathway would be set out in a future plan, after the budget level had been set.

Both Houses approved the Carbon Budget Order 2026. Climate Minister Katie White signed it on 25 June. It took effect the next day.

The binding target came first.
The detailed delivery plan would follow.

That is the sequence provided by the Climate Change Act. It is also a sequence Parliament should be willing to question.

Accepting the advice is a political decision. Ministers and MPs remain responsible for the consequences.

💷 THEIR OWN ESTIMATE: £880 BILLION

The Government’s impact assessment, Table 6, models £880 billion in additional capital and finance costs for the transition over 2025–2050, against its “no Net Zero” baseline.

That estimate includes public and private investment. It is a forecast on stated assumptions.

The Government also forecasts substantial savings and wider benefits. Those claims need testing alongside the expenditure.

Money must be found before a forecast can become a saving. A favourable national calculation does not tell a family whether it can afford the upfront cost.

🧾 THE MISSING DETAIL: WHO ACTUALLY PAYS?

Here is the sharper question — and the Government’s own assessment explains why it matters.

Annex A3 says a detailed, quantified breakdown of the effects on different groups could not be produced at that stage, because the specific policy package had not been settled.

In plain English: while recommending the binding target, the assessment could not fully quantify how the costs and benefits would be shared between different people.

The target became law before the detailed “who pays” account was available.

That is an accountability gap Parliament should close.

🏠 A NATIONAL SAVING IS NOT YOUR HOUSEHOLD BUDGET

A family able to buy new equipment may gain lower running costs. A family without the money to make that purchase faces a different decision.

A tenant does not control the same choices as an owner. A rural household cannot assume the same travel options as a household beside reliable public transport.

Businesses also need dependable power at a price that lets them compete. They need to know when capacity will arrive and what the required changes will cost.

Parliament’s Environmental Audit Committee called for a fairness assessment identifying who could face disproportionate costs, including workers whose jobs are displaced. It supported the recommended target while calling for stronger safeguards.

“Good for the country” needs an explanation of what happens to the people within it.

🌾 THE COUNTRYSIDE NEEDS AN ACCOUNT TOO

The programme reaches beyond the electricity meter. Our petition asks Parliament to examine the land and infrastructure it will require.

Which farmland is needed? Where will pylons and cables go? What substations, storage sites and access roads are required?

What happens when several schemes affect the same area? Who pays for reinforcement, maintenance and eventual restoration?

A national total cannot explain the full consequences for a community surrounded by proposed developments.

Food security, peatland, landscapes and energy security belong in the same national assessment.

📚 SHOW US ONE COMPLETE NATIONAL ACCOUNT

The public should be able to follow a clear account, independently tested and updated as decisions are made.

Use consistent figures. Prevent double counting. Make the underlying evidence available for engineers, economists and the public to challenge.

Accountability means being able to trace the money, the construction and the consequences.

⚠️ IF THE FORECAST FAILS, WHO PICKS UP THE DIFFERENCE?

If construction costs rise, equipment performs differently or grid works arrive late, who carries the extra expense?

If expected savings arrive later than promised, what protects the household or business that has already paid?

Those questions require practical answers from the people taking the decisions.

A forecast is not a financial guarantee. A legal emissions target is not a complete delivery budget.

THE TARGETS ARE LAW.
THE SAVINGS ARE FORECASTS.
SHOW US WHO PAYS.

🔎 EVIDENCE NOTE

The CCC advises; ministers propose carbon budgets and both Houses approve the Orders. The emissions cap binds the Government. Individual measures and funding arrangements require further policy decisions.

The £880 billion figure is Table 6, option 2: capital and finance costs over 2025–2050, discounted in 2025 prices against the specified “no Net Zero” baseline. Operating savings are shown separately. The estimate includes public and private expenditure. The technical basis is in the impact assessment.

Annex A3 also contains qualitative analysis. The CCC’s supplementary analysis finds Net Zero beneficial in the scenarios it tests. The demand here is for independent examination of assumptions, delivery and the allocation of costs.

Energy bills also respond to wholesale fuel prices and other supply costs. A full assessment must separate those effects from the effects of policy. Commentary and proposed scrutiny requirements are HOPE’s argument.

Photographs are dated archive images, reproduced with their credits and licence links. They show people involved in the advice and acceptance of the budget. Emma Pinchbeck’s photograph is displayed complete, without cropping or retouching. Ed Miliband is identified in his role at the time of the June 2026 decision.