Streamline infrastructure funding and abolish Net Zero objectives
Reform UK · what the evidence says
An independent, source-checked look at Reform UK’s policy “Streamline infrastructure funding and abolish Net Zero objectives” — what it would actually do across the things that affect your life. Every claim below quotes the source behind it. How this works.
Prosperity & living standards — Hurts
moderate · moderate confidence
Abolishing Net Zero objectives is the dominant part of this policy and the evidence from credible independent bodies suggests it would increase UK exposure to fossil-fuel price volatility, deter private investment, and create trade-barrier risks — all of which damage long-run living standards and productivity. The merger of infrastructure bodies might simplify funding, but there is no evidence it would deliver gains large enough to offset those costs.
The evidence
- The policy proposes merging the NIC and Infrastructure Bank into one funding stream, simplifying the process and abolishing Net Zero objectives. — reformparty.uk (manifesto) — “overhaul and merge the National Infrastructure Commission and the Infrastructure Bank into a single government infrastructure funding stream, simplifying the funding process and abolishing Net Zero objectives to save tim…”
- The UKIB used loans, equity and guarantees to crowd in private capital across clean energy, transport, digital, water and waste. — assets.publishing.service.gov.uk (government) — “The UKIB used various financial tools, including loans, equity financing, and guarantees, to crowd-in private capital for projects, especially in clean energy, transport, digital, water, and waste”
- The UKIB had a capital cap of £12 billion in actual liabilities and around £1.5 billion a year in net lending and investment. — obr.uk (institutional) — “the UKIB had a capital cap of £12 billion in actual liabilities and a further £10 billion in contingent liabilities over five years, with forecasts of around £1.5 billion a year in net lending and investment”
- The Net Zero economy is valued at over £100 billion per year and supports more than a million jobs. — theguardian.com (media) — “The Net Zero economy is growing rapidly, valued at over £100 billion per year, and supports more than a million jobs (308,000 direct and 1.1 million including supply chains)”
- The OBR projected that unmitigated global warming could cause UK debt to rise to around 290% of GDP by end of century and an 8% hit to the economy by the early 2070s. — lordslibrary.parliament.uk (government) — “the OBR projected that unmitigated global warming could lead to UK debt rising to approximately 290% of GDP by the end of the century and an 8% hit to the economy by the early 2070s if global warming reaches 3°C”
- Continued dependence on gas could add around 13% of GDP to public debt by 2050 due to recurring price spikes. — lse.ac.uk (academic) — “continued dependence on gas could add around 13% of GDP to public debt by 2050 due to recurring price spikes”
- The CCC found that the cost of a single fossil-fuel price spike like the 2022 one would be equivalent to the full cost of the Net Zero pathway across every year until 2050. — globalgovernmentforum.com (media) — “the cost of a single fossil fuel price spike (such as that in 2022) would be equivalent to the cost of the Net Zero pathway across every year until 2050”
- Abandoning Net Zero and halting large-scale renewables could cost over 60,000 jobs in wind and solar and deprive the economy of £67–£92 billion in GVA. — neweconomics.org (media) — “abandoning Net Zero and halting large-scale renewables could lead to the loss of over 60,000 jobs in wind and solar by the end of the decade and deprive the economy of £67-£92 billion in Gross Value Added (GVA)”
- Abandoning Net Zero would expose UK firms to the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism from 2026, raising costs on high-carbon exports. — perigonpartners.co.uk (media) — “abandoning Net Zero would expose UK firms to immediate competitive disadvantages, including trade barriers such as the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), which will levy tariffs on high-carbon imports from 2…”
- Scrapping renewable energy subsidies would require compensating companies with legally binding contracts, potentially damaging investor confidence and raising the cost of financing future infrastructure. — cen.uk.com (media) — “Scrapping existing renewable energy subsidies would necessitate compensating companies with legally binding contracts, potentially damaging broader investor confidence and increasing the cost of financing future infrastr…”
Biggest unknown: Whether the UK could successfully redirect fossil-fuel and infrastructure investment into productivity-enhancing alternatives that match or exceed the economic activity currently tied to the clean-energy transition.
Our reading: This policy has two components: a structural merger of infrastructure bodies, and abolition of Net Zero objectives. On the merger, the evidence only notes a potential for simplification (E7 cites the policy's own claim) and flags a risk of losing independent advice and private capital mobilisation capacity (E8, E9). There is no cited evidence that the merger would materially improve productivity or investment at scale. The merger is therefore not a credible driver of improved O13 and may mildly worsen it if private capital crowding-in capacity is lost. The dominant effect comes from abolishing Net Zero objectives. Two independent institutional sources — the OBR and the CCC — project that Net Zero is cheaper than inaction by a wide margin (E16, E17, E18, E20, E21, E22, E23). Fossil-fuel dependency carries documented macro risks: the OBR's long-run debt trajectory under unmitigated warming reaches 290% of GDP (E18), and continued gas dependence could add 13% of GDP to public debt by 2050 (E19). These are not advocacy estimates — they come from the OBR (government, independent) and CCC (statutory body). On the real economy, the green sector already employs over a million workers and generates over £100bn annually (E25). Abandoning Net Zero risks those jobs (E29), deters private investment (E30), and creates immediate competitive barriers via the EU CBAM (E36). There is also a legal compensation liability from scrapping existing contracts (E39). Absent the policy, the UK would continue building a growing domestic clean-energy sector buffered against gas price shocks; the policy removes that buffer and shrinks a large, higher-wage employment base. The long-term living-standards effect is therefore negative. Near-term effects are more uncertain — some households could see lower levies on bills — but E33/E34 suggest the bill-reduction case is contested and likely outweighed by the macro risks. NEF and Greenpeace estimates are noted but not used as the sole basis for magnitude; the verdict rests on OBR and CCC projections.
Cost of living — Mixed picture
moderate · low confidence
Abolishing Net Zero objectives could reduce some green levies on energy bills in the short term, but evidence from the OBR and CCC suggests the UK would face higher energy costs long-term due to fossil fuel price volatility and lose the cheaper, more stable prices that renewables promise. The merger of infrastructure bodies is too vague to score on its own.
The evidence
- The policy proposes merging the NIC and Infrastructure Bank into a single funding stream and abolishing Net Zero objectives. — reformparty.uk (manifesto) — “abolishing Net Zero objectives to save time, cut waste, and boost funding and accountability”
- The UKIB deployed around £1.5 billion a year in net lending and investment, focused significantly on clean energy. — obr.uk (institutional) — “forecasts of around £1.5 billion a year in net lending and investment”
- The UKIB used financial tools to crowd in private capital especially in clean energy. — assets.publishing.service.gov.uk (government) — “crowd-in private capital for projects, especially in clean energy, transport, digital, water, and waste”
- The OBR concluded that achieving Net Zero would be much cheaper than the economic damages of failing to act. — carbonbrief.org (media) — “achieving Net Zero would be "much cheaper for the UK government than previously expected" and that its cost is "significantly smaller" than the economic damages of *failing* to act”
- The OBR estimated net cost to the economy of reaching Net Zero at £116 billion over 25 years, £204 billion lower than previous estimates. — carbonbrief.org (media) — “The OBR estimated the net cost to the economy of reaching Net Zero by 2050 at £116 billion over 25 years, which is £204 billion lower than previous estimates, largely due to rapidly falling clean-technology costs”
- The CCC found the cost of a single fossil fuel price spike equivalent to the cost of the Net Zero pathway across every year until 2050. — globalgovernmentforum.com (media) — “the cost of a single fossil fuel price spike (such as that in 2022) would be equivalent to the cost of the Net Zero pathway across every year until 2050”
- A 2022-style gas price spike would increase yearly electricity bills by £270 per household under business-as-usual, versus £40 under clean power scenarios by 2030. — neweconomics.org (media) — “a 2022-style gas price spike would increase yearly electricity bills by £270 per household under a business-as-usual scenario, compared to just £40 under clean power scenarios by 2030”
- Some analysts attribute 40% of the 50% increase in the electricity price cap since 2015 to renewables subsidies and Net Zero policies. — vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com (media) — “a 2025 analysis by Professor Gordon Hughes attributed 40% of the 50% increase in the electricity price cap since 2015 to renewables subsidies and Net Zero policies”
- Scrapping renewable subsidies would require compensating companies with legally binding contracts, potentially increasing financing costs for future infrastructure. — cen.uk.com (media) — “Scrapping existing renewable energy subsidies would necessitate compensating companies with legally binding contracts, potentially damaging broader investor confidence and increasing the cost of financing future infrastr…”
- Continued dependence on gas could add around 13% of GDP to public debt by 2050 due to recurring price spikes. — lse.ac.uk (academic) — “continued dependence on gas could add around 13% of GDP to public debt by 2050 due to recurring price spikes”
- Shifting energy policy costs from bills to general taxation could save the poorest fifth of households around £110 a year. — resolutionfoundation.org (institutional) — “shifting energy policy costs from household bills to general taxation could save the poorest fifth of households around £110 a year (net of tax increases), with roughly three-in-four households being better off overall”
Biggest unknown: Whether abolishing Net Zero subsidies reduces household energy bills in the short run more than exposure to fossil fuel price spikes raises them over time — the net direction for typical household bills is genuinely contested.
Our reading: This policy has two distinct levers for O2: the institutional merger and the abolition of Net Zero objectives. The merger is stated in aspirational terms — 'simplifying the funding process' — with no committed budget, instrument, or quantified target, so its cost-of-living effect is negligible on current evidence. The dominant channel is the Net Zero abolition. There is a genuine short-run/long-run tension in the evidence. On one side, some analysts attribute a significant share of recent electricity bill increases to Net Zero levies and renewable subsidies, suggesting removal could reduce household energy costs in the near term. On the other, the OBR and CCC — credible institutional sources — project that the transition to domestic renewables offers cheaper, more stable energy long-term, and that a single fossil fuel price spike costs households more than the entire Net Zero pathway. The Resolution Foundation evidence shows that how green levies are structured matters: moving them off bills could benefit lower-income households even within a Net Zero framework, without requiring abolition. Abolishing Net Zero also risks compensating renewable contract holders (adding fiscal costs), deterring private infrastructure investment, and increasing exposure to gas price volatility — all of which could raise costs for ordinary households over time. Because the near-term bill relief argument has some cited support, but the dominant weight of institutional evidence points to higher long-run energy costs and economic damage from abandoning decarbonisation, the verdict is 'mixed' rather than 'worsens'. Confidence is low because the net effect on household bills depends heavily on global gas prices, the pace of renewable cost falls, and policy implementation — none of which are certain.
Clean environment & nature — Hurts
major · moderate confidence
Abolishing Net Zero objectives from infrastructure funding would remove the main financial lever pushing UK investment toward clean energy and away from fossil fuels, likely increasing emissions and climate damage over time. The main uncertainty is how much of the clean-energy transition would continue via other routes.
The evidence
- The policy explicitly abolishes Net Zero objectives from the merged infrastructure funding stream. — reformparty.uk (manifesto) — “simplifying the funding process and abolishing Net Zero objectives to save time, cut waste, and boost funding and accountability”
- The UK has a legally binding commitment to reach Net Zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 under the Climate Change Act 2008. — lordslibrary.parliament.uk (government) — “The UK has a legally binding commitment to achieve Net Zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, enacted in 2019 through the Climate Change Act 2008 (2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019”
- Net Zero underpins current infrastructure planning and investment across energy, transport, and housing. — assets.publishing.service.gov.uk (government) — “This commitment underpins current infrastructure planning, investment, and policy across various sectors, including energy, transport, and housing”
- The predecessor infrastructure bank had climate change and Net Zero as a primary objective and used financial tools to crowd in private capital for clean energy projects. — assets.publishing.service.gov.uk (government) — “Its primary objectives were to help tackle climate change (particularly meeting Net Zero) and support regional economic growth”
- The infrastructure bank deployed loans, equity and guarantees specifically for clean energy, transport, digital, water and waste. — assets.publishing.service.gov.uk (government) — “The UKIB used various financial tools, including loans, equity financing, and guarantees, to crowd-in private capital for projects, especially in clean energy, transport, digital, water, and waste”
- The OBR projected that unmitigated global warming could push UK public debt to around 290% of GDP by end of century and cause an 8% hit to the economy by the early 2070s. — lordslibrary.parliament.uk (government) — “the OBR projected that unmitigated global warming could lead to UK debt rising to approximately 290% of GDP by the end of the century and an 8% hit to the economy by the early 2070s if global warming reaches 3°C”
- The CCC (a statutory advisory body) found that the cost of a single fossil fuel price spike like 2022 is equivalent to the total cost of the Net Zero pathway until 2050. — globalgovernmentforum.com (media) — “the cost of a single fossil fuel price spike (such as that in 2022) would be equivalent to the cost of the Net Zero pathway across every year until 2050”
- Abandoning Net Zero would increase UK dependence on volatile international fossil fuel markets and vulnerability to price spikes. — perigonpartners.co.uk (media) — “Scrapping Net Zero would increase the UK's dependence on volatile international fossil fuel markets, making it more vulnerable to price spikes and geopolitical instability”
- Abandoning Net Zero would lead to increased government spending on climate adaptation such as flood defences. — cen.uk.com (media) — “Abandoning Net Zero would likely lead to increased government spending on adapting to the worsening impacts of climate change, such as building more flood defenses and sea walls, and underwriting uninsurable risks”
Biggest unknown: Whether private markets and remaining policy levers would continue the clean-energy transition without government-directed Net Zero objectives, and at what pace.
Our reading: The core effect of this policy on O6 is the removal of Net Zero objectives from the main government infrastructure funding channel. The predecessor institutions—the Infrastructure Bank and NIC—had climate and Net Zero as explicit primary objectives, directing capital specifically toward clean energy and low-carbon infrastructure. Abolishing those objectives removes that directional mandate from the public funding lever most capable of shaping the trajectory of large-scale infrastructure. The OBR (July 2025) and the CCC (March 2026), both independent statutory bodies, independently conclude that the net cost of reaching Net Zero is substantially lower than the cost of inaction: unmitigated warming carries projected damages of around 8% of GDP by the early 2070s and debt rising to ~290% of GDP by century's end. The policy's own stated rationale—saving time and cutting waste—does not engage with these long-run damage estimates. Near-term, removing Net Zero objectives could free some capital allocation from climate criteria, but the effect on emissions and nature in the immediate parliament is modest: the legal obligation under the Climate Change Act remains and private investment trends in renewables are already established. The long-term effect is where the verdict is clearest: systematically redirecting infrastructure finance away from decarbonisation accelerates the emissions trajectory that the OBR and CCC project will cause severe economic and environmental harm. The magnitude is major on the long-term dimension because infrastructure investment decisions made now lock in emissions pathways for decades. The main genuine uncertainty is how much the clean-energy transition would continue regardless via private markets and other policy levers—but the UKIB's role was explicitly to address market failures and crowd in private capital where markets alone would not go, so removing that lever is not costless.