Reform says we need to choose between climate and economy. It’s wrong | Larry Elliott
Larry Elliott criticises Reform UK deputy leader Richard Tice for dismissing concerns about the UK's record summer temperatures, arguing that Tice's suggestion to simply "enjoy" the heat rather than act on climate change is both callous and economically illiterate. The piece argues against the framing, pushed by Reform and echoed to some extent by the government's own focus on near-term living costs, that Britain must choose between tackling the climate crisis and protecting economic growth, insisting the two are not in conflict.
Elliott notes that homes have burned in Stourbridge, farmers face shrivelled crops and firefighters are exhausted battling wildfires amid a drought affecting most of England and Wales, while ministers, including Andy Burnham, have prioritised cutting consumer costs such as VAT on electricity over urgent climate action. He cites polling showing 86% of Britons link the heatwaves to climate breakdown, including 63% of net zero opponents and over a third of Reform voters, and references an Allianz report warning that extreme heat could cut cumulative GDP by 5-7% over five years in the worst-affected European countries as worker productivity falls above 30C.
- Elliott rejects Reform's claim of a climate-versus-economy trade-off
- Cites Allianz research: heat could cost GDP 5-7% over five years
- 86% of Britons link heatwaves to climate change, polling shows
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Advocates of urgent, well-funded climate action argue that the economics genuinely favour it: renewables are now among the cheapest forms of new power generation, energy efficiency and insulation cut household bills, and green industries offer significant export and job opportunities if Britain moves early rather than late. They point to the costs of inaction, including heat-related deaths, crop failures, flood damage and rising insurance premiums, as economic burdens in their own right, arguing that delaying investment simply shifts far larger costs onto future taxpayers. On this view, treating climate and economic policy as separate or opposed goals is a category error, since energy security, lower long-term bills and industrial opportunity all point the same way.
The case against
Sceptics of rapid, top-down decarbonisation argue that the pace and cost of current net zero policies deserve serious scrutiny, pointing to high household energy bills, the costs of grid upgrades and subsidies, and the risk of pricing UK industry out of global competition if other major economies decarbonise more slowly. They contend that voters and businesses are being asked to bear immediate, tangible costs for benefits that are diffuse, long-term and global rather than local, and that policy should weigh affordability and energy security alongside environmental goals rather than subordinating them. On this view, questioning the speed or design of climate policy is not denial of a warming climate but a legitimate call for proportionality, technological pragmatism and protection of living standards in the near term.