Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch’s proposal to repeal the Climate Change Act marks a decisive escalation in the UK’s climate debate that would weaken evidence-based governance.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch’s proposal to repeal the Climate Change Act marks a decisive escalation in the UK’s climate debate — one that cuts to the heart of how evidence shapes national decision-making.
Introduced in 2008 with near-unanimous cross-party support, the Act was the first in the world to set legally binding, science-based carbon targets. It established the UK’s carbon budgeting system and created a framework for aligning energy, industry, and environmental policy with independent evidence. For nearly two decades, it has been the backbone of Britain’s climate governance — and an example widely copied around the world.
Repeal would represent more than a change in policy; it would signal that long-term targets grounded in science are now negotiable. Senior Conservatives have already expressed concern, calling Badenoch’s position “dismaying” and “reckless” (The Guardian). It also comes at a moment of growing climate scepticism, with polling showing public uncertainty about delivery, and media narratives framing net zero as an economic risk rather than an investment strategy (The Guardian; The Telegraph).
This politicisation stands in sharp contrast to the global direction of travel. Prime Minister Keir Starmer will attend COP30 in Brazil amid renewed international focus on climate finance and delivery. Pope Francis has also urged political leaders to confront denialism, condemning those who undermine climate action as “irresponsible” (BBC News).
For the research community, the stakes are clear. The Climate Change Act has been a vital bridge between scientific advice and political accountability. Repealing it would weaken that connection — replacing an evidence-led framework with short-term political discretion.
The UK has led precisely because it embedded science into law. Undoing that progress would not make the country more flexible or competitive. It would make it less predictable, less trusted, and less capable of turning knowledge into strategy.
The question now is whether the UK continues to treat evidence as the foundation of climate leadership, or as an optional extra.