Now is a particularly difficult time to be writing about progress on net zero. The facts suggest that we have just two years left of the world’s carbon budget to stick within 1.5C (Forster et al., 2025)). The politics suggest that there is a significant rise in parties such as Reform around the globe for whom this is all ‘net zero nonsense’. And organised interests have gone further, shifting from climate denialism are now focussed around discrediting solutions and promoting false claims (IPIE, 2025).
The glass half full version of transport and climate policy focuses on what is being done. The adoption of the Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate for cars and vans commits us to a fleet renewal to zero exhaust pipe emission cars. The Spending Review identified several billions of pounds of expenditure for new tram schemes and other investments to support economic growth and support mode shift for environmental gain, particularly for Mayoral Combined Authorities. We have put the flip flopping of the previous Conservative administration behind us and can look forward to a new Integrated National Transport Strategy which could help to ensure that the maximum benefit is extracted from the shift to greater public control over the rail and bus network. These are all developments which I expect the CCC’s 2025 Progress Report to Parliament to rightly focus on as positive.
The glass half empty version poses more questions. The current delivery environment is providing a set of headwinds into which change in transport emissions needs to be delivered (discussed in detail in our latest report here). The Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Mandate is all about new car sales, and we know these are not at pre-pandemic levels and that people are holding on to vehicles for longer, so the transition path may be slower than is required. The increase in global tariffs and trade friction has resulted in a small watering down of the ZEV Mandate, whereas the pathway to net zero suggests things will need to go faster. Although the Spending Review provided more funding for some infrastructure projects, the funding for walking and wheeling falls well short of transformational as does that provided for bus. Where will rapid mode shift come from? And then there continues to be substantial funding in the roads programme coupled with a reluctance to sort out declining motoring tax (hard to see that happening this Parliament) which could further undermine the required levels of mode shift.
What does it all mean then? The question is not so much about whether there is an alignment of goals, but whether there is an alignment of delivery ambition between the pathway the CCC feels is achievable and the one the Department for Transport and local authorities are plotting. It is now four years since the Transport Decarbonisation Plan and much has changed – but there is no sign of a stock take. Indeed, it seems easier for everyone to focus on what can be done, rather than shining a light on what seems difficult.
History has a habit of repeating itself though. Why is transport the highest emitting sector? It is because it failed to take seriously what the previous pathways set by the CCC have suggested is necessary. Had the advice in the 5th Carbon Budget been followed, we would be 25% lower and reducing at 5 times the rate they were in 2023. Focussing on what can be done is good. Let’s deliver that. But, we need to be clear that what is on the table now is not enough. In the short run, avoiding arguments that might embolden the anti-net zero narrative might be appealing. However, we have already seen Scotland shift back its targets and abandon the 20% traffic reduction target. We can anticipate a widespread ‘recalibration’ of locally set climate targets as 2030 approaches and the gap between ‘net zero’ and ‘not zero’ is exposed. This is also a political risk – and one which will play out in the run up to the next general election.
So, what next? The first thing is for clarity over what the Spending Review envelope will deliver on the key decarbonisation policies. This informs the commitments that the DfT will need to put forward in the whole of Government Net Zero Strategy for the autumn. Then we need to ask what else? Here, I argue that we need to lean in to the headwinds and take approaches which broaden the benefits which the transition offers in a range of settings. It will be no surprise that one of my suggestions would be a greater focus on travel demand. In the absence of time and money and capacity in the sector to deliver the CCC’s pathway fully, we need to look to social innovation. This means reaching out beyond ‘net zero’ and thinking about how we organise activities and transport provision to deliver better social outcomes. My own contribution comes from the INFUZE project where we are collaborating across citizens, providers and government to reimagine post car-ownership futures. Designing with communities provides authentic voices that argue for change on terms which resonate with them. INFUZE is just one approach amongst many. Can we enthuse people that this is not just a transition in what fuel we use but a transition opportunity for the places that we live in? Can we afford not to?
