On August 6, 2025, a heated debate unfolded at Solihull Council’s Civic Suite over what might seem a simple matter: a name change. Yet, as councillors wrangled over whether to rebrand the borough’s ambitious Net Zero Action Plan (NZAP) as the Solihull Climate Change Action Plan, the discussion revealed just how fraught, and even "toxic," some climate-related language has become in Britain’s local and national politics.
The Net Zero Action Plan, adopted in 2021, was Solihull’s blueprint for slashing emissions and transforming the borough into a net zero community by 2041. This bold step followed Solihull’s 2019 declaration of a climate emergency, a move mirrored by many councils across the UK. But despite these commitments, the term "net zero" has, for some, begun to carry unwelcome baggage.
During the council’s economic development, managed growth, and skills scrutiny board meeting, officers floated the idea of renaming the action plan. Councillor Alison Rolf voiced a concern that many residents share: “For me, going from net zero kind of suggests it’s unattainable, is it?” she asked. Liz Alston, the council’s net zero project manager, responded candidly: “That’s a big question. It is dependent on lots of different aspects, council can’t control all of them. It’s dependent on national policy, behavioural change and the public taking on the seriousness of it. You can’t get away from it, it is a challenge.”
This sentiment—that the very phrase "net zero" might be setting up the public for disappointment—was echoed by several councillors. Councillor Max McLoughlin pressed further, asking whether the name change was really about lowering expectations. Councillor Andy Mackiewicz, who holds the climate change portfolio, pushed back: “No, it’s not. We have committed to that (target), it’s not managing expectations whatsoever. The name change is to make it more inclusive. Net zero has a toxic effect amongst certain people. The climate change action plan is far more broader – it’s probably a name that will have more support from the public.”
But not everyone was convinced. Councillor Kate Jones argued, “I think the name change is very negative. I think you are taking something that is quantifiable and turning it into something far more equivocal.” Others, like Councillor Andrew Burrow, felt the opposite: “Changing the name I agree with because it is more comprehensive. I think the more people we can get on board the better – changing the name will help.”
After a lengthy debate, the council voted in favor of the change. Yet, as Councillor Mackiewicz emphasized, “Regardless of the name the actions remain the same. It’s to get people on board, the action plan is about nudging people to do the right thing.” The decision reflects a growing tension in climate politics: how to communicate ambitious goals in a way that doesn’t alienate the very public whose support is essential.
That tension isn’t confined to Solihull. Just days later, on August 17, 2025, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband found himself at the center of a national row over transparency, climate policy, and personal conduct. According to The Telegraph and Daily Mail, Miliband refused to disclose details of his domestic air travel since joining the cabinet in June 2024—a move that quickly drew accusations of hypocrisy from political opponents.
Claire Coutinho, the shadow energy secretary, didn’t mince words: “As Ed Miliband sticks a holiday tax of up to £400 on a family of four, it does seem the height of hypocrisy that he won't reveal his own flights, which are funded by the taxpayer. People expect transparency and fairness from their politicians, but when it comes to the most stringent net zero costs, it's one rule for him and another for everyone else.”
Her criticism referenced Labour’s recent hike in air passenger duty, a policy that has added hundreds of pounds to the cost of British family holidays. The refusal to release Miliband’s travel details, while in line with the established practice of not publishing granular information about ministers’ movements, nonetheless struck a nerve with voters already wary of climate policies that hit their wallets.
Miliband’s own record on air travel has come under scrutiny. As reported by The Telegraph, his department spent £44,000 more on domestic air travel between July and December 2024 than his Conservative predecessor. In just his first six months as Energy Secretary, Miliband racked up £62,712 on international travel. The Taxpayers’ Alliance pointed out that Miliband has accumulated at least 44,600 air miles since July 2024, resulting in approximately 54.2 tons of carbon emissions in nine months—more than twelve times the average Briton’s annual emissions.
That’s not all. The government’s climate adviser, Nigel Topping, was also called out for “rank hypocrisy” after reportedly clocking up 40,000 air miles in a year attending environmental conferences in places as far-flung as Barbados, Azerbaijan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, the Netherlands, and the US. According to The Telegraph, Topping’s carbon footprint from flights alone was about 40% higher than the total annual emissions of the average Briton. This, from a member of the Climate Change Committee that in February 2025 backed a "frequent flier levy" to tax those who fly often or far, was enough to raise eyebrows across the political spectrum.
The optics are difficult for those advocating for urgent climate action. Miliband, as Energy Secretary, has been vocal in urging the public to reduce domestic flights and switch to trains and buses. In 2021, he told the BBC, “Fairness and giving people alternatives is an absolutely key part of making this transition happen.” When asked if domestic flights should be banned, he replied they shouldn’t be eliminated “completely, but as much as we possible can.”
Yet, the perception that politicians and advisers are not living up to the standards they set for the public feeds skepticism and resentment. The government’s response—that not releasing detailed travel data is standard practice, followed by both Conservative and Labour administrations—has done little to quell the criticism. For many, the issue is not just about policy, but about trust and fairness.
Back in Solihull, the council’s decision to change the name of its climate plan is a microcosm of the larger national debate. Councillor McLoughlin put it bluntly: “Fossil fuel companies have paid lots of mouth pieces to try and argue against net zero and say it is something that it isn’t. Ultimately, it muddies the water in relation to what work has already been done in relation to the NZAP and the considerable amount of effort that has gone in there.”
As the UK pushes forward with ambitious climate targets, the words chosen—and the actions taken—by leaders at every level will matter more than ever. Whether it’s a name change in Solihull or the travel habits of a cabinet minister, the challenge remains the same: building public trust and participation in the fight against climate change, while ensuring that those at the top are seen to play by the same rules as everyone else.
With the dust settling in Solihull and Westminster, one thing is clear: the path to net zero—whatever it’s called—will require not just policy, but persuasion, transparency, and a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths.
