A cross-party committee has recommended removing the term "net zero" from official use in the UK, citing its negative public perception. The group, known as the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, described the term as a "lightning rod for opposition to climate action," meaning it has become a point of contention rather than a unifying goal. The committee suggested that the phrase has lost its positive connotations and now distracts from the larger objective of transitioning to a more sustainable energy system. As a result, they recommended that the term be removed from the name of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) and from key government communications. The report highlights that while the UK has made significant international commitments to address climate change, the political consensus around these goals has weakened. This breakdown is partly attributed to the current cost-of-living crisis, which has led some to criticize the transition to a low-carbon economy as being too expensive or impractical. The committee noted that public frustration has led to "scapegoating" of the net zero goal, with critics blaming it for rising energy prices and economic pressures. Despite the challenges, the UK was the first major economy to commit to achieving net zero emissions, a goal that involves balancing the amount of greenhouse gases emitted with the amount removed from the atmosphere. However, the committee emphasized that the political debate around this goal has become stuck on issues of cost and feasibility, rather than focusing on practical solutions. Graeme Downie, a Labour member of the committee, stated that the lack of political consensus has made it difficult to move forward and that terms like "net zero" have become counterproductive. The committee called for a more pragmatic approach to energy policy, one that is focused on the needs of people and communities. They recommended policies that reduce costs for consumers and businesses, create jobs, and support innovation in clean energy. The goal, they said, should be to build a low-carbon economy in a way that is both effective and responsive to public concerns.