Green Future or Energy Security – What’s Our Priority?
Energy is too expensive, security is too weak, and public trust in policy is fading
Britain’s energy debate has become one of the most divisive — and one of the most important — questions in modern politics. Almost everyone agrees on the problem: energy is too expensive, security is too weak, and public trust in policy is fading. Where opinions differ is on what should come first.
So we want to open the discussion.
Net Zero by 2050: Principle or Problem?
The government remains committed to the Net Zero by 2050 target, arguing that Britain must lead on climate change regardless of cost. Others believe the target has become rigid and ideological, driving up bills and weakening energy security without making a meaningful dent in global emissions.
Reform UK has argued that scrapping the 2050 target would allow Britain to focus on affordable energy, domestic supply, and technological innovation, rather than forcing rapid transitions that households and businesses cannot afford.
But is abandoning the target the right call — or does it risk sending the wrong signal on environmental responsibility?
👉 Do you agree with abandoning the 2050 net-zero goal to prioritise affordability and security, or should Britain stick to its climate commitments? Why?
Energy Security: How Do We Get There?
Recent years have shown how vulnerable Britain is to global shocks. Reliance on imported gas, fragile supply chains, and geopolitical instability have all fed directly into higher bills.
Some argue energy security means:
expanding North Sea oil and gas
reconsidering fracking, where safe
accelerating new nuclear power
reducing dependence on imports
Others believe long-term security lies in renewables, storage technology, and a faster transition away from fossil fuels.
Which approach do you trust more — and why?
Can Nuclear Be the Common Ground?
One area where many people agree is nuclear energy.
It is low-carbon, reliable, and capable of providing baseload power — yet Britain has been slow to build new capacity. Should nuclear be the backbone of a future energy mix, bridging the gap between environmental goals and energy security?
Or are renewables, combined with better storage and grid upgrades, the real answer?
Environment vs. Affordability — Is It a False Choice?
Perhaps the biggest question of all is whether this debate is being framed incorrectly.
Is it really a choice between:
protecting the environment or
keeping energy affordable
Or can Britain pursue a pragmatic environmentalism — cutting emissions over time through innovation and domestic production, without burdening families with ever-higher bills?
Your Turn
There is no single “right” answer — but avoiding the debate has clearly failed.
👉 What should Britain prioritise right now: green targets or energy security?
👉 What mix of nuclear, renewables, oil, gas, or new technology would you support?
👉 How do we protect the environment without making ordinary people poorer?
Share your thoughts in the comments. This is exactly the kind of debate Britain needs to have — openly, honestly, and without slogans.