By Maral Tarpinian

When it comes to complex issues, such as climate and energy policy, accurate reporting is essential to maintain a healthy democracy. When major news outlets misrepresent data or omit essential pieces of context, they are misleading the public.

Recent coverage of Net Zero by the Times and the Daily Mail clearly demonstrates this problem, after both outlets published stories claiming to “reveal the true cost” of Net Zero. In their reporting, based on figures from the National Energy System Operator (NESO), they inaccurately present Net Zero as an unaffordable financial burden for the UK.

One climate expert, Carbon Brief editor Dr Simon Evans, challenged the Times article in a BlueSky post, calling out its misleading interpretation of the numbers. The article, “Quango puts cost of Britain reaching net zero at £4.5 trillion” highlights large, cumulative investment figures over several decades, but presents them as a direct “cost” of Net Zero policies.

It fails to mention that these figures represent long-term investment in transforming the UK’s energy system, investment that largely replaces already existing and high expenditures on fossil fuels.  The costs which would be incurred by continuing to rely on fossil fuel infrastructure are not taken into account in The Mail & The Times’ calculations. Without this context, these numbers create the impression that Net Zero is an expensive ‘extra’, rather than a necessary transition away from past systems that already cost households and businesses billions.

The Daily Mail takes this misrepresentation even further. Its coverage uses alarmist language such as “staggering cost”. Further, it draws comparison between decades-long investment totals and the UK’s annual GDP. While this comparison is meaningless from an economic standpoint, it generates fear and misinformation. This is not a regulatory or standards issue, but does expose the power of the Mail’s editorial agenda on the topic.

The article shows support for political attacks on Net Zero, with the rebuttals of the “QANGO”, NESO, and the Energy Department not appearing until the bottom. The danger in this is that it allows partisan claims to be interpreted as fact.

In his post on Bluesky, Dr Evans called out the main problem with this kind of reporting. It amplifies the cost of building a cleaner energy system while pretending the alternative, continuing to burn fossil fuels, comes at no cost, financially or environmentally, which of course is not true.

In reality, continuing to rely solely on fossil fuels exposes risk to high prices, increases public health costs and fuels climate damage. Ignoring those harsh realities while simply focusing on the price of Net Zero investment figures — and misrepresenting the impact of those on public expenditure — illustrates a skewed picture.

This pattern of inaccurate reporting can be incredibly harmful. It leaves the public in the dark, worsens their already lessening trust in journalism and creates more confusion about one of the most important policy challenges of our time. Net Zero is not a luxury, it is an objective to protect the atmosphere from greenhouse gasses and protect people from rising energy costs and climate impacts.

Reporting on these issues impartially is not a regulatory requirement, however, presenting both sides of the argument in their entirety is a good journalistic practice. That means explaining costs accountably, providing comprehensive context to the issue and comparing climate action plan costs with the full costs of inaction.

This is not a call on the media to support Net Zero, rather a call to report on it with accuracy and abide by regulatory standards.