The Bill’s emergence is inseparable from the UK’s net zero agenda and the demonisation of CO2 emissions. Successive governments have prioritised decarbonisation over all else, with policies like the 2008 Climate Change Act and 2050 net zero target driving transformative industrial changes. Steel, a carbon-intensive sector, has faced intense scrutiny, with high energy costs from green levies and pressure to adopt costly low-carbon technologies like electric arc furnaces. The closure of traditional blast furnaces, such as those at Port Talbot, reflects this shift, at the expense of jobs and production capacity.

The vilification of CO2 as a pollutant, rather than a natural byproduct of industrial progress, has accelerated these pressures. Political narratives framing emissions as an existential threat have justified stringent regulations, sidelining pragmatic considerations of economic viability. For steelmakers, this translates into uncompetitive operating costs compared to nations with looser environmental standards, like China. The Bill, in part, responds to this crisis, aiming to prevent asset losses as firms buckle under net zero mandates. However, it risks treating symptoms—plant closures—without addressing the root cause: a policy framework that prioritises emissions reduction over industrial resilience.

Given the track record of this Labour government, unfortunately it seems nothing is done in the interests of the people and everything is done to further try and control and extract wealth from them. Something had to be done to save our steel production because having it in the hands of China and India is not a good idea! To have the industry in UK hands for the UK people, free from burdensome CO2 regulations is how we salvage this mess. In fact, it is only because of these burdensome regulations that the industry is in this problem already. Again we have to ask, is this all being done by design, and on purpose?