Perhaps it is because the term ‘net zero’ is jargon. It means cutting carbon emissions until any remaining emissions can be balanced by carbon sinks, such as oceans and forests. But polling shows that 22% of people, and 41% of Reform party supporters, think it means “producing no carbon emissions at all”, an almost unachievable goal. No wonder people are wavering!

Newspapers and politicians must explain ‘net zero’ better or find another name for essential climate policies. It would be tragic for bad faith actors to exploit this confusion and frustrate climate action, the opposite of what the vast majority of people want for their children and grandchildren.

The backlash against net zero can also be explained by media outlets stoking up fears about money. Carbon Brief found that many anti-net zero opinion pieces – which they found mainly in the Daily Mail, the Sun, the Daily Telegraph, the Times, and the Daily Express - focussed on the economic costs of net zero policies, often claiming they are unaffordable.

There are costs to any transition and it is always right to ask who bears them. But the articles often downplay or ignore the benefits, including green jobs and energy security. Meanwhile, it is the poorest in society who stand to gain the most from better insulated homes, better public transport, and less volatile, energy prices.

These articles always ignore the high costs of climate inaction, and increasingly don't even mention the climate, as if net zero and climate change were unconnected. This is fantasy thinking. Climate action means net zero and the costs of climate inaction are simply unaffordable.

This month, actuaries warned that without immediate action to reduce emissions, climate change would lead to “severe GDP contraction” as well as mass mortality and mass involuntary migration around the world.

Their report describes the increasing costs from storms, floods and heatwaves. Then, as global heating pushes the earth’s systems past irreversible tipping points, it warns of systemic breakdowns to our food, water and other supply chains. At that point, the actuaries’ vocabulary changes from terms like “cost” and “impact” to “planetary insolvency” and “economic collapse”.

All those anti-net zero editorials that forget to mention climate change and the costs of inaction are getting the maths badly wrong. Thousands of scientists who contribute to the IPCC agree that limiting global warming to safe levels requires immediate, deep, and sustained reductions in emissions across all sectors - in other words, it requires the policies of net zero to avoid the most unaffordable outcomes.

As individuals, there is plenty we can say to friends who are wondering if net zero is affordable, after seeing anti-net zero content. We can talk about why net zero matters and what the term means, we can call for fairer policies and less jargon. None of this is easy. Perhaps the simplest thing is to ask: how unaffordable is climate change?