The clean economy already generates over £100 billion in annual output
As Britain prepares for a new political chapter under Andy Burnham, a quiet but consequential argument is unfolding over who gets to define the future of work. More than forty economists have challenged Unite leader Sharon Graham's assertion that Ed Miliband's green agenda would cost jobs, countering that the clean economy already sustains over a million workers and generates £100 billion in annual output. The dispute is not merely technical — it is a contest over which story of economic transformation the left will carry into power, and whether climate ambition and labour solidarity can be made to speak the same language.
- Sharon Graham's warning that net zero is a 'noose around the neck' of British employment has injected sharp tension into Labour's transition to power, pitting union leadership against the party's emerging economic vision.
- Over forty progressive economists — including authors of landmark inequality research and directors of leading thinktanks — have publicly asked Graham to retract her claim, arguing she has the economics fundamentally backwards.
- The clean economy already employs more than a million UK workers and produces over £100 billion annually, a scale that makes it one of the country's most significant engines of industrial job creation.
- Miliband, widely seen as the frontrunner for chancellor under incoming PM Burnham, is actively framing green transition and economic growth as inseparable — a message gaining ground among left-leaning economists and policy thinkers.
- Burnham's team has signalled ambitions well beyond green energy, publishing plans for major renationalisation of utilities — suggesting the coming government intends a broad reorientation of who controls the economy, not merely its energy mix.
Sharon Graham, leader of Unite, has spent weeks sounding the alarm about Ed Miliband's climate commitments, warning that his net zero focus would act as a 'noose around the neck' of jobs, skills, and national security. Her preferred alternative is new North Sea oil and gas licences — a response to watching UK refineries close and offshore wind contracts flow to foreign rather than British workers.
More than forty progressive economists have now written directly to Graham asking her to withdraw the claim. The signatories — among them Kate Pickett, Daniela Gabor, Ann Pettifor, and Danny Dorling — argue she has the economics inverted. The clean economy already generates over £100 billion in annual output and employs more than a million workers across the UK. As the sector grows, those numbers will expand further. The real task, they contend, is ensuring those workers have union representation, fair wages, and political champions who understand what they are building.
Miliband has made the same case publicly, declaring at London Climate Week that 'the UK's clean economy is booming' and positioning himself as the candidate who can unite climate ambition with industrial growth. He is widely considered the frontrunner to succeed Rachel Reeves as chancellor once Andy Burnham assumes the Labour leadership on July 17.
The appointment remains contested. Some Labour MPs fear Miliband could unsettle financial markets; others see an opportunity for bolder economic direction. Burnham's own team has published plans for significant renationalisation of key utilities — a signal that the incoming government's ambitions extend well beyond energy policy into deeper questions of economic ownership. Other chancellor candidates include Yvette Cooper, Wes Streeting, and John Healey, but on the central question of whether net zero destroys jobs, the economists' letter suggests the intellectual argument has moved decisively against Graham's position.
Sharon Graham, the leader of Unite, has spent weeks warning that Ed Miliband's commitment to net zero would strangle job creation if he becomes chancellor. She told the Sunday Times his focus on climate transition amounted to a "noose around the neck" of employment, skills, and national security. She wants the government to issue new licenses for North Sea oil and gas extraction instead. The union has grown frustrated watching UK oil refineries close and seeing offshore wind jobs go to foreign workers rather than British ones.
But more than 40 progressive economists have now written directly to Graham, asking her to withdraw the claim. The signatories include Kate Pickett, author of The Spirit Level; Danny Dorling, a geographer; Daniela Gabor, a professor of economics at the School of Oriental and African Studies; James Meadway from the Verdant thinktank; Howard Reed, director of Landman Economics; Ann Pettifor, an author and campaigner; and Jo Michell, a professor of economics at the University of the West of England. Their message is blunt: Graham has the economics backwards.
The clean economy already generates over £100 billion in annual output and employs more than a million workers across the UK, the economists wrote. As the sector expands—which it will, whether by choice or necessity—those numbers will only grow. The green transition is not a job killer. It is one of the largest drivers of industrial job creation the country has. What matters now is ensuring those workers have union representation, decent wages, and champions in government who understand what they're building.
Miliband himself made this case at London Climate Week on Tuesday, declaring that "the UK's clean economy is booming." He has positioned himself as the candidate who can marry climate ambition with economic growth, a message that appears to be gaining traction among economists and policy thinkers on the left.
The intervention comes at a crucial moment. Andy Burnham is expected to become Labour leader on July 17, barring an unexpected challenge. Once he takes over, he will need to choose a new chancellor to replace Rachel Reeves. Miliband is considered a frontrunner for the job, but the decision has become contentious within the party. Some Labour MPs worry that appointing him could spook financial markets. Others, including Burnham's own advisers, see an opportunity to shift economic policy in a more ambitious direction. Burnham's team published a paper this week outlining plans for significant renationalization of key utilities—a signal that the incoming government intends to move well beyond green energy policy into broader questions about who controls the economy.
Other candidates for chancellor include Wes Streeting, the health secretary, though he has already backed Burnham for leader; Yvette Cooper, the foreign secretary and a former Treasury minister; and John Healey, the former defence secretary, who resigned over what he saw as inadequate defense spending. The field is crowded, and the debate over economic direction is real. But the economists' letter suggests that on the specific question of whether net zero destroys jobs, the intellectual ground has shifted decisively away from Graham's position.
Notable Quotes
Ed only seems to be interested in one side of the equation, rushing Britain to net zero with almost no thought for jobs, skills and national security— Sharon Graham, Unite leader
The climate transition is one of the largest drivers of industrial job creation in the UK economy— Progressive economists in open letter
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why would a union leader argue against the green transition when economists say it creates jobs?
Graham isn't against green energy itself. She's frustrated that those jobs aren't going to British workers, and that the government closed refineries without a plan for the people who worked in them. She sees oil and gas as a bridge—something that keeps money and employment flowing while the transition happens.
But the economists say the transition is already the biggest job creator. Doesn't that undercut her argument?
It does, if you believe the numbers. A million workers in clean energy is substantial. But Graham would say those jobs aren't distributed where the old oil jobs were, and they're not paying the same wages yet. She's thinking about specific communities, not the aggregate.
So this is really about Miliband becoming chancellor, not about net zero policy itself?
Partly. But it's also about who gets to shape what comes next. If Miliband gets the Treasury, he'll have real power to accelerate the transition. Graham wants to slow it down or redirect it. The economists are essentially saying: that's not economically sound.
What does Burnham's team signaling renationalization have to do with this?
It suggests the incoming government wants to reshape the economy more broadly—not just on climate, but on who owns and controls key infrastructure. That's a bigger conversation than just green jobs. It's about power and ownership.
So Miliband's appointment would signal something larger than just climate policy?
Exactly. It would signal that Burnham intends to move left on economic policy, not just environmental policy. That's what worries some in the party, and what excites others.