The public doesn't hate Net Zero as much as RW politicians insist they do

Nearly 40% last year actually, and climbing year on year.

China are smarter. Their ai centres are being built in the ocean because they use sea water for cooling the units. UK government decided against that. Now who suffers and who benefits?

I do also contest the numbers. They don't make sense to me. I could send 100 quid to China to help "fund" their switching to renewables and then argue the 100 quid was the equivalent to spending 1000 quid here (I don't see how that's true but for the sake of argument). But even if it was true, it's sort of irrelevant if China were going to switch to renewables anyway regardless of my 100 quid helping them do so. Whereas if we don't spend money in the UK we don't make the changes

I am not against aid, or sending money overseas to help projects. But you haven't provided any proof that money spent overseas is 10 times.better at reducing carbon than money spent here. The maths of that doesn't make sense to me. And even if it was, a lot of those changes are happening on places like China without Western funding not because the Chinese are super woke but because it suites their interests to do so. Just as it's in our interests to help ourselves.

There’s huge money and interest being persuading us that oil and coal are good for the economy and that green options are bad for it. It’s very hard to see through the propaganda to the truth without going away and doing tonnes of research. Even if you do the research online, it’s hard for most people to judge what research is genuine and what is funded by financial interests.

Is it fair to say that you don’t contest the numbers but think even if funding overseas projects did more (let’s say 10x more, conservatively) to combat climate change than UK ones, you would still oppose the swap, because you think it’s a higher priority for the UK government to subsidise projects that you also say are economic without subsidy?

That feels like pretty muddled thinking but I want to check it’s your actual position.

A tiny bit of tax revenue, extra profits for the few (and most of them foreign investors)

Versus cheaper energy bills for millions.

Hmm which to choose, hmm why do I suspect you invest heavily in oil and gas? How many shares do you own?

If oil companies make more money and oil workers do better. I'm happy.

But the biggest burner of coal in Asia is China. And they don't need our money to replace with solar. They already are doing it because it benefits them. They are a booming economy they don't need Britain's help to switch to renewables. People in Britain do. Likewise even in poorer parts of Asia the switch to cleaner methods of cooking etc is happening already. Solar use in India is sky rocketing. India and large parts of Asia already use produce less carbon dioxide per capita than the UK. There was a fear as they developed it would increase but it's already being offset by renewed use of renewables because it's cheaper and better for energy security.

I'm all for overseas funding. But in this area I am worried the UK will be left behind countries like China who, for their own self interest, pursue renewable energy and energy security. It feels like a great act of self harm not to do the same.

The installation of heat pumps reduces costs for people. It helps the environment but it also helps consumers and British tax payers. Complicated schemes to offset carbon use don't.

The UK may not be directly responsible for much of the global emissions, but we consume so many of the goods that higher polluting countries produce that we are indeed responsible. It is foolish and simplistic to say oh, this is on China. They wouldn’t be making those goods for export if we weren’t buying them.

I think far too many people are short sighted about this issue. Global warming is a very real threat and our children’s futures are at real risk. Is that really worth damaging for the sake of slightly lower bills? Especially when investment now will result in lower bills in the future as well as a safer and more habitable world?

Politicians and parties who ignore this care only about power and what they can gain in the short term. I think that is dangerous and stupid.

We should frack as well

Renewables are currently about 20% of the UKs primary energy mix, which is mostly dominated by oil (transport) and gas (heating, power generation).

So unless you can pretty much instantly replace that 80% with renewables then you need oil and gas, pretty much by definition.

It won’t be cheaper bills, that’s not how it works.Oil and gas companies sell extracted resources on the international market at global prices, meaning UK consumers receive no special discount.

A tiny bit of tax revenue, extra profits for the few (and most of them foreign investors)

Versus cheaper energy bills for millions.

Hmm which to choose, hmm why do I suspect you invest heavily in oil and gas? How many shares do you own?

Renewables are currently about 20% of the UKs primary energy mix, which is mostly dominated by oil (transport) and gas (heating, power generation).

So unless you can pretty much instantly replace that 80% with renewables then you need oil and gas, pretty much by definition.

Drilling more will still benefit the economy .it can't harm us. We'll get extra produced and can benefit from the tax revenues from it.

My frustration with net zero is that the energy resilience piece isn’t hammered home as the primary benefit. People can’t grasp slim but real future risks like food insecurity, regular flooding of roads etc but they can grasp saving money today.

Buildings that need very little energy to heat or cool, and use renewable energy for their energy needs (and therefore are by definition low carbon to operate) cost less to run.

It has always baffled me until the very recent Future Homes Standard that no one has mandated that new homes have heat pumps, battery and solar panels as standard. Yes, it may cost in the region of £5-10k additional on build costs, albeit this is cheaper than a retrofit.

But (and this where the government really lets themselves down) average energy costs for a 3 bed house are around £150pm. A 30 year mortgage on the extra £10,000 is £50pm. By setting new builds up for energy sufficiency from Day 1, you can actually save people £100 per month.

Why this isn’t the approach of the government is beyond me.

"Likewise the UKs oil fields are mature and almost completely depleted"

This is not actually correct. See Rosebank.

There is plenty of oil left in the North Sea. There isn't plenty of easy oil. But techniques to extract it are improving all the time (see EOR).

Businesses are just getting less and less interested because the politics makes it pointless for them to engage in the significant costs of E&P when the political climate seems to turn on a sixpence. This isn't compatible with the long term planning requirements of offshore oil extraction.

The oil industry is more than about the profit made from drilling for oil. It's also about the jobs and the industry that that goes along with that which employs a significant number of people in the UK and ensures we have world class expertise in this area.

Renewables are currently cheaper than oil and gas.

It's the oil and gas companies telling you you need it.

I need oil and gas to heat my home and to run my car. We'll still need it. Gas is also part of the electricity mix.

Whataboutery.

It's really simple, oil and gas leads to a dependency on Russia and trump.

Drilling more will not bring down UK energy bills. It will get sold at international prices to foreigners producing profit for oil companies.

Cut price cap link to most expensive fuel (oil and gas) and everyone will benefit (except oil and gas companies and their reform bribed stooges of course)

Renewables are currently cheaper than oil and gas.

It's the oil and gas companies telling you you need it.

What about the network, infrastructure, backup and constraint payments needed? And Cfd subsidises as well. Renewables are cheaper in Texas where they just pay the market rate and aren't over subsidised.