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

Between 2010 and 2023, the UK’s consumption-based emissions (total carbon footprint) fell by approximately 17%.

https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/cj4pp0e2jvwo

No

If you mean has an indirect effect of the UK outsourcing a lot of manufacturing to other countries been that on paper the UK produces less carbon dioxide then yes. But the sneaky workaround of "let's make vaccun cleaners in Malaysia because then it looks like Malasia is producing all the CO2 has never been a policy. In fact, Dyson switched manufacturing to the far East because it's cheaper (both labour and energy). Henry Hoover by contrast still have factories in the UK. Higher energy costs are a threat to manufacturing. But Henry Hoover like other companies have got round this by investing on lots of solar panels for cheaper energy. It's actually a case of renewables saving UK manufacturing and government policy could go further and use them to reverse the decline.

Do people not think the UK has decarbonised the economy rapidly?

…and India has already beaten its 2030 goal of 50% non-fossil energy by 2030.

Time to stop this facile denial. The world is working together and making progress and for some baffling propaganda / ideological or political reason you insist it isn’t.

You can look for yourself

China has committed to peaking its carbon dioxide emissions before 2030 and achieving carbon neutrality (net zero) by 2060. Key milestones include a 2035 target to cut economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions by 7–10%, rapidly expanding renewable energy capacity, and passing the comprehensive Environmental Code in March 2026 to legally anchor decarbonisation.

Russia aims to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2060, as outlined in its official long-term climate strategy submitted to the UNFCCC.

USA is run by an ignorant lunatic who will be replaced by somebody with sanity eventually.

What are china, Russia, India and the USA doing?

The rest of the world isn’t ignoring it. Who told you that?

Countries with net-zero targets cover roughly 74% to 77% of global greenhouse gas emissions and around 79% of the global population.

Even if it doesn't lower prices. We get lower transport costs from using local gas and lots of tax revenue. Tax revenue that can fund the "public services"

I would drill in the North Sea. I can't afford an electric car nor can I afford to go to net zero. The rest of the world is ignoring it so why should I have to suffer high prices

Yes, if your drive into town involves dozens of them, you’ll just drive the other way to the retail park or supermarket.

Also, I used to live close to a little village on the edge of town that used to be popular, had shops etc., but they traffic calmed the village with speed bumps that involved putting double yellow lines alongside traffic islands and it completely killed it due to nowhere to park, resulting in butchers, newsagents, post office, pub, fish and chip shop, chemist all closed.

Meanwhile, most of the planet is on fire.

What is it about stopping a catastrophe that you hate ?

What would you do differently to avert the catastrophe ?

I hate net zero

I gather that the work to expand the terminal at St Pancras is ongoing. This may involve removing the arrivals border controls which haven't been used since the Disney trains stopped (Marne-la-Vallée doesn't have juxaposed controls, just French exit checks).

As for Ashford, Ebbsfleet and Stratford, they can only process 100-odd passengers apiece in one go. Presumably Calais Frethun is similar. Eurostar doesn't consider it worth paying the cost of staffing the terminals, including security and both sets of border controls.

Worth noting that in the Netherlands, the border officers at Schipol are paid for by the Dutch government, whereas the ones at both Eurostar terminals have to be funded by Eurostar itself. Nothing like a level playing field, eh?

As far as I can tell, what is stopping channel tunnel trains running as frequently as they could is sheer lack of space for passengers at St Pancras (especially post Brexit with longer processing times). Apparently they are planning to enlarge the Eurostar departure area there, which I'm sure will be quite the job.

Shame they can't get Ashford International opened up again eh 🙄 (something something French reluctance to man a border post there I think. Thanks again Brexit!)

If you live rurally in the middle of nowhere a car gives you so much freedom

So the delivery vans can drive but we can't?

I live pretty damn rurally- on the outskirts of a small village, 3 miles away from the nearest two lane road. We have a two hourly bus service (not on Sundays) which stops around 6.00pm. That bus takes you directly to Sainsbury's and Tesco in the nearest town.

Otherwise, there are plenty of supermarket delivery vans negotiating the twisty lanes.

Good

We live fairly rural and have groceries delivered. They come in an electric vehicle and you can pick green slots. Costs less for delivery than it would to drive and do a shop.

Would like to add around 140 countries have announced or set net zero targets( including China and USA)with about 27 nations passing binding domestic laws. The way Kemi Badrnock just wants to ditch it and not be part of it along with the ECHR which gives women, the disabled and all of us protection speaks volumes. Talk about returning to the dark ages!

Same logic applies:

short trip to a local shop etc - make it easy to walk & cycle

long trip transporting heavy stuff - sensible to drive.

Rural areas also benefit from walking & cycling & improving public transport routes not least because they help tourism.

No-one is going to stop you driving to the supermarket- not even in the Netherlands. Nor is it a problem for people to drive if they need to fill the boot.

That said, I can fit 4 bags on my bicycle and if I have to, I can carry a rucksack. That’s enough for most things including a shopping trip to town. I could carry more with front panniers.

If it’s an area with high pedestrian footfall like a shopping street then you need 20 mph because people have a greater chance of survival than 30 mph. 20 mph incidentally doesn’t cause more pollution than higher speeds in urban areas.

The other issues recently mentioned aren’t directly to do with net zero, but they are interesting.

If a council opens a out of town shopping centre then yes, high streets & town centres will suffer as the shopping centre may well be more convenient to people who drive & it may be cheaper for businesses to operate there - that’s a planning issue. I can think of one high street near me where that’s an issue - lots of concern about the high street but very little discussion of how trade is affected by the nearby shopping centre. That’s nothing to do with walking & cycling as shopping centres tend to be poor for this.

If you have speed bumps then you have a dangerous driving issue - again that’s nothing to do with walking & cycling. Personally, I think speed bumps are a waste of money as they don’t seem to slow speeding drivers down: however they are less controversial than other more effective measures.

Protests against pedestrianisation & cycling routes are common but aren’t supported by transport research, which actually supports stuff like making places safe for walking & cycling. This makes sense as everyone is a pedestrian when they shop. A good example is Walthamstow, where the protesters brought a coffin - yet a decade on the stats show life expectancy has increased & the shops are thriving. This reflects what I see near me - the shopping streets which were made safer for cycling & walking are thriving, whereas the one where people fought against road safety improvements is doing ok, but I hear lots of complaints about there being too many charity shops & nailbars (which seems a bit unfair to these businesses).

The only caveat to this is when a council walking & cycling route is of poor design e.g. having a shared route for walkers & cyclists or having a painted cycle lane on the road that will be unusable / dangerous is people drive or park in it. Cyclists tend to get the blame for this, whereas really this is a problem with the council transport & planning departments not implementing the guidance in Local Transport Note 1/20.

The other issue is when cyclists are blamed for councils taking action to restrict car use. I can think of a couple of useful cycle routes near me that drivers are very bitter about losing. What they forget is that these routes were shut to through traffic due to repeated dangerous driving & that the council had tried to stop this with speed bumps. Creating a nice cycle route wasn’t the aim here - just a consequence of what happened. It’s a shame that the lesson from these closures hasn’t been learned, as I can think of another street local to me that could be heading towards similar measures due to dangerous driving.

85% of the population live in urban areas. Again, I'm not interested in edge cases.