AIBU to think that the Tories are utterly wicked to drop net zero?

[Upsizer]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/19/rishi-sunak-planning-drop-net-zero-policies-pre-election-challenge-labour

I think this is genuinely wicked but I guess it was inevitable with the easiness of drumming up a culture war over environmental issues to win votes. Environment is the new Brexit.

Fighting climate change is going to cost all of us thousands of pounds. So we won’t do it - to get votes.

Our children will live on an island suffering extremes of heat and fighting off refugees from uninhabitable parts of the world.

But it will save us some cash I guess.

AIBU to think this is wicked?

The only country to benefit from nett zero is China, selling electric cars, wind farm equipment, solar panels, etc.

The majority of people don’t want it, it is a tax on poor people like the extremely unpopular ULEZ.

The UK population represents only 0.84% of world population. So if „less than 1%“ emissions is higher than 0,84% the UK is still proportionally responsible for more than „their fair share“ of world emissions. Surely the whole world has to do something because no one country is solely responsible for climate change. It would be nice if a country which, by the figures above, is causing more than their fair share of emissions, would lead by example.

While I'm of the mind that every little helps, if you've gone to Beijing, or virtually any city in China or India, where you literally can't see across the street for the pollution, you realise it's not us who needs to change...

again for you and all the other ones who say we are too small to make a difference:

half of global emissions comes from countries emitting 5% or less of global emissions. It’s a LONG tail which added up exceeds China.

those countries must not abandon their responsibility.

Looking at the chart below we are lower already

When do the ones in @IslaWinds pp that are higher than us aim for ‘net zero’?

They are. US by 2050, China by 2060 - longer horizons given their scale.

Simce everyone is so sure our piddling emissions are no big deal we can surely hit net 0 by 2050 too.

Exactly this....what we do will make NO difference.

I think most people want to do more but we aren't ready , people can't afford the changes and some properties are never going to work , heat pumps , electric charging stations etc .

and what if all countries which emit 5% or less behaved this irresponsibly ? what effect would that have on global targets ?

And this is what is annoying most ppl, so rushing says well 2030 is not realistic but 2035 is. Other countries have targets much further away as I have stated and those are countries with bigger outputs.

Again the comprehension of some people on here is shocking. He didn't drop net zero he has just extended the timeline. We are still saying we will achieve just not by an unrealistic target date.

And if rhise who are up in arms about it what do you do? Have you got solar panels, air source heat pump, got rid of your car, stopped buying food with packaging, only buy clothes when they really worn out, don't update ur tech often, decided not to have more kids and so on.

If not then stop virtue signalling cos ur the problem too

Surprise surprise! The Tories arseholes!

I agree with you

And when people are told they must spend on those items the phrase net zero becomes something much harder for them too

Agree with the posters who have said this is just a bribe to the electorate, exactly the same as Brexit. Because it worked for the ULEZ issue.

I totally understand that it’s comforting to think we can’t make any difference. Because the changes we need are very uncomfortable.

It depresses me that we are a world now where every topic becomes a divisive issue and there is no consensus on moral or environmental or scientific issues - I think we are basically doomed as a society.

Agree with the poster who said we need these targets to ensure that the money is invested now into engineering, infrastructure and technology so that we can innovate (because yes the world is looking to change and find technology to do this). These could be our children’s careers - and a better world.

It’s so depressing reading this thread.

The UK net zero target is and was 2050.

2030 was interim targets for parts of that goal.

This government has permitted new coal, oil and gas extraction which is the worst thing they can do.

They’ve fucked up a high speed rail link.

They’ve failed to secure enough nuclear capacity.

They’ve failed to capitalise on wind energy by refusing onshore development and fucking up permits for new offshore.

They’ve allowed water companies to dump raw shit into the rivers and sea.

I think we’re allowed to be pissed off with them frankly.

Delay here leads to more delay down the line, dilutes ambition and allows us to slide back the other way. The necessary sense of urgency is lost.

Can’t we separate investment from being tied in to extremely hard cut off

Why not use another incentive for tech, say tax etc, so we create better solutions

For every ‘arsehole’ post it’s still going to be tough when a law says change your house for £10k to 20k and the rest

Are you doing and others doing that already?

I think the aim to ban new sales of petrol / diesel cars by 2030 was an unrealistic idea. The infrastructure just isn't there - and there are so many practical things to consider - charging points being the main one. As well as cost of EVs.

I do think we should do as much as we can. It's easy to say use electricity and hydrogen - but those technologies can still generate greenhouse gases.

We also import a lot of stuff - from China etc - so we basically have a responsibility for emissions from things we purchase from abroad.

It's obvious why he's doing it.

He has said that he cares about his daughters and has used that in some of his arguments ,but clearly he is not overly concerned about the world they live in.

And - as other people have said - a lot of countries who work together can make a difference.

We are focussing on carbon capture. It's completely part of the answer to get to Net Zero. Net Zero envisages that people will still be leading comfortable lives and consume a fair amount and carbon capture will help balance it out. It's a myth that Net Zero involves trying to get people to emit nothing and be poor. Climate scientists just say that carbon capture is not enough on its own.

Because, despite our best efforts at self-sabotage with Brexit and the string of unelected idiot PMs, we hold a position of influence globally.

By standing up to do the right thing, we can then encourage other countries to follow our lead. If we don’t adhere to a net zero policy, why the fuck should anyone else?

Especially as we are a significant consumer of the goods that are made in countries whose emissions are far in excess of 1%.

How many times does this need to be said? The world is on fire and we are heading towards the point of no return.

OP you are 1000% right.

The Conservative Party doesn’t, and has never, cared about people. Self interest is their main underpinning policy. Trickle down economics is basically unfettered greed and has been shown not to work except from making the wealthy more wealthy at the expense of the poorest. But they still cling to it as an idea because most, if not all of them, are wealthy and want to stay that way.

Oil companies have spent millions undermining the climate science for years - to maintain the profits and keep their product viable. Just like the tobacco and sugar industries did/do.

Oil lobbyists are closely linked to the Government and have huge sway. Pensions and investments that lots of wealthy Tories and Tory donors have, are linked to oil.

The main news reporting is hugely biased. None (with the exception of The Guardian) report the horror and scale of the problem accurately. You are hard pressed to find anything in the Daily Mail that would inform people of the problem and the issues this will cause for them and their children. So for those who rely on the DM for their information and are in a social media - algorithmic - world of likeminded folk, they would be forgiven if they think that fear about climate breakdown is a fringe view held by tree hugging hippies only.

The only sensible thing for us all to do is protest, protest, protest. Our Government is fucking us over. It has chosen new oil and coal, rolled back financial support for individual action like solar installation, insulation and heat pumps, it’s rolling back environmental protections about river pollution. It continues to subsidise the oil industry. So many of its policies go against our best interests. Because they don’t care about ‘the people’. Never have and never will. They just fake it from time to time to get votes. SOME individual Tory MPs care - but I’m talking about policy.

It has also put in place draconian laws that prevent us from protesting legally.

It’s fucking depressing. BUT we can’t give up. We need to:

Keep talking about it.
keep writing to our MPs
Keep signing the petitions.
Join or donate to campaign groups.
Make efforts to reduce our own carbon footprint.

It’s not ok to say but ‘what about’. We can’t control what other people do. We can’t control what other countries do. But we can do our bit. We can lead by example. We can invest in green technologies. We can de-invest from oil. We can cut down on consumption of carbon heavy things. We can create the infrastructure needed.

If the Government taxed wealth in the same way it taxes income, we could afford it all too. EASILY.

‘Agree with the posters who have said this is just a bribe to the electorate, exactly the same as Brexit. Because it worked for the ULEZ issue. ‘

I think the analysis of the narrow win in Uxbridge has been poor. Uxbridge is a pin a blue rosette on a donkey type place. They usually vote Tory by huge percentages. There was a protest vote because of Boris but I suspect the ULEZ factor was a mixed bag with some voting Tory because they were against and some voting against them because they were for it. In fact if you had combined the pro- ULEZ party votes, the Conservatives would have lost.

Rishi and his team think the narrow win, where they lost a huge majority was down to ULEZ alone and have therefore put all of their chips on the GB News vote. I expect they get their arses kicked come the next election and that Uxbridge will turn red, as the pro-ULEZ and anti-Tory vote will vote tactically next time, now they know there’s a chance of the Tories being kicked out. Previously a lot of people wouldn’t have bothered to vote in Uxbridge as they would’ve thought that was impossible.

On a national scale, this is all bigger than ULEZ and Net Zero, Sunak is signalling that he doesn’t care about the climate in general. That is a bad look and he will be punished for it despite Tory HQ planting the odd comment on here to try and sway us into thinking this is a good thing. It’s Brexit tactics all over again but you can fool some people some of the time as they saying goes.

Yes agree he’s appealing to voters
and yes agree Net Zero is becoming the new brexit- a hugely divisive issue. He might well win a few votes with this- but he’ll lose an awful lot more (I hope).

Net zero presents one of the, if not the greatest economic (and social) opportunities of our time.

You only need to look at the value of AUM funds currently in net zero schemes and the actual and predicted growth in sustainable investment to see that. Of course, you'd need a forward thinking, innovative and bold government to be able to take advantage of it so, it is no wonder the tories aren't going to be able to do that.

Let's be honest here, any roll back in policy over the next year has nothing to do with "the British people" and is solely about allowing the tories to maximise the amount of money they will be able to make before they're booted out at the next election.

The people wailing and whinging about net zero are the very definition of can't see the woods for the trees. You're literally calling for your future self's to be more unhealthy, poorer, more miserable, and even more internationally isolated.

The people wailing and whinging about net zero are the very definition of can't see the woods for the trees.

This is how I feel but those who need U.K. to exceed all else when they’re already doing well, chart shows that below

The wood for the trees part in this should be about our position globally, I’m all for people looking at bigger picture

The people who don't want it are the people who don't understand it.

I'll give one recent example. I was on a call with various government and public organisations a couple of weeks ago to discuss sustainability.

One speaker was from a prominent UK city Council (think one of the cities you'd think of if asked to name the top 10 cities in the UK) and they were talking about decarbonisation the city's heat network as part of their net zero strategy.

Part if that plan is to convert all building stock (including housing) over to electrical means of heating (solar, air source / ground source heat pumps, etc), but, for that to he effective the energy efficiency of the building stock would need to increased across the board.

A huge undertaking that will cost billions upon billions of pounds (boooo! cry the masses) and take a couple of decades at least to achieve.

The speaker had run the numbers on undertaking such a massice project and it will cost the council / taxpayers billions and billions and take a couple of decades at leasr to complete.

Bloody ridiculous spending billionsnof pounds of OUR money in net zero rubbish I hear you cry PP!

Except, the speaker and their teams had run the numbers and once they'd factored in the impacts upgrading building energy efficiency would have on health and social outcomes (poorly insulated buildings lead to more health issues and cost more to keep warm, creating unhealthier and poorer occupants) the council would actually make a saving of around £5bn over the project lifetime.

They'd also create thousands of long-term, skilled, and local jobs as well as many potential investment / manufacturing / new business opportunities for the city. A literal win-win-win.

Yet, people like the poster quoted will see the words net zero and actively campaign to stop such projects. Bizarre.

The wood for the trees part is literally about people being unable, or unwilling, to see the benefits and opportunities net zero can bring to their lives because of their own bias.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a great big socialist lefty at my heart and was interested in things like net zero, un sdgs, unfccc, etc, becuase their work seeks to address global inequality but, that framing doesn't work on everyone.

Some people in the UK oppose net zero because they associate the term with tree huggers, just stop oil, liberal loonies, etc, yet nothing could be further from the truth. Net zero, or the pursuit of it if done properly, is a positive for all.

Take the example I gave above, even if you don't agree with global aims of net zero surely you wouldn't reject a more efficient, cheaper to run house or a more comfortable to work in office?

Even if you object to the idea of council tenants / workers getting something you wouldn't as a private owner / worker surely you wouldn't object to the council having more money at their disposal becyade they're spending less treating preventable illness caused by substandard housing?

Even if you object to the idea of helping people less fortunate than you, surely you wouldn't object to the creation of skilled local jobs and investment opportunities for your town/city?

Yet, people who object to net zero object to all that. They see headlines about EVs or the UK being responsible for less than 1% of emissions and that's it they're blinded to everything else.