AIBU not to buy in about all of this net zero/environmentalism?

[ShanCran]

Okay, so I understand the need to look after the planet and all that but just feel that the whole “net zero” agenda is being pushed too hard and too fast. Things like “clean air zones” in cities. Surely that’s just a money making exercise?

I recycle where I can, but not as religiously as most. I also travel about 20,000 miles per year in my (small) petrol car and in my 28 years on the planet have travelled approximately 175,000 air miles. Some will say that I am awful and totally unreasonable - but I suspect that many will agree that the whole concept of net zero is being pushed too hard and too fast.

After all, for all the environmentalist rhetoric that is preached by many politicians, the King, numerous celebrities and the likes - I don’t see any of them being principled enough to reduce their airmiles (often travelling by air for trivial things) or travel less generally. I doubt that the personal carbon emissions of many of such “celebrities” is far from net zero themselves.

@IsoscelesSandwich

"Switching to renewables = lower bills.
Sticking to oil and gas = bills going up "

If that was true then why do renewables need government subsidies in order to be economically viable (CfD's, ROCs etc) - paid for by higher bills. When oil and gas don't need government subsidies and instead are heavily taxed?

You are over simplifying this picture to the point of uselessness.

People have always predicted that renewable energy would be too difficult or expensive. In reality, costs have dropped far faster than anyone predicted, and uptake has far exceeded any expectations.

Thank you for sparing me the chore of responding to that post.

They aren't heavily taxed. Fossil fuels are effectively given huge subsidies via tax breaks.

Yes, and children will be rationed, as they were in China (one child per family – don't know if this is still the case) and our rubbish will be inspected, as it is in many other countries.

No, the one child policy went out years ago. It's the opposite now - as with many countries, the birth rate is too low, and the government is trying to encourage it to come up.

What tax breaks?

Not only that, it’s distracted us from investing in our defence and security, something Russia and China are taking advantage of. War is hardly low emissions is it, and look at the state of the global
landscape

The GBP 17.5 billion per year tax breaks.

Which are what exactly? Can you provide any details?

This explains it: https://www.upliftuk.org/post/the-way-the-uk-taxes-oil-companies-needs-to-change

Honestly, they are common knowledge, and a search will quickly provide reliable information. You are being disingenuous.

Surprised - tthough maybe I shouldn't be - to see the insistence that renewables will lead to lower bills, when there'll still need to be a power supply system and the operators of that will doubtless gouge the consumers just as the oil and gas companies do

And some of us are old enough to remember the claims that the finding of North Sea gas would result in the product being so cheap that there'd be no point in billing consumers at all ...

There is no economy without the environment. We rely entirely on natural processes to support the economy, it is how we get food, water, shelter, climate regulation, nutrients cycles, oxygen production. These are natural capital assets, but the way we define "the economy" doesn't reflect their value which allows for continued damage to the systems upon which the entire economic system relies, which will lead to collapse of it all. It is not moving too quickly, we have known this for decades and through institutional and market failures have ignored it. By 2050 based on current trends England will be 5 billion litres of water short A DAY. Conflicts are rising across the world many driven by access to natural resources. Wars drive up prices for the every day person. Environment and Economy are not a binary choice, it's appeared that way because there was enough "Environment" to go round and the costs weren't included in our economic models. That's just not the case any more, the only economy that can survive into the future is environmentally sustainable. It's that or Mad Max. Unfortunately many people seem to wat to choose Mad Max.

Yep. Subsidies that damage nature are globally estimated at $4-6 trillion a year. We have to change the model or risk systems collapse.

Yes I think you have a point here, I'm not hopeful renewables will reduce bills from where they are today, there is a lot of investment required in the grid, storage etc. But stack that against what would happen to oil prices if Iran close the state of Hormuz, or Russia took further steps to disrupt supplies I think that's a more reasoned argument for stabilising bill projections with renewable in the mix.

For many ordinary consumers they do.

The UK is about mandate heat pumps and solar panels for new builds. This will generally result in very low, perhaps no, utility bills for residents of these future homes. If it saves a modest £100pm (most likely more!) that is a far bigger saving than the small uplift (say £10k) in house price when equated to a monthly mortgage payment.

This is surely a good thing, don’t you think?

I think that's an excelllent thing, @applegingermint, and might well be a way forward - though it's very long term given the amount of older housing stock and isn't it said the "cliamte emergency" is supposed to be NOW?

Also agree, @Cnidarian, that the measures might help to balance out possible issues caused by middle east unrest, but we're still back with it being a long term solution
Better than doing nothing at all though, I guess ...

As someone said up thread, a tanker can’t turn on a dime. We can’t force people to retrofit their homes when they have perfectly good heating systems already installed. But we can be ready to fit an effective system when their boiler comes to end of life.

This is important as the UK has a shortage of ASHP fitters so fitting them in new builds will expand this skill set and critically transfer learning to existing housing stock, improve technology and solutioning.

Yes but if they hadn't implemented that policy, which was in place for 35 years, they estimate that the population would be 400 million higher than it is today.

Couldn't care less about net zero. It's too expensive for the UK and will make no difference

I’m not convinced those heat pumps are up to much and work properly and do we have enough trained engineers to deal with them

I did a bit of googling and I think this is the source of the £17.5 billion figure

It's a report by 'Global Justice' who I assume aren't exactly neutral...

https://www.globaljustice.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/FINAL-Who-Pays-Who-Profits-May.pdf

£6.9 billion is due to people not paying 20% VAT n their gas and electricity bills. I'm not sure how consumers not paying tax equates to a tax break for oil and gas producers, but hey. 🤷‍♀️

Only £2.7 billion is listed as tax reliefs for oil and gas producers. Without knowing what those are, I don't know we can really say if they're right or wrong.

This is the problem with thsee self-righteousness sermons. As soon as you scratch the surface, it all turns out to be bollocks - but some people will believe anything.

This. They’re everywhere in Spain now.

They work fine, but that depends on the quality of the particular model of course, just like with any appliance.
You don't need engineers to install and service them either. A regular heating contractor can do it. I have one and I'm in an extremely cold climate. They have cold climate models now which can heat the home without any need for supplemental heat.