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

[Echobelly]

Politicians like Kemi Badenoch and right wing newspaper front pages love to talk as though everyone hates Net Zero and sustainability as concepts and wants us to get on with burning coal and drilling for oil. They seem to stake an awful lot on people not like sustainability mostly because they see it as 'woke' as far as I can tell.

I think most people don't think about it enough to hate it really and most people broadly want the outcomes of improved sustainability but would like it to happen without it needing any investment. I reckon some people don't like feeling 'nagged' about saving the environment and in many ways I don't blame them as, while we should all do our bit, really it's up to governments and big businesses to actually do the damn work to truly make a difference.

Maybe Net Zero has a bit of a PR problem as it sounds unachievable, and also maybe it sounds like you get nothing, or something will be taken away from you/society. It might do better to have a name that sounds more 'positive'. But it's a shame because ultimately, even if for some reason you don't believe in climate change it seems to me that the benefits of renewable energy (such as ending energy dependence on some not always friendly countries and less pollution) are pretty clear and I'm not sure people realise it's not just powering a few kettles, it's often around 50% of UK energy production

The best way to reduce energy bills is via renewables. Due to huge costs needed to extract it,oil companies enjoying the profits and said oil going on the global market households would only get reduced bills if the tax man passed them down and even then it’s not going to be as much as savings households can make from renewables. These are facts you keep ignoring.

Just to help with the "break the link" thing because there seems to be some confusion

Currently the UK operates a marginal pricing scheme for energy production. This means that each entity "selling energy" (be they a fossil fuel power plant, a nuclear plant, a wind farm etc) tells the grid how much maximum energy they will be able to provide for each window in time and how much they are willing to sell that energy for. The people actually maintaining the grid will then "fill up" each half hour window with that energy starting with the cheapest bid, and finishing with the most expensive. However, to encourage as low bids as possible, everyone gets paid the same amount- the most expensive price. So if wind is the cheapest they will use all the wind power available first, then all of the next cheapest power source available next etc. This kept prices competitive when most energy was about the same price. But currently we have a situation where wind power is tendering a massively cheaper price per kilowatt hour than gas. But if gas is still needed to top up that last 20% that most expensive price is the price paid for all the energy
This is great for wind energy companies who have pulled in massive profits recently from receiving gas prices for something that's much cheaper to produce. Especially with the price of fossil fuels rocketing. But it's not as good for the consumer. It's so extreme the government has in the past 12 months charged a windfall tax on wind power companies to get some of those profits back. In the long term, "breaking the link" between gas prices and the overall energy price means changing that pricing model. That's likely to happen relatively soon, as the amount of energy produced by renewables increases and even reaches 100% on some days it will make the problems with the pricing structure unavoidable. We arent there yet though.

Extracting and burning more North Sea oil would increase global warming, as burning any fossil fuel releases planet-warming carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It also signals open season for everybody else.

www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/apr/08/uk-new-oil-gas-fields-north-sea-global-climate-goals

Then do renewables and keep on using north sea. You can use both. And we need things to use when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow.

Look at the previous Twitter thread I posted. Explains it well.

The problem is under the existing pricing structure that hybrid system works out as the most expensive and is the real reason for energy prices being so high

Are we going to give up using plastic? I don’t mean single use plastic, plastic overall?

It's a miniscule amount of emissions. I heat my home with a gas boiler, I use a petrol car. If it's not going to impact bills or spur the economy, why ban it. Just let the licenses be issued and extract the fuels.

Again. What are you going to do when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine?

Seriously? A great deal of social media is false as fuck. I wouldn't base any political opinion on social media. Between the influencers/fads, the virtue signallers, and the foreign bot farms, social media bears no relation to reality.

There is zero point replying to you, it has been explained repeatedly by various posters which is repeatedly ignored.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-fossil-fuel-incentives-and-subsidies-inventory

The UK government is in a bind because in theory they want to decrease reliance on fossil fuels (net zero the topic of this thread) but if they pulled the eplig completely on subsidies given to fossil fuel energy generation, electricity would get a lot more expensive and as others have said we already pay a lot. This is the case even if only a tiny amount is coming from oil and gas due to the marginal pricing system. Pulling the plug on oil/gas subsidies would drive up not just the percentage of energy produced by those companies but the price of all energy.

Renewables currently take on far less in subsidies than fossil fuels, they produce massively cheaper energy but we haven't seen the benefits of this yet. It makes sense for the government to press ahead with getting us "over the line" in terms of energy storage, grid maintenance and upgrades etc. It costs as all government infrastructure projects do. But it's also what governments should be spending on. As soon as we reach the stage where sometimes 100% of energy is produced by cheaper renewables you will see prices drop. At that point the government can also rethink the massive subsidies paid out to fossil fuel.

The reason so much effort is being put into briefing against renewables or net zero is because of the huge subsidies and profits at risk for the traditional fossil fuel companies. It really isn't as simple as "just drill" in the North sea. If the government removed all subsidies but granted licenses no drilling would happen.

That's why, as I said, completely removing subsidies for oil/gas extraction and burning isn't considered feasible. Neither is switching from the marginal pricing system which keeps energy prices high. YET. But it's also why the government improving power infrastructure, building in energy sharing capacities with nearby countries like France and the Nordic countries is important. It means if the wind isnt blowing here but is blowing there we can buy theirs. And also, the final piece, energy storage be that hydro-power or chemical batteries. It sounds expensive, but compared to the cost of building the initial infrastructure meant for electricity it's nothing. If we had listened to naysayers there would be no power grid at all.
Other possibilities include changes to the pricing system to encourage people to get charge their home batteries or car batteries at home during off peak hours when energy is plentiful to reduce demand during those days when "the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow" you keep talking about. It's not one thing, it's lots of things coming together.

What am I ignoring? I've said you can use both. You can use fossil fuels and renewables. Texas does this very well and has cheap cheap energy. I believe we use 50% of north sea gas domestically anyway? Why not use our own more instead of importing from Norway. Importing LNG has more emissions. We'll still need oil and gas. We actually use a lot of the north sea gas anyway.

I didn’t know that was how he travelled & I agree that the hypocrisy is a problem. It’s always going to be a problem with anyone putting themselves forward to lead on this (as no-one’s perfect) but there is a risk that the rich & privileged will always find a reason to get round the any restrictions.

It’s not just a problem with the current prime minister- Rishi Sunak used to helicopter around.

It’s tricky with the security issue for politicians but I think it would be better if they were more honest with the public about what the restrictions for travelling are & how they are going to choose the cheapest / safest / greenest option. They have after all put themselves forward to lead the country so it’s not unreasonable for them to have to step up given this is a national crisis. Again, better reporting on this would probably help them make a better choice.

Oil & gas so subsidised there's a 78% tax on it. 78% like wtaf

We will all get there in the end. We will be poorer, China will be richer. I guess you just have to decide how you want to get there.

We will all get there in the end. We will be poorer, China will be richer. I guess you just have to decide how you want to get there.

We will all get there in the end. We will be poorer, China will be richer. I guess you just have to decide how you want to get there.

When commercial ventures don’t care, and are the main perpetrators, banging on about my personal need to be net zero is ridiculous. When you’re building massive data centres which need huge amounts of power and wear, but my hosepipe will destroy the UK, I have a problem. When you’re importing oil, and not caring about other countries with a much larger footprint, but expecting me to save power and use sensibly, then I have a problem. So no, I don’t care because the hypocrisy surrounding it makes it a farce shoving it down my throat

If the government really cared they would support farmers, teach the public to eat seasonally, locally and ensure high quality animal welfare. Move towards organic.

Boilers, washing machines, fridges etc would be expected to last 25-30 years (like my grandmothers did) if this means no flashing lights and smart features so be it. Manufactures would be penalised for not having an average life span of x years.

Cars - you should be able to replace a screw in your gear box without having to bin the gear box. Reward people who keep a car for 20 years. The longer you keep it the less the tax.

Teach kids to cook a decent cheap meal from seasonal food. Repair classes in school so kids can fix their clothes or the dishwasher etc.

These changes would help the public too - funny how the government are not encouraging any of them.

Instead we import oil from Russia via India. We buy products from countries which pump out energy and have poor human rights records. (And they pretend it’s low carbon because it’s not from Britain) 🤣. Is it wood pellets from Canada that we say are zero carbon because the carbon counts in Canada - what a load of bollocks.

You wouldn’t cover the soil in solar panels - grass verges on the side of moto ways could be used. Thousands of new builds over the last 15 years don’t have solar panels. Only two years ago the pipe work in new builds was not being set up for heat pumps (I know a plumber who thought it was hilarious as he got paid to rip out year old pipes to install new ones for a heat pump).

It’s all nonsense and when the lights start going off hopefully there will be less virtue signallers. Climate change is a way to get more money from the public. Eating locally, seasonally, 25 year boilers, fridges (my old one lasted 40 years - my plumber said I’d be lucky to get 15 from a boiler today) would help the environment and save people cash - something the gov don’t seem to be too good at.

Also - Why are businesses allowed to keep lights and pcs on when no one is in the office? Drive round an industrial estate and you can see lights on. Offices/estate agents in town centres. Turn off the lights!

Plus the gas companies and electric companies don’t want us to use less - it will cost them their profits. They said wind turbines would cut our bills - did they?

https://observer.co.uk/news/business/article/its-refined-in-india-but-putins-oil-is-still-gushing-into-the-uk

I guess it’s not Russian if it had a little journey to India.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/09/anger-uk-plan-net-zero-import-biomass-fuel-north-korea

No idea how much (if any) of this went ahead but someone must have been set to make a fair bit of money.

Nope. Most people hate it.

People want cheaper bills. Some countries have decarbonised and cut energy costs. That's due to cheap hydro power. Some have done nuclear. We've done neither.

The hosepipe ban has nothing to do with net zero. It's imposed in some areas at the behest if water companies although since it's due to drought it is arguably connected to climate change. That said it's also connected to water companies being absolutely useless.

The whole point of net zero is tackling the problem on a national scale not punishing individuals/haranguing them to be net zero. Hence the push to replace fossil fuels with renewables etc. Theres aspects of that that do involve individual/household participation. Hence the push to subsidise heat pumps, solar power, make new builds more energy efficient etc. All of those things should also make life more affordable for impacted people not less. And yes it is also good to be more energy efficient on a personal level (turning lights of etc) but as you say it's not enough on its own and that's why that's not the main focus of net zero

If you mean AI data centres I agree. I think a lot of the hype around AI is bobbins. If you mean data centres in general we do need those. Mumsnet needs servers to function, so do all internet based services. Aside from computing we need some industry. Yes it can use more energy than ordinary people, but the answer to that is to make electricity more sustainable not get rid of business.