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

We have nowhere near the economic growth and resources of China and the USA doesn’t care what it does. We are a minnow by comparison.

Being green costs! We have heat pumps, solar panels and batteries, plus an EV. My God has this cost us some outlay! Our electricity bill - around £400 a month, still! There’s no cheap solution for households. We don’t have gas in the village and we’ve got rid of the oil boiler. We can afford it but most cannot.

Use the magic spicy rocks that get hot when you bring them close together.

Zero emissions. Abundant energy.

I am not sure what you mean. At the end of the day it is not really about being rich or poor. It's about trying to prevent the destruction of the environment that humanity depends on.

Yeah but
yeah but
yeah but

The UK has no impact.

If we do nothing, and therefore nobody else does anything either, do things improve ?

This isn’t about the UK, all countries except four utter remedials - the literal horsemen of the apocalypse - are on this pathway.

And that is because of steps taken.

This.

We are all paying more for something that won’t make any difference, as our emissions are so low.
I rarely agree with Badenoch, but I do with this.

OK, so I’m with you on the net zero goal (in fact, net negative).

I want most UK net zero policies scrapped and the money instead channeled to much more effective and cheaper carbon mitigation projects overseas. In fact that way, we can get both more carbon benefit and lower cost.

The worst types are those who use the moral imperative as a way to drive though net zero, but then don’t actually care whether the money we spend on it does the most carbon good that it can, in fact, resist more beneficial options because it requires them to rethink their positions. They are in the same bucket as the outright denialists (in fact worse, as failing to act on something you don’t believe exists is what we all do. Failing to act on something you say is a massive priority is worse).

(btw, I’m not accusing you of this. I don’t know your position at all).

The whole point of net zero is tackling the problem on a national scale

why not an international one?

The point, to me, is to reduce a global risk. One where the climate outcome doesn’t depend on where the action is taken, just on how effective (in total) it is.

In the context of my earlier post which you responded to, I think it's very clear. China is working towards electrification in a way that is boosting their economy. We're working towards it in a different way. I think rich vs poor is entirely relevant to 'preventing the destruction of the environment'. We know poor communities suffer more from climate change than wealthier ones.

China is already electrified.

The UK hit peak carbon in the 90's. The PRC is not even at peak carbon. I reckon the PRC should be doing more.

So one key challenge with renewable electricity is that it produces electricity when it's sunny or windy rather than when electricity is actually needed and there is no cost effective means of long duration storage of electricity.

This means that when it's sunny or windy supply often can be more than demand meaning wholesale market prices (not the prices you or I see which include taxes, grid costs etc) plummet and can even go negative.

Now this is not good news for wind or solar farm owners to be often selling their power at low or close to zero prices. To prevent this the Government gives them a guaranteed price and if wholesale prices drop below this then the Government tops them up with a subsidy.

Unfortunately the cost of this (significant) subsidy is paid for by a levy or tax on business and household electricity bills, rather than general taxation (which most other countries do).

Unfortunately this then makes supplied UK electricity prices some of the most expensive in the world.

For businesses that use lots of electricity such as heavy industry this makes it uncompetitive to operate in the UK so they move their operations (and importantly the jobs) to countries where electricity is cheaper. Similarly if you are going to be setting up a business which consumes a lot of energy then you wouldn't choose the UK.

Unfortunately these other countries with much cheaper electricity (China, India, US) achieve this through highly polluting coal fired power plants. Meaning that overall global CO2 emissions would be greater from a UK Net Zero policy.

Lastly because of these high electricity in the UK demand has actually fallen over the last 15 years and this is despite of the massive growth in EV vehicles, heat pumps and aircon.

Like many things UK Net Zero is simply virtue signalling that makes no difference to global CO2 emissions (if anything it increases them), it destroys UK industry and jobs and makes us all poorer (except the wind farm and solar farm owners).

Yet if you point these facts out then you will be accused of being a climate change denier or not understanding.

I want our energy system almost entirely replaced, from a starting point of gas / coal-fired power stations to an end point of renewables backed by copious nuclear energy capacity. This gets us most of the way. We’re doing that now, policies do not need cancelling, the missing policies to build copious nuclear capacity need instantiating.

I want fossil-fuel vehicles - both road and rail - phased out. There is no need for them now. I want a massive & public-service oriented (as opposed to profit oriented) increase in public transport to be rolled out. The UK should have a Swiss-style integrated network country-wide, and it should be cheap & pleasant to use.

I want domestic flights / ultra short haul flights to places accessible easily by train banned. No domestic flights at all; ban flights to eg Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam too.

I want to disincentivise meat consumption, or at least favour (massively) only allowing UK & Ireland sourced 100% grass-fed meat to be sold in the UK. It’s not about the food-miles, rather avoiding meat reared on deforested / clearcut land or fed with feed grown on clearcut land.

Finally I want to see a huge reduction in the use of plastic materials, especially in disposable products and packaging. Ban non-recyclable plastics altogether. Mandate a minimum required proportion of recycled plastic.

*Exemptions would only cover specific eg medical products where hygiene & performance requirements may override.

She’s not being very consistent though.

She’s saying that climate change is real & she wants to leave a cleaner environment for “our children” but she wants growth, cheaper energy & protecting the landscapes that “we all love”. I’m not sure that these goals are consistent ones.

Again, it comes back to poor reporting but I wish she had been pressed more on what she intends to (& how she will pay for it) as if she does achieve her ambition to become prime minister she will have to deal with the wildfires & other consequences of climate change.

I have a slow and a quick solution for her.

Slow is nuclear. Clean, cheap energy that doesn’t do much to landscapes. Build out our reactor fleet to get economies of scale and rationalise regulations.

Fast is divert our net zero subsidies to high quality carbon credits. Split the difference in order to save money and increase the carbon benefit at the same time.

Banning domestic flights, how laughable. Going to ban shirt flights to the EU. How funny. My DC went to Paris on holiday earlier on in the year and flew back. It's faster and cheaper than Eurostar

UK energy policy has zilch effect on climate change

If that’s her policy then she needs to say so - she after all is the one putting herself forward to lead the country.

She also needs to have a scientifically sounds, feasible & funded policy to deal with the radioactive waste.

Climate change is having rather a noticeable effect on the UK though.

Any political leader needs to have a policy about flooding, the effects of heat, the effects of climate change on the food supply, energy supply etc.

But it is a “low hanging fruit” as far as climate change is concerned because rail alternatives (like the Eurostar) exist. They just aren’t as cheap as flying. Other easy wins include electrifying rail and enabling people to walk / cycle for shorter journeys.

There’s also a social justice argument for this as it would help people who can’t afford a car to reach school and education. Rail is also a much safer way to travel than driving.

I agree.

(Though if you are nuclear sceptic, I think we might disagree on what counts as a sound, feasible and funded policy for waste).

We can adapt and deal with it. Our energy policy makes no impact so no need to destroy our industries.

Because there's no global government or world dictator. What there are are treaties and agreements between countries to each tackle climate change at national level

I guess we are back to our old debate again, so I’ll spare you the full version!

We do have treaty mechanisms to allow countries to meet their obligations by funding actions elsewhere. If we all used those more, we’d get a lot more carbon benefit in total. Like the argument for any type of trade.