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 problem with that is, that economic growth and security also matter. We could finish what Thatcher started and close down all the innovative creators in this country and pay subsidies to those other countries to make stuff instead of us. Even if the argument was that would reduce carbon emissions it's madness.

Besides which, the UK is well set up for renewables. We have the best shoreline in the entire world for wind energy, a good climate for solar (the amount of overcast days is less than ideal but actually solar panels do better in UK temps than very hot countries). We also have Lithium deposits in Cornwall which are comparatively environmentally friendly to extract and good for the economy there. So the whole argument that the UK isn't well placed to reduce it's emissions is wrong.

The biggest growth for UK industry is the green energy sector. My suspicion is a lot of those in the right arguing against it are part of the old school, deindustrialisation gang. But the conversation has moved on there. We do actually need industry. But coal mining isn't ever going to be big anymore.

This Conservative party is not far right. Dictatorship? Seriously.

Most of my friends and I agree that covering farming land in solar panels, and cutting down trees, digging up vast swathes of land to lay concrete slabs for wind farms, doesn't seem like it helps the environment much. Importing oil and steel from abroad when we can produce our own, might look like it cuts our carbon emissions, but it doesn't help the planet.

This. Also rather pointless not drilling for our own oil to virtue signal yet buying oil from Norway who is drilling and gas from Russia.

Dungeness which has a Nuclear Power station is the UK's only area desiganted as a desert.

It absolutely is. Did you not read my post or link.

They aren't exactly far right. But they are also a very very long way from what I'd consider traditional British conservativism. It's hard to know how to categorise them. Sometimes I think radical for the sake of being radical. Reactionary for the sake of being reactionary?
So radical reactionaries then!

I read the link and I still refute the suggestion that Kemi is far right!

😂

They are now more right than under Boris and it feels like being back to traditional Conservative values. God only knows what Boris was thinking during his tenure.

Currently about 0.1% of UK land is covered in solar panels. Golf courses alone cover seven times that amount.
In fact the majority of UK land is arable farmland (cows and sheep). Sheep and solar panels can coexist very well together and often do. So it's not even the case that farmland always has to be taken out of use for solar panels
Even where farmland is only used for solar panels it isn't concreted over or built on. Nothing bad happens to the soil. In fact, a lot of UK soil is overworked and would benefit from a period of not being used. You can install solar panels on land and after 20-30 years return it to farmland and it will be more productive than it was. So even the tiny percentage of land that is being used for solar panels and not being also used for sheep etc is not farmland that is "lost".

Labour pick and mix anyway. No to Rosebank it’s not good for net zero, yes to it and the other one because CoL.

Mahmood’s policies are to the right.

Labour sway with public opinion as much as any party, your confusion could apply to them too.

I have been pleasantly surprised by Shabana. She's got pressure from the back benchers and pressure from British Pakistanis. She quite ably took on Diane Abbott as well. Definitely right leaning.

The PRC aims for peak carbon 2035. They have not started to get to net zero. That will be in 2050 according to state media. Their work is to bring forward their peak carbon.

Here is their official position:

China issues action plan for carbon peaking during 15th Five-Year Plan period (www.gov.cn)

Note, I am not saying good or bad re the PRC, just something I casually follow so have their statement handy.

I did do a speadsheet on their coal use V UK last year sometime. Using UK coal records and PRC state media and official figures, and I recall I found they mined and imported more coal in 2025 ( or maybe 2024) then the UK mined from the start of the industrial revolution to something like 1920. But that's from memory. I can have a hunt for the spreadsheet if you like.

I don't think Labour are particularly as traditionally left wing as some people want. But they do embody traditional British pragmatism that used to be very common in UK politics across the spectrum. I think if you are American it can be quite confusing because the way politics in America works has always been a bit different, and there's more of an emphasis on idealism over pragmatism. Not saying either approach is wrong/right they are just different countries with different political histories and environments.

I hate it

They really aren’t traditional conservative values. Some of us have been round a while. I will never vote Tory again whilst she is in power.

Her dictator type of leadership(who is she to say who can and can’t stand)and forcing everybody to align with her very scary alienating views on scraping net zero and leaving the EHCR. Her views on autism and thinking that maternity rights have gone too far are appalling. Yes we see you Kemi and wanting to leave the EHCR thus clearing the way to scrap human and women’s rights in this country.

No thanks

(The UK Conservatives used to be deeply pragmatic while holding to certain principles, even if I didn't agree with those principles. It was always different to American conservativism and that must be quite confusing. They have completely lost themselves in the last decade or so. Being all over the place in terms of ideal and also wildly impractical/contradictory. It's not just Kemi Badenochs fault.)

Of course I’m not American, I’m in sunny London and have been for decades. About to get on the overground into the centre.

Why say that, my username? Is your real name actually Persephonia? (Perhaps it is).

On Labour ‘values’ they switch like the wind, you just back it as it’s your party.

I think most people are in favour of reducing pollution, sustainability, etc., but most people can also see through the lies and stupidity.

I.e. reducing our production of oil, gas and coal, yet importing it from abroad instead.

Councils keen on householders segregating waste etc when some of the recyclables are still ending up in landfill.

Higher prices for "clean" energy that lots of people simply can't afford.

Air source heat pumps that require huge investment and aren't actually that effective unless your home is ultra insulated.

Environmental impact of scrapping perfectly good old cars and making new ones, transported half way around the World to replace them.

Environmental impact of oil guzzling ships carrying coal/wood etc to burn in UK power stations and transporting our waste/recycling abroad.

Make it make sense!

My mistake. It wasnt meant as an insult. Yes I saw "Eastern Standard" and assumed it was a reference to EST.

I hate it, you are not talking for everyone. Its stumps growth, its making energy bills more expensive, its given councils a reason to charge you going into certain areas, its a contribution of a declining industrial industry. We pay more than any country in the G7 for gas and yet we produce about 1%. Its an awful policy

Ok it’s a drink I like, very nice, it has sugar so only rarely.

Last time I checked the decommissioning costs for our old nuclear plants were about £60 billion.

We don't even have a solution for long term storage. The Germans chucked a lot of their stuff down a mine and it started leaking. Now they have to figure out how to clean it up. Or leave it for someone else to clean up.

There's a reason why there are a load of rusting old nuclear subs in Devonport. It's because they cost serious money to dispose of. And no government actually wants to deal with the cost of it.

I think nuclear is a good solution to our baseload problem and helps energy diversity and we need nuclear plants, maybe 3x of HPC. It is not some sort of panacea though.

I don't think we will ever go back to coal in the UK.

UK coal generally is expensive and difficult to extract, it's dirty to burn producing sulphur that has to be scrubbed and generates a significant amount more CO2 emissions (I think maybe double) compared to gas.

It can't really replace domestic gas for heating due to the pollution it generates when a lot of it is burnt in cities.

There isn't really any role for it in the UK energy mix.

I think there was a mine proposed somewhere (open cast) to continue to mine coal in the UK, but that would have been used for specialist purposes rather than electricity generation.

Oil I think is different. Plastic material is used for all sorts of applications. We need to reduce our usage of it, but it is still the best choice for many things. Some applications are never going to happen without oil. Electric aircraft aren't really viable and are unlikely to be without significant technological breakthroughs. Oil is also used in a lot of military applications.

We are currently going for the low hanging fruit replacing oil where we don't need to use it, but I can't see us getting rid of it entirely for decades.

The thing about extracting oil is that it is a process that takes decades to put in place in the UK. You can't simply drill a hole and have oil come out a couple of weeks later. If you decide for whatever reason you want oil and you have no facilities in place its probably 5-10 years before you get it.

The problem is the debate over oil has been taken over by zealots from both sides of the argument. People who believe that we should stop it instantly with potentially catastrophic consequences for our current way of life, and people who believe we should be unrestrained in drilling for more of it. Whereas in reality there is a better balance between those two extremes. That really applies to the net zero debate as a whole.