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

I agree those things matter too. Policies that make sense on economic or security grounds should go ahead.

Some things must be done locally in order to be effective (like energy-security arguments). But carbon abatement is not one of those. It's done much better overseas.

By ignoring that, and by dressing up net zero policies in the language of economic opportunity and vice versa, we do both badly:

We have the highest industrial energy costs in the rich world. That hampers growth (and industry) far, far more than the growth that our green energy sector provides.

We have some of the most expensive carbon-abatement projects in the world (naturally, as we are an expensive country that is already pretty carbon efficient).

It's mainly political vanity, plus a wrongheaded anti-markets hangover in the environmental movement, that keeps us doing net zero in this way, which is, ironically, far worse for global carbon emissions than the alternatives.

It's not a question of modelling the carbon footprint over 25 years. Australian coal is still being transported to and burned in dirty Chinese power plants every day.

It would emit less CO2 to avoid transporting the coal to China, keep it in Australia and burn it in cleaner Australian power plants and at the same time produce cheaper and importantly non intermittent power for Australian businesses and citizens.

I’m very pro net zero, would pay more tax to get there quicker.

I accept it makes no difference while the US/China etc pump out emissions at the rate they do, but I believe we should do our best regardless of what others are doing (I don’t start dropping litter because the side of the road is already littered, for example).

I don’t like the teaming and lading of numbers to get there (ie don’t generate our own gas/oil but buy someone else’s). We should aim to be broadly self sustaining, and then reduce our fossil fuel extraction as we replace it with other energy sources.

We should frack as well

It's because the whole process is complicated.

The government is struggling to build the amount of homes it said it would (less than half). The more conditions you put on builders the less homes will be built.

Take something like heat pumps. On paper and in isolation they sound like a good idea. They are pretty much as expensive to heat your home as gas. But they require a lot of electricity to run.

That electricity needs grid infrastructure to transport it. Housing starts are already being delayed because the grid infrastructure isn't in place. There is no point building an estate full of heat pumps if you can't actually pipe the electricity to it to make them run.

Government policy is obviously targeted to increase the use of heat pumps for domestic heating (hence the subsidy, which we all have to pay for through taxes). But it is targeted to try to make sure the uptake rate matches the infrastructure. Otherwise we have all our houses with heat pumps but no way of actually getting the electricity to them.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2026/jul/24/france-spain-wildfires-cap-ferret-europe-latest-news-updates?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=bluesky&CMP=bsky_gu

It was thought at one point the geology of parts of the UK were suited to shale oil extraction as happens in America. There was huge political debate. It turns out that actually we don't have the right type of shale anyway, and it isn't economically viable. Yet it gets repeated as a solution. Likewise the UKs oil fields are mature and almost completely depleted at least of oil it's ecomically viable to remove. We can give licenses to companies to remove the remainder of we can not give them licenses. They may or may not decide themselves to drill based on how high oil prices are likely to be in 6 months or a year's time. Either way, it won't have any impact on the UKs gas and oil and energy prices.

Drilling or not drilling won't make energy in the UK cheaper. Long term the only chance we have is reducing our dependence on the oil and gas market which is highly volatile and completely out of the UKs control.

I don't know what you mean by carbon abatement is much better done overseas. Is it anything in particular you are thinking of? Or just a hypothetical?

If some is there we should allow the choices for private firms to go and extract it if they want to.

We should maximise energy production.

"Likewise the UKs oil fields are mature and almost completely depleted"

This is not actually correct. See Rosebank.

There is plenty of oil left in the North Sea. There isn't plenty of easy oil. But techniques to extract it are improving all the time (see EOR).

Businesses are just getting less and less interested because the politics makes it pointless for them to engage in the significant costs of E&P when the political climate seems to turn on a sixpence. This isn't compatible with the long term planning requirements of offshore oil extraction.

The oil industry is more than about the profit made from drilling for oil. It's also about the jobs and the industry that that goes along with that which employs a significant number of people in the UK and ensures we have world class expertise in this area.

The best thing for the environment would be to reduce the population.

We need energy. We need oil and gas.

If we broke the link between oil and gas and the energy prices cap your energy prices would fail significantly.

Renewables are cheaper currently than oil and gas.

Renewables are currently cheaper than oil and gas.

It's the oil and gas companies telling you you need it.

Yes. Treaties allow our net zero target to be met by funding abatement overseas. Switzerland does a lot of this but we have chosen to do none.

That’s a massive loss to us, the overseas projects, and the planet.

Bear in mind what UK policies cost: heat pump grants are roughly £250/tonne, carbon capture well over £100/tonne in subsidy.

All money that could be much better spent if we cared about results not process.

Examples:

1. Destroying nitrous oxide at fertiliser/nylon plants. Around 100–200 million tonnes a year available worldwide at $1–5/tonne.

1. Switching household cooking and heating fuel in Asia. Clean stoves replacing wood, charcoal and coal. Costs $4–35/tonne depending on quality. Over two billion people still cook on solid fuels, which also kills millions a year from smoke.

1. Retiring Asian coal plants early and replacing with solar. Buying out the contracts costs $6–50/tonne.

Switzerland does it at about $30/tonne. Let’s be conservative and assume only half is effective while 100% of UK projects are effective. That’s still a huge waste in our policies compared to the good we could be doing. Or, looked at more positively, a huge opportunity to do more for the planet while also saving money.

What about the network, infrastructure, backup and constraint payments needed? And Cfd subsidises as well. Renewables are cheaper in Texas where they just pay the market rate and aren't over subsidised.

But the biggest burner of coal in Asia is China. And they don't need our money to replace with solar. They already are doing it because it benefits them. They are a booming economy they don't need Britain's help to switch to renewables. People in Britain do. Likewise even in poorer parts of Asia the switch to cleaner methods of cooking etc is happening already. Solar use in India is sky rocketing. India and large parts of Asia already use produce less carbon dioxide per capita than the UK. There was a fear as they developed it would increase but it's already being offset by renewed use of renewables because it's cheaper and better for energy security.

I'm all for overseas funding. But in this area I am worried the UK will be left behind countries like China who, for their own self interest, pursue renewable energy and energy security. It feels like a great act of self harm not to do the same.

The installation of heat pumps reduces costs for people. It helps the environment but it also helps consumers and British tax payers. Complicated schemes to offset carbon use don't.

Whataboutery.

It's really simple, oil and gas leads to a dependency on Russia and trump.

Drilling more will not bring down UK energy bills. It will get sold at international prices to foreigners producing profit for oil companies.

Cut price cap link to most expensive fuel (oil and gas) and everyone will benefit (except oil and gas companies and their reform bribed stooges of course)

I need oil and gas to heat my home and to run my car. We'll still need it. Gas is also part of the electricity mix.

Drilling more will still benefit the economy .it can't harm us. We'll get extra produced and can benefit from the tax revenues from it.

Nobody is suggesting banning it, we need to lessen dependency on it, simple, pragmatic steps which will have a real impact and help millions.

More drilling will only help the oil companies. A tiny bit of tax will go to UK, prices will not fall, energy bills will not fall.

Renewables are currently about 20% of the UKs primary energy mix, which is mostly dominated by oil (transport) and gas (heating, power generation).

So unless you can pretty much instantly replace that 80% with renewables then you need oil and gas, pretty much by definition.

Yes but the main politics affecting oil companies and the oil price aren't anything to do with net zero. It is for example the "war on, war of, war on, war of" American shenanigans which make it quite hard to predict future oil prices. The techniques to extract that, less easy oil, you refer to are expensive. So the oil price has to be very high and likely to be very high in six months time to justify it. And that's a gamble. It's never going to be a cheap source of fuel. Also affecting the oil price are China building up or drawing down on its oil reserves (oil would be a lot more expensive right now if they hadn't massively reduced the amount they buy post the closure of Hormuz) and OPEC fixing prices.
Extract all the oil in the North Sea now, or don't extract any. It won't affect UK consumers energy bills.

Lobbying from the big housebuilders mostly. They don't want to instate these features because it would cost them a little bit more 🙄

A tiny bit of tax revenue, extra profits for the few (and most of them foreign investors)

Versus cheaper energy bills for millions.

Hmm which to choose, hmm why do I suspect you invest heavily in oil and gas? How many shares do you own?