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

If oil companies make more money and oil workers do better. I'm happy.

Nearly 40% last year actually, and climbing year on year.

It won’t be cheaper bills, that’s not how it works.Oil and gas companies sell extracted resources on the international market at global prices, meaning UK consumers receive no special discount.

I'm agreeing with you, it's the other two I'm arguing against. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

We need to remove the price cap link to the most expensive energy type (oil and gas)

Currently at this exact moment in time renewables are contributing about 61% (this doesn't count nuclear)
https://www.ukgridlive.co.uk/
By contrast Gas peaked earlier today at 34% but is down to 8% at the time I'm posting this.

Last year the overall percentage of the UKs energy provided by renewables went over 50% for I think the first time. We will still need some fossil fuels for a while to come. I don't think we should shut down the power plants and, crucially, that's not what net zero says either. But the amount provided by renewables is much greater than 20% and rising steadily. It's actually gas which on average provides 20% of our energy needs so maybe that's what you were thinking of?

Hi Nigel, how did you spend your £5 million "gift" ?

Oh, that's not counting transport by the way. Gradually switching to electric cars will help but it will take a lot longer to switch freight (lorries etc) to greener options. I think there's an awareness of this built into net zero planning. It makes sense to go for the low hanging fruit first and then fix the remaining 10% later. Rather than doing nothing about anything

See Trump. American oil companies' profits have skyrocketed since this stupid pointless war on Iran. So, thousands have died and millions have seen their energy bills go up just so he can repay the people who funded his election campaigns.

Why would anyone be in favour of a system that allows people like that to have any control over our energy?

These people are fucking psychopaths and have poured billions into spreading misinformation- the same nonsense talking points have popped up here that we debunk again and again on these kinds of threads- and the sooner we're free of them and don't have to depend on fossil fuels at all the better.

Is it fair to say that you don’t contest the numbers but think even if funding overseas projects did more (let’s say 10x more, conservatively) to combat climate change than UK ones, you would still oppose the swap, because you think it’s a higher priority for the UK government to subsidise projects that you also say are economic without subsidy?

That feels like pretty muddled thinking but I want to check it’s your actual position.

At least you're conceding that more oil and gas benefits the few at the cost of the many

Whereas renewables benefit the many at the cost of the few.

An investment-friendly “maximum commercial development” policy might generate approximately £10–20 billion of additional UK tax revenue over the next 10–25 years. (This is what I asked chatgpt) Sounds kinda good.

You can have fossil fuels and low carbon sources in the energy mix.

I do also contest the numbers. They don't make sense to me. I could send 100 quid to China to help "fund" their switching to renewables and then argue the 100 quid was the equivalent to spending 1000 quid here (I don't see how that's true but for the sake of argument). But even if it was true, it's sort of irrelevant if China were going to switch to renewables anyway regardless of my 100 quid helping them do so. Whereas if we don't spend money in the UK we don't make the changes

I am not against aid, or sending money overseas to help projects. But you haven't provided any proof that money spent overseas is 10 times.better at reducing carbon than money spent here. The maths of that doesn't make sense to me. And even if it was, a lot of those changes are happening on places like China without Western funding not because the Chinese are super woke but because it suites their interests to do so. Just as it's in our interests to help ourselves.

Same applies to net zero financial interests which are driven by overseas investors.

China are smarter. Their ai centres are being built in the ocean because they use sea water for cooling the units. UK government decided against that. Now who suffers and who benefits?

When I say economic, theres a difference between long term economically beneficial to the country and short term profitable for private companies. That's where having a UKenergy policy matters

E.g..its not more profitable to a building company to include insulation or heat pumps or solar in their new builds. It will save the people living in the houses a huge amount over the lifetime of the property. Far more than the initial cost

It's not profitable to an energy company to build in complicated infrastructure like transistors that protect the long term future of the grid. It's vital to the UK economy

Oil and gas already received more subsidies than wind by the way. In fact wind power companies had to pay a windfall(hah) tax on their profits last year to account for the fact outrageously high gas prices had pushed their own profits sky high under the marginal pricing system.

What's that got to do with net zero though?

Actually it is about 20% of the primary energy usage.

40% is only the fraction of electricity that is generated from renewables.

Perhaps ask Chat GPT about the impacts of runaway climate change too? 🤔

Aaargh, I always promise myself I'm not going to get sucked into these threads and then I do....but I'm just asking myself how much misinformation and propaganda it takes to convince people that renewable energy is going to personally cost them more?

According to a recent article in the Grauniad, the amount of renewables we have in our energy mix has already reduced the average household's bill by £150. Unfortunately that has been eclipsed by the twatting around of Messrs Trump and Putin, which has sent the element of the energy mix provided by gas and oil through the roof. How is depending more on fossil fuels going to make this better?! Wind is currently the cheapest form of energy we have!

Similarly, how have they managed to convince people that paying through the nose for petrol is somehow preferable to charging your car up for £3-4 ? Or that a gas central heating system is better than a heat pump?! I've got a heat pump and an all electric 2 bed house, and my annual electricity bill is about £1100 !

Unfortunately a large part of our electricity bills right now is going towards a long overdue grid upgrade, which should have happened over the last 14 years of Tory government, but somehow didn't 🤔.

YANBU

The UK will not lower energy bills by drilling the remaining 10% of oil and gas reserves in the North Sea. The private companies who will profit from them will sell the oil on the global market.

The UK is seeing unprecedented heatwaves, wildfires, droughts, yet we also saw a wetter winter and more extreme flooding and coastal erosion. No reservoirs built in the last 30 years. Farmers estimate food supplies will be affected.

We must act now to invest in renewable energy and protect our homes and cities from extreme weather events. This summer is the coolest one we'll ever know. There's no more room for head in the sand, "well China/the US" are making it worse, why shouldn't we continue to add fuel to the fire?

The solutions already exist, the technology to turn the tide around is already out there. It's not pure doom-mongering, but we (by which I particularly mean governments and corporations, but also individuals with their votes and lobbying MPs and local councillors) do need to act. There is reason for hope but not if the population stands idly by, or worse, fights against net zero commitments.

The UK won't have a leg to stand on on the international stage if we aren't leaders in trying to reach next zero. And for a parenting forum I think it's shameful to see people refusing to take any action in support of net zero. How old will your children be towards the end of this century?

China are streets ahead of us as regards Net Zeto and renewables. The USA are going to regret massively backing the wrong horse as regards energy.

Source?

What costs are there? Do you not use oil and gas?

Renewables can be good if done well (like in Texas). In Texas you have a mix of wind,solar, oil and gas

I don't think you understand how energy companies think.

Oil prices have been volatile for years. I remember when it was down to $10 a barrel. The oil industry deals with it. Of course they would prefer to go to KSA and get their oil from a hole in Ghawar cheap and sell it high all the time. But that isn't possible, so they have to go somewhere else. They survive and over the years have become pretty good at it. Every now and then a price collapse takes someone down (at which point their assets are normally bought by someone else with deeper pockets) but in general the industry survives volatility well and has done for many decades.

Diversification of supply is done because it helps insulate against various issues in various places. They are willing to produce at higher cost if they view there is some mitigation, such as better political stability, or more consistent economic policy. It also has the side benefit of building expertise. Techniques learnt in drilling offshore in the North Sea for example can be built on and applied offshore in Brazil in a more difficult climate.

The North Sea was a good place to produce oil, not always because of the production cost, but because of the political stability amongst a few other things. Now due to net zero making politicians flip flop on decisions, it becomes (at least on the UK side) a place with both higher costs and poor political stability. So no longer a place people are really interested in. So no, the main issue affecting oil companies willingness to invest in the North Sea at the moment is net zero and the constant flip flopping of decisions which mean companies can put considerable time and expense into planning and evaluation only to have a flip flop at the last minute stop them. Why would you do that ?

I've worked on EOR production techniques in the past. Some are expensive, some are cheaper, they get better all the time, as does mapping to find out where the oil is and where it can be extracted. They tend to be shorter term in application than field exploitation, so it can very much be a calculation of, the price is high atm, let's use EOR more. A lot of oil is left in place. We are getting better and will get better still at extracting it. Some of the EOR techniques are actually dual benefit in terms of things like carbon sequestration. It's a dynamic process to evaluate whether it should be used, not a blanket EOR is too expensive so we can't use it in this field/basin.

Not extracting oil may not significantly affect consumer prices. But it will significantly affect the 30000 jobs (direct) and 150000 (indirect) jobs associated with the sector. It will also affect energy security, I don't know about the oil situation but I do know the government has the ability to halt gas exports if it needs to. Whether it ever would I don't know, as the benefits of pursuing this sort of action are generally thought to be overall negative, but it remains a possibility.