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

End to end renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels.

Break the price cap link to the highest energy price and we would all see fuel bill price falls (although those if you committed to oil can still buy it if you want).

I'm a single mum on benefits. The heat pump came with the HA house. What this means is that I (low income) have lower bills.

The renewables industry is also a massive employer- and growing fast.

I haven't looked at the maths that much recently.

I think it is a relatively small amount on CO2 emissions - I am sure you could find it on the net.

I think there are 2 issues, one is that only a relatively small proportion of the worlds population use air travel significantly, so you might expect the % emissions of it to be quite small. If people start to use it more it will be more of an issue.

The other is the other unpleasant stuff aircraft engines emit like NOx and soot as well as CO2 and the effect of those on atmospheric chemistry.

Businesses pretty much limit air travel themselves. It's expensive to send people out of a business these days, it also takes them out for days, because of the time lost travelling and the time recovering from jet lag. Efficient businesses only send people out when they actually really need to. If they think they can do something via telecon they will.

I support more taxes on air travel as I don't see it as a necessity, but I doubt very much politicians would be willing to take on the outrage produced as a result. The Daily Rage would be screaming "holiday tax" in 2 seconds flat.

Have you heard that the government have just given the go ahead for plug in solar in the UK?

So, anyone with a balcony/ shed/ whatever can now buy a solar panel and plug it directly into a domestic socket.

What is all this research you see? Even if the boost is small (debatable) why not help the economy even a little bit by maximising our output. Let's make the firms pay the set up costs, they can decide whether it'll be profitable. No need to artificially ban it. Say "there's a basin here it's up to you to decide what to do".

There would be a big boost for the people of Aberdeen. They matter too

Firms would need help, it’s hugely costly. It’s how it works, you don’t need oodles of research. It’s reality.Oil and gas from the North Sea are sold on the global market by private companies, so UK citizens do not get a special discount. It will not cut household bills. Renewables do.

www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/news/drill-baby-drill-approach-north-sea-would-cost-households-more-fully-renewable-uk-finds-oxford

How about focusing on households as opposed to big companies?🤔

Also the USA is getting massively left behind by a China as regards renewables which they will regret. Why do we want to be so foolhardy?

It's the money and lifestyle impact. Netzero and general sustainability is great. nobody is against that as a conceptual idea. The idea that humans can exist whilst also balancing our impact on the environment is obviously a positive to all.

But when it ends up costing us all lots of money, restricts us, limits out freedoms, only then for China to just does what it does and makes it all pointless anyway... well it doesn't go down well.

Here's some obvious negatives that hit people daily:

• high energy prices,
• loss of domestic industry like steelmaking and jobs as a result
• lowered speed limits to 'improve air quality'
• ULEZ penalising the poor
• bin collections going to 3 weeks...
• stupid bottle caps and useless straws

Air travel is one of the hardest bits to fix, and likely to be the last puzzle piece to fall into place. The easier (as in we have the technology for them now) bits are slowly replacing fossil fuels with renewables in electricity production and replacing fossil fuels in heating, cooking, private transport etc with electric alternatives (in conjunction with the electricity being increasingly renewable based). It isn't "easy" in the sense that this still requires grid updates, battery storage for cloudy still days, installing heat pumps etc. But a lot has already happened in this regard. When you look at where we are now compared to 5 years ago we've moved on a lot. It helps that a lot of the changes are cheaper for people on the recieving end. It just costs to update the grid. However we need to update the grid. Even if net zero weren't a thing not updating the grid is stupid, short termism.

To my mind, replacing aviation with renewables is the hardest part so it's best left to the end. Rather than turning public opinion by banning flights. There will be technological progress there too. It's already happening. Easy Jet upgraded all their planes to a more fuel efficient option leading to the owner giving a very smug interview re the impact of the Hormuz closure on plane ticket prices. He didn't do it because he loves the environment he did it because it saves money in the long run. With the Iran war other airlines will be looking at the most fuel efficient means of air travel possible. I don't think we need to tax them more.

Not subsidising oil and gas comes to the same thing as completely banning it. So yeah, sure why not 👍

-What freedoms are limited by net zero?

-High energy costs- nope the reverse. I commute every day and my hybrid has reduced my fuel bills
from £60- £15 a week. Solar panels alone
would dramatically reduce my household fuel bills to next to nothing let alone a heat pump.

-who needs to be driving like crazy through cities and isn’t lower cancer and lessening a serious threat to the environment worth lowering speed?

-don’t notice the 3 week collection because they take different items

Aren’t those grumbling about freedoms when faced with a burning planet just a tad dim?

There is a really easy test. Make the green levies optional. Please who are pro net zero will pay then and those that aren't won't. Then we get real data for who many people care.

What do we do when the wind is blowing and the sun doesn't shine? What about grid costs, constraints payments and all that? If they are so cheap why do they need to subside them with cfds?

Not much. And even so I'll fly as much as I like tvym

How are you going to "break the link" then?

Are you stupid? Just issue more licenses and let them be explored and get the resources. Just maximise the output we can

I am.going to take a wild guess and say that you have never worked in the oil and gas industry or the energy sector more generally...
Which is fine. But if you attack other people based on your own misconceptions of the world you will end up making it very obvious you don't know what you are talking about

It’s ridiculous. We are a very small country and certainly not producing what many’s others do

net zero is expensive no longer gives choice and unachievable

I do t want an electric car from 203o the infrastructure is not there and in fact they are not as good for the environment as people think

i don’t want air source heat pumps instead of my gas central heating my house just isn’t suitable

i don’t want farming land covered with solar panels rather than being used to grow food. And they are not a an environmental friendly as people think. Those panels don’t last forever and have to replaced

i don’t want wind turbines making noise and causing havoc to wildlife. By all means have wind farms out at sea but not inland

Until the government decides all new houses get solar panels and all business buildings especially new ones have solar panels I am just not interested

i want lights on and heat on. To be able to drive a car where I need and when without stopping to charge. Selfish probably but I am happy if they start using North Sea oil again. Then we won’t be dependant on others

Again. What do you know? If there's more licenses available issue them and let the companies extract. No need to hinder and restrict, just maximise output.

It's like arguing with someone .... who obviously doesn't pay their own energy bill. Pointless.

Don’t be ridiculous. They are cheaper because they’re cheaper to the consumer. How else do you want it dressed up?

Why not use a nearby source

Are they now really?

people also dislike the hypocrisy - Burnham took a private jet from Glasgow to Manchester for his 1 day a week at his second office there. Unnecessary and wasteful.