Time to Rethink Net Zero Madness? Miliband et al are Bankrupting UK?

[HK04]

Reports suggest the UK Net Zero bill will be upwards of £4.5 trillion… if HS2 is anything to go by it’s likely to be much higher and only need to see the subsidies to big energy and the like to realise this is not affordable. Also who asked voters? Much better things to spend at least some of that on.

+So much for there being no magic money tree! We now see via covid, any £s spent on national credit card = cuts or higher taxes down the line so this is not good for ordinary families.

The UK total contribution if IPCC reports are accepted is only 1% of the global emissions total. 99% is elsewhere.

If a house was on fire and your water container only had 1% of the water needed to put it out and those with the bigger receptacles weren’t on board, would you still be minded chuck it on at this time!? Ed says yes in the hope of inspiring others to do the same… he was never the brightest.

Add in that 4th Industrial Revolution tech (AI etc) is countering (rebound) even modest gains… what’s green about data centres (!?) for example, and note every Net Zero ‘solution’ is designed to also achieve 4IR (link not inevitable) ala if it’s not electrified/digital it’s not deemed ‘green’ these days… do wonder if the drive more to get us all under smart tech panopticon.

Good example is Ed’s energy… wood burners/gas ‘bad for the environment’… heat pumps or smart meters (which can be controlled by AI) = ‘good’…

+Given vast majority of emissions are corporate/wealthy elite…Q is should the UK taxpayers be footing this bill, and is it time to shelve Net Zero!?

If so how do you stop Ed et al who seem wholly aligned with the hysterical drive to ‘achieve’ an unachievable global zeitgeist!? Likely driven as always by the lobbying of corporate interests/1%…

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15452411/The-staggering-cost-Ed-Milibands-Net-Zero-drive-finally-revealed.html

Stick to your worldwide warmongering Trump. It will kill fewer people.

What seems more madness is that we didn't do more earlier. If we had invested more, not reduced the feed in tarrif, millions more people would have invested individually.in solar and heat pumps, there would have been far more community led and paid for programmes. We would have a much cleaner and cheaper energy and the cost if living crisis would have lessened.

If the same had happened across the developed world, we wouldn't have had the increase. And global warming that we've already had, which is already led to significant poverty in the developing world. If in the developing world, we had supported the country is to develop with green energy, they would be much further developed. And the increase from ecominc migration would have been decreased.

But instead the money led and we are where we are. I think our grandchildren will look and wonder why the hell we aren't doing even more.

Oh another strangely detailed anti Labour post from a genuine Mumsnet user! Goodness.
Well I'm sure you're right. I mean all those pesky scientists must be wrong. All the evidence must be wrong and you nice perfectly legitimate Mumsnet poster are right.

I'm off to sell my electric car and buy a diesel and also a herd of cows and some plastic straws.

If only being unnecessarily confrontational and missing the post point entirely 👆🏻 could be harnessed to create a reliable renewable energy source… ⚡️ well the bigger problem (finding a cost effective solution) be on the way to being solved 😉…

Energy bills are high largely because we still rely on gas. Gas prices are set on global markets we don’t control, which is exactly why bills spiked so badly after Ukraine. As long as homes and power depend on gas, families stay exposed to those shocks. All the pricing is currently driven by gas prices.

Building more home-grown renewables (wind, solar, storage) has high upfront costs, yes — but once built, the fuel is free. That’s why renewables already produce some of the cheapest electricity in the UK. Over time, that reduces bills rather than locking us into permanent gas dependence.

On the “£4.5 trillion” figure — that’s spread over decades and includes things people will need to replace anyway (boilers, cars, power stations). The real comparison isn’t “Net Zero vs spending nothing” — it’s pay now to modernise or pay forever through volatile gas bills, imports, and climate damage.

The UK being “only 1% of emissions” misses another key point: we’re also one of the countries most exposed to global energy prices. Acting isn’t just about climate — it’s about energy security and stable bills.

Scrapping Net Zero doesn’t protect ordinary families — it keeps them tied to gas companies and global price shocks.

The real question shouldn’t be whether to move away from gas, but how to do it cheaper, fairer, and without letting corporations cream off the benefits.

Sensible political parties are meant to think beyond the next election, not just the next headline. Building more home-grown renewables has upfront costs, yes — but once built, the fuel is free. That’s why renewables already provide some of the cheapest electricity in the UK, and why moving away from gas is one of the few ways to bring bills down long-term.

Net zero is nothing like HS2. HS2 was a single project, a single spend. Net zero is loads of different projects, All have a common aim, to reduce carbon. If some of the individual projects fail, it does not mean the entire concept fails.

Net Zero is more like the NHS than HS2. One hospital failure does not mean the whole NHS has failed.

The real question shouldn’t be whether to move away from gas, but how to do it cheaper, fairer, and without letting corporations cream off the benefits.

Agreed. Sadly numerous wind/solar companies have (once said creaming has taken place) filed for bankruptcy, there have been other controversies and seems incredible we often pay them not to produce, meaning net gain for tax payers is not at the moment optimally good value.

Groups (FB) such as Communities B4 Power Companies make a much more compelling case than I ever could as to why wind or solar is not the only or even the best (in full or part) answer. Nuclear could be an option but this post is pointing out really or more asking do we need a big picture rethink…not just for energy, but along lines of whatever we do or don’t do Net Zero wise surely in the round needs to be affordable and effective… at the moment it appears to be neither.

+The increased use of electrical/digital ‘solutions’ per Net Zero may also be counterproductive if likes of the data centre share of electric/water as is predicted increases phenomenally at the same time…meaning what we save via households goes to the cloud!? Having a fully digital/smart tech solution also makes us vulnerable to cyber attack… crowdstrike a good example. Nuclear is another option some countries pursuing…

In practical terms wood burners are needed especially in cold rural areas, heat pumps don’t work well in really cold temps, the up front investment in wind/solar will need repeated every couple of decades or so, and probably too cynical these days but don’t see household bills ever coming down in a tangible way… sure the £150 a year was hailed but that is a measly 41p a day on average.

Concern is these days when it comes to big corporations/the 1% the house always wins, can we afford the current Net Zero proposed given at the same time likes of our state pension age may increase or taxes rise further!? Don’t know the answers, but if covid bill anything to go by the profits will remain private but liability public.

Two massive missed wins in this area:

i) nuclear. Game-changing low-carbon energy that we turned our noses up at for far too long.

ii) the commitment to achieve UK net zero without using international offsets. This is economic and environmental vandalism on a grand scale, in service of some sort of hair-shirt ideology that seems to be more important than actually saving the planet.

If we want to reduce carbon emissions fast, we must focus on the most cost-effective ways to do that. Those are invariably not in the UK.

For example, every £1000 spent replacing UK boilers with UK heat pumps rather than on replacing biomass heating in SE Asia is a decision to leave at least 200 tons of carbon emissions in the mix, for purely ideological reasons.

We reject autarky for every other important project, yet embrace it for this one. We are choosing the North Korean option here. Less environmental benefit, for greater economic cost to the country. It’s crazy.

Here’s how I might do it:

Part 1:

— drop most UK net zero energy policies/projects, and focus on cheap energy (which I’d largely get from nuclear, which is in fact low-carbon).
— expand Heathrow and all other economic projects that get obstructed on net zero grounds.

Goal: make the UK prosperous and feeling prosperous. Increase economic growth and tax revenue.

Part 2:

— spend 0.7% of GNI (the original overseas aid budget) on the most cost-effective carbon interventions globally.

Goal: remove more carbon than our policies currently do, at lower cost.

Part 1 of my plan makes everyone more prosperous.

Part 2 would have a much bigger positive carbon impact than the carbon cost of doing 1.

Win-win for the environment and for the economy, and almost certainly self-financing in money terms too.

Well said, point clumsy as didn’t mean it was a single initiative just meant costs likely to spiral… as they invariably do. UK PLC cannot afford it.

@GeneralPeter excellent posts 👏…

Here’s another Net Zero anomaly to throw in though… it’s hard to reconcile achieving more (economic growth) at the same time as less (Net Zero). Technically a-growth or degrowth more aligned with Net Zero… political parties seem to want their cake and to eat it too so need to make up their mind which it is and be honest about it especially as we have three overlapping challenges: Economy (not recovered since 2008), Net Zero (unaffordable and current trajectory madness) and 4IR (all of this at a time when no one yet knows if we are on brink of massive under or unemployment in many sectors).

Despite a lot of the crap you read cows are not actually all bad - it’s how they are kept!
intensively fed soya or grass fed ….. huge difference!

yes - we are at risk of destroying the countryside with solar panels, bankrupting the country and for what?
we are so tiny it just doesn’t matter!
Of course if you have a family member invested heavily in solar panels and you can make developments big enough that you can circumvent local planning decisions, you are going to think is a good idea aren’t you Ed!!

Climate change could be slowed down in so many ways but none of them appeal to everyone.
Limit flights - this did have a positive impact during Covid
Import less - fruit, veg, milk, meat that can be produced here should not be flown in from Spain or Argentina.

Been called a lot of things in my time but being an AI bot a new one. It’s an important topic albeit complex and can assure anyone whatever their views (which they are very welcome to contribute) this post is genuine. Given early responses may be instead that it’s the paid lackies of political parties who don’t want the plebs debating…

Do you believe in climate change, OP, and do you believe that it will have a serious impact on human lives if something isn't done about it, or do you think it's all made up/over-exaggerated scaremongering?

If you do accept the risks, what exactly do you think should be done about it if you think that the current policies are the wrong ones?

Or do you want us to just shrug and accept that the planet is fucked and stop worrying about it because it will affect future generations more than it will affect our own?

Do you have children?

god, OP, you sound just like Nicholas Ballsack. If you know, you know….

Yes do think there needs to be collective effort for us all to live greener and more sustainably including due to CC. Not questioning the need to protect the planet.

Q is how to do this effectively and affordably without bankrupting our country (resulting in hardship/make do mend for the many in the process which is current road we could be on) for what ends up being little gain or worse via rebound effects causes more harm.

Do have DC and from an environmental perspective under Net Zero carbon matrices know that is deemed one of most impactful activities of all…

When we focus on certain things over others though and maybe when we fail to see the problem in the round… it negates a chance to do something more effective and affordable.

Was a member of the Green Party moons ago but it ended up being taken over by the technocrats (often with corporate backing as Silicon Valley and the like be delighted if we are all nudged to smart cities dependent on their tech) hence why these days ‘green’ solutions = increase in digitalisation…= not green at all. Landline (analogue) phones for example use a third of the energy of a mobile yet they have been phased out… guess I’d like solutions that don’t inevitably mean more digital/smart tech in tandem.

Not to mention if we really wanted to make an impact quickly we’d need to start with the biggest emitters i.e. the 1%… be ridiculous if ordinary families have to cut down meat, walk/cycle everywhere, pay carbon credits etc etc when impact negligible if mansions, yachts, private jets abound…well at least imho:

https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/richest-1-emit-much-planet-heating-pollution-two-thirds-humanity

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2011/feb/22/rebound-effect-climate-change

Add in the next 10% in terms of overall impact and it’s clear there is no easy solution:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/20/revealed-huge-climate-impact-of-the-middle-classes-carbon-divide

If people save on clean energy costs but emit more in other ways as a result where’s the gain?

More Qs than answers but do get frustrated that politicians say they want economic growth but by definition as it currently stands Net Zero = consume less, use less, travel less so that is more aligned with a-growth or degrowth. Guess just concerned that the solutions as I say seem an unaffordable, undemocratic, ineffective way to a digital panopticon (likes of smart city). Must be better ways my view.

Most people support cleaner air and lower emissions in theory, but in reality, it feels different. Many feel like they’re being punished without seeing any benefits, while those who should take action don’t share the same burden or face consequences. The frustration lies in how Net Zero is being implemented and who ends up paying for it.

Too often, policies feel like they’re dreamed up in a spreadsheet and dropped onto everyday households without much thought for real-life challenges. Retrofitting homes, installing heat pumps, buying EVs, and adding insulation all take upfront money many simply don’t have. Telling people they “should” do it without making it truly affordable breeds resentment, not progress.

There’s also an unfair split in the pressure: individuals get endless lectures about boilers, cars, and recycling, while major polluters, heavy industry, and global supply chains carry on with minimal change. It’s hard to call Net Zero fair when those with the least flexibility bear the brunt, while the biggest emitters secure exemptions. Energy security is another concern — pushing ahead without solid infrastructure, storage, or reliable alternatives risks higher costs and instability, again hitting the poorest hardest.

Green policies that make heating and electricity more expensive aren’t virtuous; they’re just regressive.

For Net Zero to work, it needs to be gradual, properly funded, focused on industry and infrastructure as much as households, and upfront about trade-offs, costs, and timelines. People aren’t rejecting Net Zero itself — they’re rejecting being blamed when the policies are flawed. Real progress only lasts when it’s practical, fair, and makes life better; otherwise it risks collapsing under public backlash.

By the way, I have to admit I’m feeling quite sarcastic and in a dark mood. I’m sure the populations of the countries that cause the most pollution are laughing at us. I can’t imagine Americans, Chinese, and other industrial powerhouses ever sacrificing their finances for the environment, while those of us with no affection for this country seem more than happy to tear it down.

I believe man made climate change is real and a big problem/threat. I also think the impact the UK can have is miniscule and I don’t want the government to hand Reform an election victory by doing things which feel expensive and out of touch.

ed Miliband seems like an absolute zealot on this issue and needs a reality check. Most people are not prepared to have an extra penny of cost at the moment to support this agenda.

this is an existential threat - no joke and no hyperbole

The question we should ask is how to stop short term thinking climate change deniers from screwing things up more

This morning the snow had covered up all the solar panels, the sun wasn't shining and there was no wind. It was quite cold so people will have wanted heating on.

Where is all the electricity going to come from?

Great post!

Completely agree with this

💯 agree. Well said.

Thank you for responding. I'm sorry if I've missed something but still not totally clear on what you think the actual solutions might be?

I'm absolutely on board with tackling the disproportionate emissions from the top 1%, or indeed from the top 10%, but are you saying that this alone will be enough? Tbh, that sounds like a rather convenient way of just making it someone else's problem.