A majority of Conservative voters want the next prime minister to pause and review the push for Net Zero, a new poll has revealed. The Telegraph has more.
The findings will pile pressure on leadership hopefuls Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak to toughen their stance on the cost of the green transition.
Both have committed to keep the pledge to eliminate carbon emissions by 2050 but said they will revisit how the UK is set to achieve it.
A new poll by YouGov found 59% of Tory voters want Net Zero frozen, which rises to 70% when don’t knows are excluded.
In contrast, only 30% of Labour and Lib Dem backers would like to see the climate target suspended by the next prime minister.
The survey showed that support for a review of the green policy is strongest among over-65s, almost one in six of whom are in favour.
Overall, the public are narrowly in favour of such a move by 52% to 48% when those who expressed no opinion are excluded.
Working-class voters are more likely to be sceptical of environmental targets than middle-class people, the results of the poll show.
They also reveal that backing for a rethink is highest in the Midlands and Wales and lowest in London and Scotland.
Ms. Truss, the frontrunner in the Tory leadership race, has pledged to temporarily scrap green levies on energy bills to help with the cost of living crisis.
The Foreign Secretary has said she will look again at how Net Zero is delivered, insisting “what I don’t want to see is ordinary households penalised”.
Mr. Sunak has pledged to build more offshore wind farms but has also insisted hitting green targets “can’t mean neglecting our energy security”.
The YouGov survey of 1,797 Britons was carried out last Wednesday and Thursday, and was commissioned by Net Zero sceptic group CAR26.
It comes after a separate study by the pollster found only four per cent of Tory members think the green policy should be a top policy priority.
Worth reading in full.
Stop Press: After the Daily Sceptic revealed yesterday that the Government had awarded a £70 billion contract to a company to advise on Net Zero Jolyon Maughan announced the Good Law Project will be investigating. However, according to Guido Fawkes, there’s nothing to see here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
No change in weather extremes, just a moving of the goalposts
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/no-change-in-weather-extremes-just-a-moving-of-the-goalposts/
Paul Homewood
**
Mass hypnosis is the gateway to tyranny
**
Yellow Boards By The Road BUILD BACK FREEDOM
**
Thursday 4th August 11am to 12pm
Yellow Boards
Junction A321 Wargrave Road &
A4 New Bath Road
Twyford RG10 9PN
**
Stand in the Park Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am – make friends & keep sane
**
Wokingham
Howard Palmer Gardens Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
**
Bracknell
South Hill Park, Rear Lawn, RG12 7PA
Telegram http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
Pause?
Is this a way of saying cancel the whole thing without losing face or angering the lunatic fringe?
The average middle class man and woman in the street is starting to notice that this will involve a bit more of a sacrifice than a bit of virtue signalling on facebook and switching to a reusable hemp bag in Waitrose, and might actually impact young Jacinda and Rupert’s future. They no likey likey.
I don’t think anyone seriously expects them to cancel net zero straight away. The best we can hope for are small incremental steps to water it down, delay it, not mention it etc. until the public more or less forgets about it at which point it’ll be a lot easier to scrap it without facing too much of a backlash.
No letting of D/E rated properties simply is communism. When that realization finally hits home/owners, net zero will be history.
“When that realization finally hits home/owners, net zero will be history.” You’d hope so. But that’s what I kept telling myself during covid – surely people sooner or later will push back. As it turned out, I guess enough did which combined with the farce being unable to sustain itself has led us to a somewhat more pleasant life – for now.
Sorry, like the Convid crap, they are way too invested in this rubbish to stop…
It is so ludicrous it genuinely feels like David Icke, and the Lizards being in charge seems somehow more reasonable….or believable…
Go figure!
Until we have battery storage technology capable of powering a city for more than 4 hours which may well be never, or we manage to crack cold fusion then there is no such thing as a ‘green transition’.
Voters are now seeing Net Zero for what it is – a media friendly buzz phrase designed to hide a WEF-led looting spree and a wholesale transfer of wealth from ordinary people to the global elites.
Opinions on “net zero” will definitely change after this Winter but by then it might be too late.
As bad as it sounds, I hope we have a sustained cold, calm period just around the shortest day. It will get pretty bad but it might be the warning shot/ wake up call, that people need.
But that’s not the coldest time of year: often, December is just late Autumn.
It is quite amusing to me how many people who can’t calculate how much energy is needed (and how much money it costs them) to boil a full kettle of water, or fill a bath with hot water are so adamant that photovoltaic cells and windmills will meet anything close to our requirements.
The requirement for storage is to ‘fill in the gap’ left by no wind for days, not hours. It also of course has to fill in the solar ‘gap’ every night, also for more than 4 hours. It’s a non-starter, which is why conventional generation is built around a balanceable grid, to ensure planned continuous ‘just-in-time’ supply generation. You’ve heard the saying, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.
We could achieve Net Zero tomorrow by fudging the numbers to suit. After all, how are the calculating the UK’s emissions vs the natural carbon capture from trees and other vegetation.
Simply tweak the models a bit and declare net zero achieved, no need to do more!
In other words, lie to endorse a false premise?
It’s not lying. You simply adjusting the parameters on your modelling to give the result you want – if they can do it why can’t we?
The blatant use of terms that they assume people understand is their hallmark, is it not? In this case, I’m referring to the term “net zero”. Maybe it means that we can get rich if most of you do not. However, joking aside, there is a lot of discussion as to what it means. E.g. https://www.iso.org/contents/news/2022/06/defining-net-zero.html
I’m not necessarily agreeing with it’s belief, but this paragraph looks reasonable:
“Net zero is often referred to as a state in which any human-produced carbon dioxide or other planet-warming gases can be removed from the atmosphere. This can be done naturally, such as by restoring forests that absorb CO2 out of the air, or by using technology that can capture and store emissions or directly pull CO2 from the atmosphere. Despite this common understanding, it remains unclear what net zero means in practice for state and non-state actors.”
The last sentence in it is pretty close to the truth – they will make it up as they go along.
And spot the business opportunities, like this one that emerged today: https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2022/08/morrisons-launches-carbon-neutral-eggs-made-by-chickens-fed-by-insects/
“Mr. Sunak has pledged to build more offshore wind farms but has also insisted hitting green targets ‘can’t mean neglecting our energy security’”. Doesn’t he understand yet that the two are mutually incompatible? It’s *because* of net zero and renewables that we are now energy insecure.
It might depend on what he defines as “green targets”, and of course he might have shares in the manufacturers of the equipment required, which he probably hasn’t declared. To maintain real security, a substantial amount of investment is necessary – after all, many older nuclear stations, and coal fired ones, are on the way out, and the combined cycle gas turbine ones (CCGT) that are meeting 34.3% of demand at the time of writing, don’t look that secure at present.
Perhaps the real need for security is more investment in nuclear plant, like Hinkley Point C, and coal fired plant with carbon capture sequestration (CCS), and a few collieries. Incidentally, the Gov automatically owns a lot of energy, within the Coal Authority: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/the-coal-authority
Oh, and another relatively secure energy source would be the sea, with structures like the Severn Barrage, or other lagoons, which haven’t been that popular yet, to say the least. Tidal flow is easy to predict – a lot more accurate than anything else to do with the weather, after all.
Hit Eject button would be my choice.
But no, let’s just delay our own destruction for a bit. What a Nation of dummies we are. Have the mindless masses learnt nothing from the last two years – The Science’, computer models, the deceit, the lies, the ruination, the grift, the corruption?
I think we need the Fast Forward so they can all get it good and hard.
We have not had sunshine for nearly four months in Devon. Now no rain for going on two months. Lots of chemtrails all over Devon. Anyone else witness this?