More people than ever want a referendum on the Government’s Net Zero policy, a survey has found. The Telegraph has more.
A poll by YouGov found that 44% of adults in Britain supported “holding a national referendum to decide whether or not the U.K. pursues a Net Zero carbon policy”, with 27% opposed, while 29% said they did not know.
When the “don’t knows” were excluded, 62% wanted a referendum. A poll on the same question a year ago found that 58% wanted a ballot on the issue.
Excluding “don’t knows”, 66% of 2019 Labour voters backed a poll, compared with 60% of Liberal Democrat voters and 56% of Conservative voters.
Lib Dem voters were the most decisive group, with only 15% “don’t knows”, compared with 25% for Labour and 24% for the Tories. Both Remainers and Leavers supported a referendum, at 58% and 61% of those expressing an opinion, respectively.
The survey was commissioned by Car26, which is campaigning for a referendum on Net Zero and a pause in carbon-related regulations until such a ballot is held.
However, speaking to the Telegraph, the Conservative MP carrying out a review of Net Zero delivery for the Government, Chris Skidmore, said there could be no delay to measures such as banning petrol cars because it would damage public trust…
Mr. Skidmore was commissioned by Liz Truss in September to carry out a review of Net Zero focusing on “maximising economic growth”.
The review was retained when Rishi Sunak replaced Ms. Truss as Prime Minister last month.
As Energy Minister, Mr. Skidmore was responsible for signing into law the Government’s policy to achieve Net Zero by 2050 – a target which his review is not questioning.
He revealed that his review would not recommend delaying the ban on new petrol and diesel cars from 2030, nor plans to ban gas boilers in newly built homes from 2025 and ban the installation of new boilers in all homes from 2035.
Instead, it will look at what needs to be done to make sure the targets are achieved.
Worth reading in full.
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.
Net Zero was simply waved through parliament without a single question asked by any politician of any major party as to the cost/benefit, and that comes as no surprise as the cost is estimated to be about one and a half trillion. The last 3 prime Ministers have since committed the country to Net Zero with not the slightest clue how it can be achieved. So we leap straight into the unknown at a time of energy insecurity, astronomical price rises and a cost of living disaster, and there has been NO DEBATE. The public were NEVER consulted. This is being done by diktat for ideological purposes and it would terrify people should they realise that this could collapse the UK economy by costing astronomical sums for no real benefit to people. Government have NEVER explained to the public why they think this is necessary, apart from the usual soundbites about “saving the planet” and thinking about “our children and grandchildren etc etc.
Just like all the COVID, measures then.
Waved through with no thought, no scrutiny.
Boris Johnson’s cheese and wine though, that really got them engaged.
Our MPs, they can be relied on to focus on the small meaningless stuff they understand and ignore the big important things the poor dolts can’t wrap their useless little brains around.
Shaking the mammaries at midnight in Westminster – beyond the pale, immoral, unsightly, disgusting.
2.5 years of fascistic rolling LDs, terror, stabbing, diapering, totalitarian force, SADS, LD murders, record suicides, Nuremberg code binned – no reaction.
Fav footie team loses – braveheart reaction. Willing to fight and die.
Freedom gone – agrees and cites ‘science’. Goes back to NetShitz.
Great post, late on. deserves many upticks.
Trouble is with a referendum – can you imagine what the campaign would be like? The lies, the doom-mongering, the threats?
Having said that, anything which threatens to hold these charlatans to account has my support.
Meanwhile my next car will be petrol/diesel – anyone who falls for the electric car hype deserves what they get – doesn’t stand a minute’s scrutiny.
They will just ignore the result anyway – look at the last one.
Yes lies, doom-mongering just like Brexit, but most important those numerous scientists, engineers, economists who challenge the whole Climagheddon narrative would for the first time be able to speak publicly and refute those lies and computer model predictions and be the reported in the MSM, even the on the BBC.
Another poll around next March will see vastly different results when the Winter fuel bills land and people realise that ‘net zero’ means the government simply steals our money as we are trying to stay warm in our homes.
Meanwhile:
China To Double Coal-Fired Power Plant Capacity… Aims to Avoid European, U.S. Blunders
Imposing Net Zero policy on everyone is collectivism, regardless of whether the decision is made by a technocrat or a popular majority.
Neither makes it right.
Good point, though I suppose you could see all government policy as collectivist to an extent (which is why I tend to think government should do as little as possible).
If a referendum were held, the Government and the ‘scientists’ would have to publish their evidence that:
1) Shows Earth’s temperatures increasing at a rate significantly beyond the small incremental increases seen over the last few thousand years post-Ice Age.
2) Current and predicted temperatures are ‘unprecedented’.
3) Atmospheric carbon dioxide is the unique or dominant driver of changes in the Earth’s heat budget.
4) Evidence that predicted temperatures will lead to catastrophic change in the climate system.
5) The proportion of global warming/climate change caused by Human activity v natural causes.
(Computer models not allowed.)
Since they have no evidence to show that, and evidence from observation refutes all their claims, it is unlikely a referendum ever will be undertaken. .
If Nett Zero was the answer (to what? I don’t know..). Then the simple fact is that we can’t declare this unilaterally and have any effect other than showing a tiny reduction in the global sense. It is a reduction that other nations are already more than replacing by their decisions to continue using fossil fuels in increasing amounts, so we are in effect sacrificing our housing, our transport, our economies and our progress for nothing at all.
However, none of this means that there will be a proper discussion. Evidence will be over-ruled by feelings, rhetoric and propaganda, and any referendum will come down hard on ‘Carry on to Nett Zero’. What a ‘carry on’ indeed…
I hear Greta Thunberg is suing her government because they have not gone as far as she wanted to save the planet. Its incredible that someone who has never held a proper job and no I don’t think her role as a self appointed climate ambassador is a proper job. Someone has been paying her a wage as she is now worth around $1m which is insulting to those who actually do work for a living.
Thunturd the border line retarded half wit is in many ways the perfect spokesclown for the climategeddon cult.
Well something tells me that no mainstream party will offer this unless somehow they are looking for a way out of commitments given, but it seems like they are too wedded to it for that. Or perhaps if they feel there are a lot of votes to be won or lost – I suppose it could be a good campaigning plank for a right of centre party looking to take votes from the Tories.
I’m not sure a referendum is appropriate though. With Brexit, I think there was a legitimate question of how we saw the political future of our nation, and its sovereignty. You could have an opinion on it based on your vision. Not sure the same can be said for Net Zero, which should be a much more empirical question.
Our salvation will not arrive via the ballot box.
I agree – I have lost all faith in our parliament and government’s representatives.
Referendums are usually won by the group which has more success in getting its members to vote. And the group of climate hysterics will doubtlessly have a high turnout. This is also simply not a legitimate question for such a vote: Do you want humans to stop using fire to generate heat in the UK to save the planet? [*] is just idiocy and not something one can have an informed opinion on. Maybe fire will kill us all one day. The ancestors of today’s climate warriors have certainly been preaching about this since the neolithic. But without fire, we’ll certainly all die earlier.
[*] Yes, this is really this general. Fire is an exothermic reaction turning carbon contained in some material, eg, coal or wood, into gaseous carbon dioxide.
“it would damage public trust…”
He’s having a giraffe, right?
He is with his apt surname opposite to us who will be Skidding less not more ! Tw-t !
I’d rather we followed the Swiss and have a referendum for all really important government decisions as we can no longer trust our government’s decisions any longer.
I wouldn’t trust a referendum on Net Zero any further than I could toss the caber like Geoff Capes. In this day and age, any attempt at trying to gain a mandate from the people is bound to be riven with faults and corruption so that TPTB get the result they want. If it is shown that 51% of people want us to continue down the NZ route then that will amount to a landslide, definitive decision if we are to use the original Brexit referendum as the model and we’ll all be locked into something that will ruin our country and our lives. Who gets to define the parameters of such a referendum? Who gets to make sure it is fair and above board? How is it done even? Furthermore, will there be TV debates with climate alarmists vs real climate scientists because then we can get to see the real meat and potatoes of the arguments and the paper tigers of the alarmists.
Whatever happens, even if a noticable and genuine number of humanity voted in any referendum reliable or otherwise, it would be pre-empted by a mass lies and propaganda programme via the puppet MSM who have discovered just how easily the opinions of the masses can be manipulated. Following which the good old (lets be generous) 80-20 rule would present itself yet again. 80% sheeple, 20% the rest.
It’s f-cking insane is what it is ! We are under siege from all angles , Neil Oliver made a point about tptb want open borders ( they all signed up to stuff in Morroco don’t forget ,T. May wielded our pen that day ) with digital ID for everyone & no distinction between a multi generational ancestral uk family & an air filled boat load of newcomers !!..
Only 44%?? It just goes to show that the majority of those surveyed are totally dim. As for Skidmore, his name brings to mind those skidmarks seen in the undergarments of those whose personal hygiene was not of the highest quality.
And does the advertiser pushing solar panels on here really believe this audience is the best one for their products?!! Their media buyer is either incompetent or having a laugh!
They have no mandate for Net Zero since every Party “offers” the same policy. However a Referendum will never be held and if it was, by the time the BBC and Global Institutions pushing the policy pile in with their blatant propaganda, it could well be lost.
Best to make it very, very clear to your MP (and regardless of your other political opinions) that you won’t vote for a Party which is pursuing Net Zero.
That’s what I’ve done.