MPs from the Red Wall are advocating for a public referendum to assess the level of support for the U.K.’s 2050 Net Zero emission goal and to clarify its details to the public. The Telegraph has the story.
Britain is legally obliged to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 100% over the next 27 years, an objective signed into law by Theresa May.
Mr. Sunak has committed to achieving it in a “proportionate and pragmatic” manner, but backbenchers in traditionally Labour-voting seats won by the Conservatives at the last election have urged him to give the public a say on the 2050 date.
It comes amid a wider debate about Net Zero following a surprise Tory victory in the Uxbridge and South Ruislip by-election last month, which both main parties attributed to the backlash against Sadiq Khan expanding London’s ultra-low emission zone (Ulez).
Marco Longhi, the MP for Dudley North, said: “Given the complexity of this issue and its far-reaching consequences, I believe that involving the public through a referendum is right.
“A proper debate has never been had, and it should be. A referendum would require the Government to communicate the intricacies of the 2050 Net Zero target to the public, fostering a better understanding of the challenges and benefits.”
Karl McCartney, the Lincoln MP, agreed that Mr. Sunak should “rethink the headlong rush for Net Zero”, saying: “The establishment was solely focused on chasing approval from London’s woke eco-zealot crowd who have no clue what happens in the real world.
“Just like Brexit, the Government needs to make sure the public are on board with such radical changes, and that they hear the arguments and can make an informed decision.”
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.
And the interesting thing would be: what is the question? A simple yes or no to “revoke the objective signed into law by TM”? Could leave any future policy wide open to a more pragmatic, reasoned approach (in a sane world).
“Britain is legally obliged to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 100% over the next 27 years, an objective signed into law by Theresa May.”
I have stated more than once that given the wilful and wholesale disregard for LAW that has taken place in this country these last 3.5 years there is absolutely no legal obligation to follow any so-called legislation that will bring massive harm to this country and its people. In fact to not rescind this legislation would be a further act of treachery against this country and its people. There is no requirement for this insane legislation to remain on the statute book.
The whole concept of ‘Net Zero’ is based on corrupt, not logical or genuine science and is a grotesque insult to the people of this country.
Pursuing the insanity of net zero is quite simply Treason.
Spot on Hux.. I agree wholeheartedly with every word..
Thanks George 👍
100% agree.
Marco Longhi, the MP for Dudley North, said: “Given the complexity of this issue and its far-reaching consequences, I believe that involving the public through a referendum is right.
“A proper debate has never been had, and it should be. A referendum would require the Government to communicate the intricacies of the 2050 Net Zero target to the public, fostering a better understanding of the challenges and benefits.”
The debate does not just need to discuss the inticacies of the 2050 Net Zero target. The debate should be the one we are never offered – whether man’s CO2 emissions are the primary driver of climate.
All that is needed is reference to the Earth’s Energy Balance Diagram which is the basis of the man-made global warming scam. It shows the energy from the sun is 161W/m2 and the energy from the atmosphere from the so called back radiation is 333W/m2, more than twice. Only fools will believe this and we have 650 of them in the Commons. If the atmosphere can generate this amount of energy continuously lets find a way to get it into our homes and we will have free, unlimited heat.
Top comment. And the most treasonous of all are the complicit Mainstream Media, organisations where true journalists with courage seem not to exist. They could end this madness in months with proper reporting showing people how much harm the mad Net Zero objective will cause. BBC? Sky News? ITV? Channel 4/5? What jokes these woke propaganda outfits are.
Thanks Chris and I wholeheartedly agree with your necessarily brutal assessment of the MSM 👍
Yes but Net Zero was waved through Parliament 4 years ago. It is going to take an awful lot of Investigative Journalism to turn the tide of public opinion on this issue 4 years after it became law. Most people will still be getting their evening News from climate activist channels like BBC and SKY, who keep the “climate crisis” narrative flowing on a daily basis. Even GB News are not having an all out assault on Net Zero and the Eco Socialist Climate Fraud. It is ok for us on this website to all agree with each other about this pseudo scientific scam and to call it out for what it is, but another task entirely to think all these mainstream pretend to save the planet channels will suddenly start questioning any of it. ——Because that is not going to happen. —-Infact the opposite is true. They are beside themselves with joy that they are able to film all the wild fires and say “Look we told you so “
Yes, but there will be a whole army of pretend to save the planet groups and individuals who will sue the government should they renege on any Net Zero commitments. Have a look to see what has just happened in Montana where a bunch of children took the State to Court for supposedly endangering their futures by failing to have draconian enough climate policies.
And wouldn’t that be a great chance to fake it eh.. I just can see the headlines now.. “The Great British Public Go for ZERO”
No question about that George. You can bet your life that Brexit will have been a “lessons learned” experience, ie never again 😉
Yep. They know they don’t represent the people, just the claque, and to rub salt into the wounds, they don’t care either.
They used to say that about Brexit. Oh, we will never win a referen dum, they said.
Trouble is, having won, the creeps in Parliament and the MSM totally ignored the public.
Alternatively, just grow a pair, ditch it and try to win the GE that way.
Nah, not gonna happen.
That would require having a principle and above all a will to take on the responsibility for ones decision.
Yeah that’s gonna sell. Vote for Net Zero and 90% of the populate get: no private cars, a foreign holiday once a decade if your lucky, you will pay a fortune in electricity to have a cold house five months of the year, power rationing whenever it’s cloudy and calm, travel outside your immediate area is restricted….
No chance of a referendum.
I think DEATH is quite high up on the list of wishful thinking politicos.. 😉
There should be no referendum. There is no man made Climate Change.
Net Zero is Evil and should be dropped
We are the last people to be deciding such an important matter. We’re idiots, or at leaset enough of us are idiots that believe the bullshit science that ‘Carry on Regardless’ will win the day.
Should that happen, (and it will. Guess who will be looking after the counting machines…), it will be a policy now with a mandate, and no chance to repeal the Climate Change Act. Then its full speed to the bottom, to joust with North Korea for the title of worst place to live on the planet. Welcome to the 15th century everyone, err, everyone..?
Just to clarify, would that be the15th century BC?
I am shocked, nay, horrified, I am literally shaking! How dare you mislabel BCE. Fascist swine.
Living standards for the majority in the 15th century were the highest until the 19th.
In the 15th century the Medieval Thunberg’s were shouting “How dare you” and the “Just Stop Horses” people were chucking paint over the Bayeaux Tapestry. Yes back then the Medieval Warm Period had the serfs in a tizzy just like today.
It looks to me like they are framing it as a timescale issue, as opposed to the actual substance of the ‘net zero’ proposition.
Yes, they are. That way they can avoid having proper informed debates about the climate and climate “science” and just discuss how long to delay the pain
A great chance to save the long suffering taxpayer some money: a two question referendum.
1. Dump Nut Zero
2. Exit from the ECHR
Then home for tea and votes…..
Before holding a referendum, all censorship on climate change must be lifted to ensure a full and even-handed debate. The problem is the media, civil service, and many others would struggle to engage in such a debate, or even allow it, because the only “debating skills” they have are hectoring, gaslighting, name-calling, and shrieking abuse.
You don’t debate tyranny. You enforce it with yet more misinformation and propaganda.
There’s no point in having a referendum about chasing an impossible goal to try to remedy an imaginary problem with unsuitable means.
The essential problem here is greenism is core doctrine for globalists like Hunt and Sunak.
They’ll give you some happy talk but like the rest of the Unaparty, they’re joined at the hip.
It only makes sense to have a referendum if the fundamental premises of Net Zero are challenged.
We have these very dubious, frankly outlandish premises:
– that humans significantly alter the climate over other factors, like suolar activity, or volcanic activity.
– that rhe climate is changing in a clearly discernable way and has us on a path to catastrophe.
– that carbon dioxide is like some sort of climatic thermostat that allows us to control thte climate.
If we can challenge these ridiculous notions fine. If both camps are just.going to accept these as given and simply argue about the timetable, then what’s the point?
To be honest, I don’t see those on the anti-net zero side questioning the basic premises too much. They look like they are afraid of appearing too radical or unhinged. They seem to question more the damage the policies will do without challenging the need for them.
In principle, you’re right. But in practice, this is much more complicated than necessary: no amount of CO2 emission reduction in the UK will have a meaningful impact on world-wide CO2 emissions. Trying achieve Net Zero in the UK is certainly going to be very costly to everyone. And there’s nothing to be gained by it: If the world will go under unless mankind becomes Net Zero by 2050, then, it’s doomed. All we can then still do is try to have a good time until then.
Yes but even if everyone agreed to reduce CO2 emissions, CO2 isn’t some sort of climate thermostat and we couldn’t regulate the climate even if wanted to and actually we don’t need to.
Why even talk about whether or not we can get everyone to agree? The whole conversation is pointless.
Debates about first principles tend to prevent stuff from getting done that’s needed in the real-world. In this case, get rid of Net Zero as binding policy committment. The case for getting rid of Net Zero in the UK is simple: It’s guaranteed to be both insanely expensive and completely pointless. So completely pointless, actually, that the conjecture that what the UN really wants is merry looting of our money to help itself and its political pet causes elsewhere seems very realistic to me.
The wider issue of Assuming Nut Zero could be accomplished and could accomplish what it is said to be supposed to accomplish (answer to both questions is no), would there be a reason to try? can be discussed much more leisurely once the UN has been firmly told that it’s not entitled to all our stuff, come what may.
Yes but even if one of their moderate computer modelled scenario’s were true, nothing we do here in the UK will have any detectable effect on global climate. ——–So there is really no excuse for this mad rush to Net Zero at astronomical cost and with no idea whatsoever how it could ever be achieved and if the technologies required could even be invented. So why this full steam ahead? ———–Because it isn’t and never was about the climate in the first place. This is the UK and it’s feeble politicians complying with UN agendas with no concern whatsoever for the welfare of their own population. And the fact that we are forcing ourselves in law to do this makes them even bigger imposters than if they had just desired to reduce emissions at a pace that was practical with proper cost/benefit analysis.
So they are running scared. The actions of Cameron-Clegg and all Conservative administrations since, and their supine responde to Milliband’s Clime Change Act have come home to roost.
So how do these scared back benchers think it would work? Full drop arms disclosures by HMG of the fatuous basis of their decision to cripple the economy. I don’t think so.
Or do they imagine that between now and the General Election a properly funded campaign can be launched against Net Zero – well that might be possible but enough time is needed to counter the tosh which the political class of all shades have been pushing for decades.
What would be the question?
“Do you agree with clean air”
“Do you think we should look after the world for our children and grand children”
“Is grass green”
Or would it be “Should we cripple the economy to theoretically reduce world temperatures by 1.5 degrees centigrade (2.5 degrees F) in 100 years time”
No please don’t go down that route!
Only if proper debate is allowed, highlighting all, including the unknowns, will this help.
Else it will just be another divisive vote, like Brexit was.
The problem is that a referendum, couched in their terms, for one thing would mean utterly nothing given the forces pushing in the opposite direction and you can’t really fight their argument because on a deeper level you will notice that they are shy about mentioning it. There is an implicit understanding between the corporatists/WEF and the people – that we impose this on you and the best thing you can do is keep your mouth shut. That is the subtext behind all of their talk about inclusivity. I am not optimistic by nature but honestly I can see a growing resistance to this tendency even in England. Many people will be homeless by the end of the year because of interest rate rises – those who have mortgages and those who rent property. It is going to get very bad in that regard.It is a terrible thing that it has to come to this.
“Put Net Zero to a Referendum…”No! Just stop Net Zero – period.
There is no point in having a debate on whether or not there should be a referendum. There is point in dissecting the science that had led to Net Zero policies and laws, not least now a climate change declaration has emerged from the swamp. Like others I am convinced that there are other more important drivers of climate changes than CO2 emissions, some of which we can stop (desertification and deforestation) and some we can’t (volcanoes, El Niño). There’s no point worrying about what we can do nothing about. What saddens me also is that when folk argue for a particular course of action they fail to examine the possible downside.
I would like Hyena’s to tear the guts out of their prey in a more proportionate and pragmatic manner. Does that sound absurd? ——Yes, and that is because it is totally absurd. Trying to do NET ZERO in a proportionate and pragmatic manner is equally absurd. The people that waved this through parliament with no questions asked have no clue or even concern for the cost of this absurdity (estimated in the trillions) and have not the slightest idea if the technologies required could even be invented. They have forced us in law to do something with no idea how how it could ever be achieved. ——Who in their right mind does such a thing? ———Ideologically motivated Eco Socialists pandering to globalist mandates rather than to their own citizens. They are prepared to punish us all by making us poorer and colder so they can sit at the UN Sustainable Development table and get a slap on the back from the One World Government people who think the west has to be brought down not just a peg or two, but a whole box of pegs. We have apparently used up more than our fair share of the finite fossil fuels in the ground and we must STOP. —Our feeble squirming politicians are happy to oblige.
Really? What’s the point? The result would only be ignored. You can’t reason with these people. War, war, not jaw, jaw.
Signed into law with little discussion of feasibility or necessity. Can just as easily be signed OUT of law.
No, not a referendum. This is a science issue turned into a political issue and it is the scientists the government should be consulting. Not the 97% who rely on government funding and lie to keep it but those genuine scientists who know that man made global warming is nonsense. There is no need for any carbon reduction policies.