The United Kingdom is – or, at least, is supposed to be – a representative democracy. That is, we don’t resort to referendums in the way that, say, the Swiss do. The idea is that we vote for MPs, and they represent us. In principle, we elect people who broadly represent the mood of their constituents, and then when new issues arise, we trust them to exercise their judgement on our behalf.
Growing up in the 1960s and 1970s, and as a young adult in the 1980s, I lived through an era when – whether or not one was happy with the outcome of general elections – representative democracy seemed to be functioning as it should. The Conservative and Labour Parties stood for different views of society (very different, when Margaret Thatcher was the Conservative Party leader and Michael Foot was the Labour Party leader), and for those who felt that the main parties offered options that were too far to the right or to the left, there was a meaningful alternative available – not just the Liberal Party, but also the SDP which, with the Gang of Four at the helm, seemed to offer a very real option to some, myself included. In those days, the Labour Party even opposed UK membership of what was then still the EEC.
Resort wasn’t really had to referendums. We did have a referendum (the first UK-wide one) in 1975 about the UK’s membership of the EEC, which it had recently joined. The UK had joined the EEC thanks to Ted Heath’s Conservative government which, interestingly, made no great play of applying for EEC membership in its manifesto before the 1970 general electioni. Perhaps the UK’s membership of the EEC has always been the issue that conflicts with the concept of representative democracy.
Over the years, referendums seemed to be seen by politicians as a means by which they could solve their own political difficulties. The 1975 referendum over continuing EEC membership was arguably held only because Harold Wilson saw it as a means of resolving the huge divisions in the Labour Party on that subject at the time. To date, the UK has seen a grand total of eleven referendums heldii. Mostly they have been about devolution or EEC/EU membership, though in 1973 a local referendum was held on the subject of whether Northern Ireland should remain part of the UK or join the Republic of Ireland, and in 2011, as part of the coalition deal between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, a referendum was held on whether to change the voting system for Parliament from first-past-the-post to alternative vote.
EU Membership
Whatever one’s views on the UK membership of the EU and the rights and wrongs of Brexit, I think it is fair to say that this is the first issue where it became apparent that the electorate’s representatives in Parliament were substantially out of sympathy with, and unrepresentative of, the views of a substantial proportion of the electorate (arguably, of 52% of them, as things turned out).
Following that referendum held on 23rd June 2016 , it quickly became apparent that a substantial proportion of MPs (and also of members of the House of Lords – that unrepresentative and undemocratic part of the UK constitution) disagreed with the result of the vote. And although many said they would “respect” the result of the vote, it soon became clear that they didn’t. Relentless campaigning took place for a second vote, for a “people’s vote” (I thought that’s what the referendum had been) and obstacle after obstacle was placed in the way of the Prime Minister – who was by then Theresa May, following David Cameron’s departure on the failure of his tactic to lance the Brexit boil in his party.
Elections to the European Parliament took place, which demonstrated that whatever the precise split in the UK electorate (whether narrowly in favour of continuing EU membership or narrowly in favour of Brexit) they were not, as Parliamentarians were, overwhelmingly in view of remaining in the EU. Still the deadlock in Parliament continued. It couldn’t readily be broken due to the provisions of an Act of Parliament pushed through by the Lib Dem/Conservative coalition, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011iii. It required a majority among MPs representing more than two thirds of all seats (including vacant seats) in the House of Commons. That was for a long time too high a hurdle, as the anti-Brexit opposition parties and the anti-Brexit MPs in the Conservative Party refused to vote for an early general election that they must have known would have resulted in many of them losing their seats and the Brexit they opposed becoming a reality. Eventually, when the stalemate was crippling the country, even the recalcitrant MPs in Parliament gave in, the necessary majority under the Act of 2011 was obtained, and a general election took place in December 2019. That resulted in Boris Johnson becoming Prime Minister, many anti-Brexit MPs losing their seats, just as they must have feared, and Brexit happening. In the end, it was a belated vindication of representative democracy (although many people are understandably unhappy with the outcome).
The problem is that many in the establishment, who don’t share the views of much of the electorate, seem to have learned a lesson to the effect that the electorate must never again be allowed to thwart the views and wishes of the great and the good who believe that they know what’s best for us.
Net Zero
As everyone knows by now, the current Conservative government under the Premiership of Boris Johnson, seeks to accelerate the “net zero” plans unilaterally decided on by his predecessor, Theresa May. May’s plans (to go “net zero” by 2050) were pushed through by statutory instrument (the The Climate Change Act 2008 (2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019iv) , thus ensuring minimal Parliamentary scrutiny. And in Scotland, the aim is to achieve “net zero” by 2045 – the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019v.
In the context of representative democracy, the whole climate change and “net zero” consensus causes the same sort of problems as did the Parliamentary consensus opposed to Brexit. Basically, the consensus means that the public is denied a choice, denied a voice, denied any say at all. The public is simply told what is going to happen, whether they like it or not, because the elites think – or claim to think – that its in the public interest, and after the Brexit referendum they are pretty sure that the public can’t be trusted to choose for the best.
And so, instead, they try to dress it all up in the language of democracy, a democracy that in reality is denied. Rather than allowing us to vote for alternatives to the Climate Change Act and to the net zero plans, they set up a charade which they called the Climate Assembly UKvi, which they also call the citizens’ assembly (which sounds so very democratic, but isn’t). The grand total of 106 people were brought together to suffer interminable lectures on subjects pre-selected by the authorities (after all, they couldn’t be trusted to select the subjects for discussion themselves); and the people lecturing them were also self-selecting, and guaranteed to lead them in the direction the authorities wanted them to take.
And then, at the end of this perversion of democracy, they have the nerve to claimvii:
The work of Climate Assembly UK is designed to strengthen and support the UK’s parliamentary democracy by ensuring politicians and policy makers have the best possible evidence available to them about public preferences on reaching the net zero target.
Rather than put up with all this, is there any political party who will offer the electorate a meaningful choice? The short answer is “no”, other than for some fringe parties with minimal support. A quick survey of the manifestos from the 2019 election makes that clear enough. For instance, the Conservative Party Manifestoviii (page 55):
But today, the climate emergency means that the challenges we face stretch far beyond our borders. Thanks to the efforts of successive Governments, the UK has cut carbon emissions by more than any similar developed country. We are now the world’s leader in offshore wind – a fantastic success story of Government and the private sector working hand in hand to cut costs and deliver ever more electricity at plummeting costs [sic]…
…Yet we recognise that there is far more that needs to be done. We will lead the global fight against climate change by delivering on our world-leading target of Net Zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, as advised by the independent Committee on Climate Change. We have doubled International Climate Finance. And we will use our position hosting the UN Climate Change Summit in Glasgow in 2020 [sic] to ask our global partners to match our ambition.
And much more in similar vein. What of the Labour Party? Well, according to its 2019 manifestoix:
The climate crisis ties us all into a common fate. This election is our best hope to protect future generations from an uninhabitable planet. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said we need to cut global emissions in half by 2030 to have a chance of keeping global heating within safe limits – that means acting now, and acting decisively. The Tories wasted a decade serving the interests of big polluters. Labour will use the crucial next decade to act. The Tories slashed support for renewable energy while pushing through dangerous fracking [sic].
Now Britain is decades off course on vital emissions targets. That’s why Labour will kick-start a Green Industrial Revolution that will create one million jobs in the UK to transform our industry, energy, transport, agriculture and our buildings, while restoring nature. Our Green New Deal aims to achieve the substantial majority of our emissions reductions by 2030 in a way that is evidence-based, just and that delivers an economy that serves the interests of the many, not the few.
And much more in similar vein (a word search for “green” produced 37 hits, while a word search for “climate” produced 60, of which six included references to “climate crisis”). So far, so predictable. What of the Liberal Democrats? I’ll be brief on this, as there would be just too much to share here. Suffice it to say that the Liberal Democrat manifesto for 2019x has as its leading section:
Tackle the climate emergency by generating 80% of our electricity from renewables by 2030 and insulating all low-income homes by 2025.
Ironically, given their desire to blight our green and pleasant lands with thousands of acres of wind turbines, their manifesto has a section called Saving Nature and the Countryside in which they claim they will “protect the natural environment and reverse biodiversity loss with a Nature Act”. However, given substantial sections with headings like “Climate action now” and “Renewable energy,” their claim to be concerned about nature and the countryside is one I take with a pinch of salt, given the damage to peat, wildlife and biodiversity that would be caused by all the solar panels and wind turbines they would like to see built.
Well, what if I live in Scotland or Wales? Surely the nationalist parties will give me an alternative to the consensus? Er, no – not to that consensus. The Scottish National Party (SNP) manifesto for 2019xi says this in brief (there’s a more detailed version beyond the summary):
The climate emergency – Scotland has the world’s most ambitious emissions reductions targets in law, but we can only end our contribution to climate change if the UK Government plays its part and meets its targets. SNP MPs will demand the UK matches Scotland’s ambition, meets its Paris Climate Agreement responsibilities and sticks to future EU emission standards – regardless of our position within the EU. We will propose a Green Energy Deal that will ensure green energy schemes get the long-term certainty needed to support investment and that a UK Government plays its part in delivering a Green New Deal for Scotland.
And, as has been widely reported in the mediaxii this week:
A consultation on the Scottish Government’s plans to more than double Scotland’s onshore wind capacity by 2030 has been launched ahead of COP26 in Glasgow.
The proposals were first outlined in the co-operation agreement between the Scottish Government and the Scottish Green Party, and have now been set out in a draft Onshore Wind Policy Statement.
The plans would see an additional 8-12 gigawatts (GW) of installed onshore wind capacity deployed by 2030, potentially more than double the 8.4 GW installed at present.
Scotland is already home to more than half the UK’s total onshore capacity of 14.1 GW.
Enough said. What of Plaid Cymru? Their 2019 manifestoxiii says this (and much else in similar vein besides):
We understand that climate change, together with the global collapse of biodiversity, is the defining challenge of our time. The climate crisis, destruction of nature and overuse of natural resources threaten the foundations of humanity’s well-being. With declining biodiversity, polluted air and accelerating climate crisis, the time to act is now. Wales has the natural resources to become a world leader in renewable technology and address the biggest global challenge of our time. If we are serious about tackling climate change, we need to start investing in the green economy and building the workforce we need to make it a success by investing in our people. That is why Plaid Cymru will implement a Green Jobs Revolution which will ensure that Wales makes the transition to becoming 100% self-sufficient in renewable energy by 2030. Our Renewables Revolution will create tens of thousands of highly skilled jobs in Wales over the next ten years [sic].
And what of the Social Democratic Party, the rump that remains from the heady days of the 1980s? Well, at least they’re not obsessed, but even they sayxiv this:
We believe the UK must lead by example in being at the forefront of global action to combat climate change…
I suppose the most that can be said is that they seem to be lukewarm on the topic, but even they feel they have to comply with the demands of the political consensus.
I haven’t mentioned Northern Ireland – after all, in the Northern Ireland Assembly, they’re currently bickering over which of two Climate Change Bills to enact. As for the Green Party, well, let’s be honest, it doesn’t matter who you vote for, you end up with the Green Party in power by default.
Yes, I suppose there is always UKIP, the Reform Party etc., but realistically, they are never going to form a government or even hold the balance of power. In addition, many people who might like their policies on net zero and climate change might not wish to vote for them because of a dislike of their other policies. In other words, effectively, the sceptical mass of the UK public has been disenfranchised by an elite consensus.
Referendum?
And so we travel full circle. The questions of climate change and the whole net zero agenda are undoubtedly of massive importance. Whether you believe we’re all doomed unless we commit to “net zero” and massive changes to our lifestyles; or whether you believe that going “net zero” is futile in view of the failures of many of the biggest emitters to join the party, and thus you take the view that the “net zero” programme is an elite folly, dangerously expensive and damaging to lifestyles, wealth, happiness and success; whatever your view, there can be no doubting the critical importance of what we do in these areas. Whichever side of the debate you are on, the policy response will undoubtedly impinge hugely on all our lives.
And yet we are given no choice. I have never been a believer in referendums as an appropriate way to answer difficult political questions in the UK. I believe the Brexit referendum was a mistake. I believe that MPs are paid to represent us. And yet, as the Proclaimers once askedxv (in a rather different context), “What do you do when Democracy fails you?...What do you do When Democracy’s all through What do you do When minority means you? ”. Except that I suspect that on this subject people who think as we do are not a minority – and of course that is exactly what those in power fear.
Maybe – just maybe – then, we should have a referendum on this fundamental question. I’m undecided, and I leave you to draw you own conclusions. However, if you think there should be a referendum, then I will close by drawing your attention to the fact that there is a petitionxvi on Parliament’s website calling for signatures, and at the time of writing it has around 3,000. The lack of support is no doubt down to the fact that it is receiving precious little attention from a media who are about as keen on a referendum on net zero as they were on Brexit.
Endnotes
i * http://www.conservativemanifesto.com/1970/1970-conservative-manifesto.shtml
“If we can negotiate the right terms, we believe that it would be in the long-term interest of the British people for Britain to join the European Economic Community, and that it would make a major contribution to both the prosperity and the security of our country. The opportunities are immense. Economic growth and a higher standard of living would result from having a larger market.
But we must also recognise the obstacles. There would be short-term disadvantages in Britain going into the European Economic Community which must be weighed against the long-term benefits. Obviously there is a price we would not be prepared to pay. Only when we negotiate will it be possible to determine whether the balance is a fair one, and in the interests of Britain.
Our sole commitment is to negotiate; no more, no less. [My emphasis]. As the negotiations proceed we will report regularly through Parliament to the country.
A Conservative Government would not be prepared to recommend to Parliament, nor would Members of Parliament approve, a settlement which was unequal or unfair. In making this judgement, Ministers and Members will listen to the views of their constituents and have in mind, as is natural and legitimate, primarily the effect of entry upon the standard of living of the individual citizens whom they represent.”
ii https://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/vote-in-general-elections/referendums-held-in-the-uk/
iii https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/14/section/2/enacted
iv https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2019/9780111187654
v https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2019/15/part/1/crossheading/the-netzero-emissions-target/enacted
vi https://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/committees/climate-assembly-uk/
vii https://www.climateassembly.uk/about/index.html
viii https://assets-global.website-files.com/5da42e2cae7ebd3f8bde353c/5dda924905da587992a064ba_Conservative%202019%20Manifesto.pdf
ix https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Real-Change-Labour-Manifesto-2019.pdf
x https://www.libdems.org.uk/plan
xi https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/www.snp.org/uploads/2019/11/11_27-SNP-Manifesto-2019-for-download.pdf
xii Inter alia https://www.energyvoice.com/renewables-energy-transition/360291/scottish-government-unveils-plans-to-more-than-double-onshore-wind-by-2030/
xiii http://downloads2.dodsmonitoring.com/downloads/Misc_Files/Plaid%20Cymru%20Maniffesto%202019_ENGLISH_DIGITAL.pdf
xiv https://sdp.org.uk/policies/environment/
xv “What do you do” from the album “Sunshine on Leith”.
Climate Scepticism 
Joshua Mitchell writes at City Journal in an American context, but his words echo the thrust of your post>
“The American regime, founded on the idea of limited government, presumed that citizens were competent and largely capable of taking care of themselves.
Our competence was developed, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in Democracy in America, through the mediating institutions of family, church, civic associations, and municipal government. No citizen competence, no limited government. That was Tocqueville’s formula—the American formula.
The first phase of the American regime, characterized by citizen competence, lasted for more than a century. Supplanting it was the second, progressive, phase of the American regime, in which expert competence purportedly replaced citizen competence. The Biden administration came to power claiming the mantle of expert competence. “The adults are back in charge,” our legacy media jubilantly proclaimed.
The failings of the so-called adults in the Biden administration are a consequence of a shift to a third phase of the American regime, a shift so large that it would be more accurate to say it is the end of one type of regime and its replacement by another. The American fixation on the politics of competence, whether citizen or expert, is being replaced by the politics of innocence.
In this new politics, what matters most is your standing as an innocent victim. If you are not an innocent victim, you are anonymous or, more likely, a threat.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
RON CLUTZ
Early American history, for an Englishman, is like a concentrated essence of Englishness. Reading a biography of John Adams, or Benjamin Franklin’s autobiography, one has the impression that running a country is something any reasonably competent person could do in his spare time, given goodwill and a common goal, as easily as building a cabin in the woods or catching a whale.
Our politicians have the same kind of “gifted amateur” can-do attitude, with the big difference that they’re drawn from a restricted class of society. Within that class it doesn’t matter if you’re a jokey journalist, the 26 year old son of a prime minister or a Jewish novelist. Outside that class, your role is limited to voting for your betters.
Joining Europe was meant to cure us of our class prejudices, by adopting the European tradition, including referenda – a tradition owing more to Napoleon than to the French Revolution. No-one seems to have stopped to consider whether the fact that we’ve never been part of that tradition might be a problem.
LikeLike
Thanks for the comments. One area I might have explored, but didn’t, is the rise of scientists. Now we are told we have to follow “the science”, and when politicians make independent judgement calls which scientists disagree with, such as the UK government’s decision to open up society on 19th July 2021 (already delayed by a month) many in the media pillory them. “You’re not following the science!” they scream, apparently with no recognition that:
1. “Scientists” (especially when they’re really computer modellers) can be wrong;
2. The decisions are political, inasmuch as they involve judgement calls about issues beyond those modelled on computers; and
3. Nobody elected the computer modellers.
I do think our democracy is in a fragile place.
LikeLike
Another theme I should perhaps have developed, is what happens when elites all agree on a subject, and don’t allow the expression (via an effective vote at the ballot box) of a dissenting view by the electorate.
In the case of Brexit (whatever the rights and wrongs of that emotive and divisive subject), most politicians in all the main political parties agreed that the UK should continue its membership of the EU, and also agreed with the nature of the ongoing EU project. Arguably, the time to hold a referendum (if one was to be held) was at the time of the Lisbon Agreement, which profoundly changed the nature of the EU’s relationship with its member states, and profoundly changed the EU constitution. The acquiescence of the UK in these changes was quietly agreed upon by our masters, and the electorate was given no say in the matter.
There seems to me to be an obvious parallel with climate change and the adoption of net zero, another area where our masters have decided, and the public is not allowed to dissent. That policy backfired on them over Brexit, and led to the (brief)rise of UKIP, though it was never really a force in national politics, being more a lightning conductor by which people expressed dissent in EU and local elections. However, might the undemocratic imposition of net zero on the British people see a more sustained form of electoral dissent and the rise of another protest party, one which might change the face of national elections? If it does, it’s the Tories who will suffer the consequences.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark: “However, might the undemocratic imposition of net zero on the British people see a more sustained form of electoral dissent and the rise of another protest party, one which might change the face of national elections? If it does, it’s the Tories who will suffer the consequences.”
I doubt there will be a more sustained form of dissent, because NZ/CC is still likely to be viewed, indeed like Brexit, as a ‘single issue’, not a generic philosophy which would sustain a mainstream party indefinitely. However, this doesn’t preclude a protest party that like UKIP could be powerful enough for long enough to force the other parties to change, then dissipating once the back of NZ was broken. I’d be happy to see that. Given there’s nothing in the mainstream science that requires a crash NZ from the whole of civilization, not to mention that for both humanity and the environment it’s likely to be far worse than the problem, then such a protest party would have sound grounds to campaign on even without mentioning any sceptical science at all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Andy: “However, this doesn’t preclude a protest party that like UKIP could be powerful enough for long enough to force the other parties to change, then dissipating once the back of NZ was broken. I’d be happy to see that. ”
Me too!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just woke up and read your 11,47 piece (still feel somewhat unwell ever since my booster shot a week ago). Had to really think about why the back of New Zealand had to be broken, but then remembered that England’s women are to play the Black Ferns later today. Going back to sleep until the kick off. Glad to sort out that little puzzle.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Paul Homewood has a link to Lawrence Fox’s latest video, pointing out that the net zero agenda is bypassing democracy:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2021/10/31/what-will-net-zero-cost-you/
Lawrence Fox isn’t everybody’s cup of tea, and he isn’t mine, but the video, if a little simplistic, certainly gets the message across in a very clear way. Maybe worth a look.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Worth a read, IMO (but then I would say that, since he broadly draws the same conclusions as me):
“Environmentalism cannot survive democracy
People will not put up with being pushed around forever.”
https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/11/04/environmentalism-cannot-survive-democracy/
LikeLike
Nick Rosen in The Speccie
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/a-net-zero-referendum-bring-it-on
Direct to comments
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/www-spectator-co-uk/a_net_zero_referendum_bring_it_on/
They feature our Robin
LikeLike
Interesting comments here as “Boris has somehow fallen 6 points behind to Labour”
This electoral threat to the Tories will surely give more power to the Steve Baker anti-NetZero crowd. (Hope it’s ok to post this here but it perhaps underlines that even without a referendum, after the COP absurdities there could be some movement in the logjam.)
LikeLike
Richard, I’m very happy for you to post it here. My purpose in writing the article was to try to stimulate a debate about the lack of democracy around net zero in particular, but also generally, in the UK, and I suppose as a by-product the implications for politics generally. All observations are welcome!
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Boris Johnson urged to set up net-zero initiative across government
Businesses, unions and green groups say ministers must ensure all policies are compatible with climate targets”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/dec/07/boris-johnson-urged-to-set-up-net-zero-initiative-across-government
“Boris Johnson should set up a new cross-government initiative on reaching net-zero emissions, and subject all government policies to tests to ensure they are compatible with the climate target, businesses, unions and green campaigners have said.
Ministers should review current policies in the next few months and use the result to present a new national plan on the climate crisis before the next UN climate meeting in November 2022, the leaders urged. The UK retains the presidency of the UN climate talks until then, having hosted the Cop26 climate summit last month.
In a letter to the prime minister and Rishi Sunak, the chancellor of the exchequer, the chiefs of the CBI, the TUC and several of the UK’s leading environmental groups urged the government to examine how industry could be supported to reduce greenhouse gas emissions further, and to give greater powers and funding to local authorities to help them cut emissions in transport and housing.
Consumers must be given the right incentives, and “just transition” plans are needed to help workers in high-carbon industries retrain for low-carbon jobs, the letter said.”
Businesses, unions and green groups – they all get to have a say. It seems everyone is entitled to express an opinion on “net zero” except the electorate.
LikeLike
When there just aren’t enough political parties committed to net zero et al:
“Centre-right Climate party launches to oust Tory MPs opposing climate action
Ed Gemmell wants to offer Conservative voters climate-conscious, business-friendly alternative”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/28/centre-right-climate-party-ed-gemmell-launches-oust-tory-mps-opposing-climate-action
“A new political party committed to solving the climate crisis plans to challenge the Tories in more than 100 seats at the next election, targeting climate-denying Tory backbenchers.
Launched as a centre-right, single-issue party, the Climate party aims to provide Conservative voters with a business-friendly, climate-serious alternative to the Tories, whose leadership candidates have been reticent over the party’s net zero commitments as Britain buckled under 40C heat for the first time on record.
“That’s not leadership,” said Ed Gemmell, the founder of the Climate party. “That’s self-interest.”
Gemmell, a former army officer and city lawyer, registered the Climate party with the electoral commission on Britain’s hottest day last week. Unlike his Tory counterparts, he has spent years working on the climate crisis and believes climate-conscious Conservative voters do not feel respected and feel ignored by the party’s leadership. He hopes the Climate party will provide them with an alternative that will protect the economy, people and the climate.
“We’ve got one election left to save the planet,” he said.
The Climate party plans to challenge the Conservatives in 110 marginal seats in the next election where the Conservatives are only winning by up to 7,000 votes.”
Where to start in criticising that?
Committed to solving the climate crisis are they? Are they a global party?
One election left to save the planet? Make a not of that. After the next election, there’ll still be another election left to save the planet.
And the Climate Party will provide voters with an alternative? No, an alternative – a meaningful alternative – would be a new party committed to reversing the net zero madness.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It seems this isn’t getting much traction, so the Guardian/Observer is giving it another push:
“The Tories have failed to ‘get climate done’ – so I’ve launched a new centre-right party
Ed Gemmell
My Climate party will take on 110 Conservatives in the next election: Britain can win when it comes to the environment”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/07/my-climate-party-ed-gemell-centre-right
“…The Conservative party as a whole, along with the other mainstream parties, has miserably failed Britain on climate, displaying a nonchalant attitude to the danger and a lack of commitment to action. Leadership has been so lacking on this issue that my co-founders and I felt compelled to create a new single-issue, centre-right party to champion these concerns: the Climate party.
Likened to the inept Dad’s Army by the chairman of the Climate Change Committee, the Conservative government is not even on track to its meet own target to hit net zero by 2050 – a target considered by many scientists to be too late to avoid dangerous and increasingly lethal climate chaos.
The Climate party is advocating the earlier date of 2030 for decarbonisation – a target much more likely to keep us safe. And it’s not just about avoiding catastrophe: Britain has a chance to grip this immense commercial opportunity, or else let it slip through faltering hands and allow others to lead (and profit from) this urgent transition.
When Britain reaches this target, decarbonising every aspect of its economy by 2030, then we will have first mover advantage. Britain’s decarbonised businesses will be global leaders. A decade or more of British prosperity would ensue….”.
Utterly deluded at every level, so far as I can see.
So far as I can see, they don’t have a website. I clicked on what I thought looked like a link to a website in the latest Guardian article, only to find it was a link to the earlier Guardian article…
LikeLike
Don’t you get nostalgic for simpler times when all we had the Monster Raving Loony Party?
LikeLike
My mind is a blank, so just what was the Monster Raving Loony policy on climate change? Were parts of it adopted by Labour or the Tories? I wouldn’t be at all surprised. Perhaps it might have been an improvement.
LikeLike
I’m afraid this is from the manifesto of the Monster Raving Loony Party:
“WIND farms will be created nationwide, where breaking wind will be encouraged.”
https://www.loonyparty.com/proposals/policies-a-z/
Hey ho. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Reinstate climate change minister role, says green Tory Chris Skidmore
MP and head of party’s Net Zero Support Group spends much of his time campaigning on climate emergency”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/09/reinstate-climate-change-minister-role-says-green-tory-chris-skidmore
“The next prime minister needs to reinstate the role of minister for climate change, according to the head of the influential Conservative Net Zero Support Group.
Chris Skidmore has become one of the leading voices in the Tory green movement. Along with Zac Goldsmith and Alok Sharma, he is part of a significant number of conservatives who are pressing hard for climate action, and who despair at the opinions of a small number of Tories, such as the Net Zero Scrutiny Group (NZSG) who oppose swift action on climate breakdown….”.
LikeLike
“The truth about Extinction Rebellion
Does XR really want to ‘let the people decide’?”
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-truth-about-extinction-rebellion
LikeLiked by 1 person
Democracy? Forget it!
“I hope King Charles will push for action on climate change, says John Kerry”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62940512
LikeLike
“Scottish Government accused of ‘riding roughshod over local democracy’ after overturning councillors’ refusal of Dufftown windfarm”
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/moray/4843054/speyside-councillor-scottish-government-overturning-dufftown-windfarm/
LikeLike
“London last summer was the trailer for a climate disaster movie. Here’s how to stop that coming true
Sadiq Khan and Chris Skidmore
Cross-party cooperation is the key to facing down the doubters and delayers”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/23/london-climate-disaster-sadiq-khan-chris-skidmore
The obvious inference is that they don’t believe the public should be given a choice. “Working together” sounds so much better than “denying you a choice”, after all.
LikeLike
Larry Elliott is one of the few writers at the Guardian whose opinions I respect, and he’s right, IMO in much that he says here. However, apart from a brief mention of battery factories, the glaring omission in his description of cross-party consensus is the net zero stitch-up:
“Brexit, the environment, energy bills … it’s hard to tell Labour and Tory policies apart
Larry Elliott
Cross-party consensus was once called Butskellism. What do we call it when even Rachel Reeves and Jeremy Hunt agree?”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/01/brexit-labour-tory-policies-rachel-reeves-jeremy-hunt
LikeLike
“No more climate consensus as politics of net zero heats up in Britain
Conservatives and Labour trading blows over green policy once again.”
https://www.politico.eu/article/rishi-sunak-boris-johnson-climate-consensus-net-zero-green-policy/
An encouraging headline, offering the hope that the cross-party consensus regarding climate change and net zero might be breaking up, with the result that the UK electorate might actually be offered a choice of sorts at the next election. Not a chance! What this article reveals is that Sunak has started to recognise that net zero is not popular among traditional Tory supporters, so although he and his colleagues are still signed up to it, they’re just not going to talk about it quite so loudly:
It’s quite shocking, really. They recognise that a lot of their voters don’t like it, but instead of doing what their voters want, they’re going to do what their voters don’t want, but keep quiet while they’re at it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mark,
They call it choice architecture, and it is all above board when you have God on your side 😦
LikeLike
With the Conservatives in charge, we’ll slouch towards net zero. With Labour in, we’ll hurriedly stumble towards the same goal. The only way things might change is if we drain the Westminster swamp and replace nearly all 650 MPs with honest people who are accountable to their electors rather than supranational interests, with decent people who don’t value their own careers and financial interests way above the economic well-being of the country and its population. That’s never going to happen via the current ‘democratic’ electoral system.
https://jaimejessop.substack.com/p/britain-slouches-towards-net-zero
LikeLike
Mark – from your link above – https://yougov.co.uk/topics/consumer/survey-results/daily/2023/05/30/adad6/1
2371 GB adults surveyed May 30, 2023
found this poll useful – https://yougov.co.uk/topics/health/survey-results/daily/2023/05/30/adad6/3
“When brushing your teeth, which of the following do you do with your toothbrush?”
what a joke yougov.co.uk is.
LikeLike
“Leading Conservative MPs launch pre-election push for bolder green agenda”
https://www.businessgreen.com/news/4118557/leading-conservative-mps-launch-pre-election-push-bolder-green-agenda
If they get their way, you will not have a meaningful choice about net zero at the next general election.
LikeLike
But they won’t get their way, to that extent.
That’s from Pete North’s very interesting long tweet last night.
Retweeted by Jonathan Jones, no less. (Which is probably why Twitter highlighted it for me.)
I’m pretty agnostic about the ‘Harrogate Agenda’. But the North family has my respect.
LikeLike
Richard,
Perhaps – just perhaps, you’re right, and the Tories, facing electoral meltdown, are beginning to develop some common sense based on fear of the electorate:
“Households to be spared net zero levy, says Shapps”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66006288
On the other hand…
LikeLike
Yeah Mark I read that one as well! I did like North’s “Mercifully, under the Tories, Net Zero dogma has now reached high tide”. I think that’s right and I think Shapps is one other straw in that wind. (Mixing metaphors between wind power and tidal power.) Kemi’s letter yesterday to Ofsted about the abusive teacher at Rye school shows she’s made of sterner stuff. Not climate per se but sterner stuff. That’s my reading. More widely the Tories have to be the reasonable side of the Net Zero stuff compared to Labour because there are votes in that. Let’s hope some unions get Labour to tack towards good sense as well.
LikeLike
H/T Robin Guenier – the Telegraph’s take on it all –
“Time to reconsider our approach to net zero
The British people are already facing financial hardship. The Government should be prioritising cheap energy and reliable supplies”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2023/06/23/time-to-reconsider-our-approach-to-net-zero/
It’s behind a paywall, but should be accessible here:
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-daily-telegraph-saturday/20230624/281947432279981
As Robin said to me:
LikeLike
As for Sunak and the Tories waking up regarding net zero…
LikeLike
It’s a toss up. Do you vote for stealth eco-Communism under the Tories or do you vote for totally transparent, up front, Monster Raving Loony eco-Communism under Labour? At the moment, the Tories are losing the popularity race because of their obvious duplicity and lies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Daily Sceptic has the story:
“Rishi Sunak to Hit Households With £170 Net Zero Levy Within Days”
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/06/25/rishi-sunak-to-hit-households-with-170-net-zero-levy-within-days/
Just how crazy are the Tories? Moving a £120 p.a. hydrogen levy into general taxation rather than on to energy bills, so as to hide the cost, but imposing a £170 p.a. “green” levy on energy bills at the same time. Note that the levy was £150 p.a., but inflation, and the heavy costs of so-called “cheap” renewables have done their work, and now it’s to be £170 p.a.
LikeLike
“Sunak U-turn on wind farms in England draws wrath of green Tories
Prime minister under fire as government backtracks on plan for more onshore turbines to keep voters on side”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/02/sunak-u-turn-on-wind-farms-in-england-draws-wrath-of-green-tories
The first thing to notice is the headline, which implicitly confirms the unpopularity of windfarms. If they are popular, why would the guardian complain that Sunak is backtracking on plans for more wind turbines, in order “to keep voters onside?” Voters? Remember them? The people whose wishes are supposed to be implemented by politicians.
How shocking! Goodness me, politicians worrying about the wishes of the electorate. Whatever next? Still, the so-called Green Tories are in meltdown about all this. They are crazy, but one has to assume sincere. Why else would they insist on persevering with policies which – for their party at least – can only cost them votes? Perhaps the Green Tories should join the Lib Dems, the remaining Tories should abandon net zero and – shock, horror – the electorate might actually be allowed a choice.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Put 2050 net zero target to a referendum, Red Wall MPs tell Sunak
Backbenchers in traditionally Labour-voting seats won by the Tories urge Prime Minister to give public a say”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/08/14/net-zero-2050-target-referendum-red-wall-mps-rishi-sunak/
LikeLike
“Rishi Sunak rules out net zero referendum
Red Wall MPs among Conservatives urging PM to rethink ‘headlong rush’ towards 2050 emissions target”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/08/16/rishi-sunak-rules-out-net-zero-referendum/
LikeLike
“Sarah Ingham: A proper democratic debate on Net Zero is long overdue”
LikeLike
“Humza Yousaf calls climate change summit to combat Tory ‘culture war’ attack
EXCLUSIVE: In an interview with the Record, the First Minster said he wanted political leaders to reach a consensus on the “biggest existential threat” faced by the world.”
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/humza-yousaf-calls-climate-change-30841125.amp
Translation: “Yousaf calls on party leaders to unite to deny a democratic choice to the people of the UK”.
LikeLike
I see that the turnout in the Rutherglen & Hamilton West by-election was just 37%. That, for me, is the big story around this Labour victory. Almost 2/3 of the electorate felt there was nobody it was worth going to the polling station to vote for. Net zero democracy.
LikeLike
Well worth a read, IMO:
“The MPs that didn’t bark”
https://www.netzerowatch.com/labour-zero-emission-mandate/
LikeLiked by 1 person
I briefly thought the BBC was drawing our attention to the democratic deficit in the UK, and voter concerns about it. Turns out they’re talking about Bangladesh!
“‘What is the point?’ ask disillusioned voters ahead of the polls”. That was the clickbait; click on the link and it turns into:
“Bangladesh election: Lopsided polls leave disillusioned voters asking ‘what’s the point'”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-67879612
Oh well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Really?
“Forget Labour and the Tories: the ‘carbon parties’ will not save us. That’s why Just Stop Oil wants your votes”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/feb/21/labour-tories-carbon-parties-just-stop-oil-mps-parliament
LikeLike
Mark – thanks for that rant link by Sarah Lunnon.
OMG – Shows how far the Guardian pushes an agenda to let this “opinion” article appear.
so many childish quotes –
“Making this commitment would have demonstrated a recognition of our current life-and-death predicament.”
“Ordinary people will demand of them that they recognise what is needed to defend us. We all have a right to feel safe in our homes, but with the storms, the flood waters and the fires we are not safe. When we’re choosing between heating and eating we’re not safe. When there’s one loaf between 10 shoppers we’re not safe.”
and more, but you get the drift.
ps – the comments under the article give me hope for the readership.
LikeLike
The best comment on a current article in the Speccie about yesterday’s debacle in the HoC was ‘Just Stop Hoyle’.
LikeLiked by 2 people
In that Graun piece Sarah Lunnon says that party politicians have abandoned the British public.
A bit autobiographical, that. Lunnon was sacked as a Green Party councillor because she didn’t turn up to council meetings for six months.
https://www.stroudnewsandjournal.co.uk/news/18296746.green-councillor-removed-stroud-town-council-missing-many-meetings/
LikeLike
Vinny – thanks for that link about Sarah Lunnon.
found another rant from her from Mon 22 Nov 2021 –
https://greenworld.org.uk/article/insulate-britain-proportionate-reaction-extreme-situation
partial quote – “Sir David King sums up well where we are now: ‘We have to move quickly. What we do, I believe, in the next three to four years will determine the future of humanity’. What he means is, unless there is a massive reduction in emissions and massive investment in geoengineering, billions will face famine. This, then, is the ‘greater disruption’. Insulate Britain supporters are in prison or sitting on the motorway, delaying people getting to work in the morning by a few hours, to get the Government to pay attention – to stop promising and act.”
but as she says in the rant – “These figures come from peer-reviewed academic literature, the gold standard of scientific knowledge”
LikeLike
dfhunter, thanks for the 2021 Lunnon rant link. MLK Jr, Gandhi, Sir David King, a wartime mobilisation needed, we’re all going to die, etc etc. It’s all there. And all from the Hallam playbook.
Or the 2021 Hallam playbook, anyway. These days he thinks that peer-reviewed academic literature is the home of repressed bourgeois cowards. Or he does when it’s not doomy enough for him. At other times it’s still the gold standard. He’s not the world’s most consistent global thought leader.
But back to Lunnon. Here’s a partial transcript of her interview on Friday’s edition of R4’s Today programme:
===
Sarah Lunnon: ‘If I am responsible for planning the deaths of millions of people then I think I deserve to have people outside my home asking me to stop doing that, to stop planning to kill people. We are looking at the loss of a habitable planet. This is not a policy issue. This is an issue of life on Earth, the conditions that allow us to carry on living. This is… It’s… Er, you know, I’m not asking for a change in the law. I’m asking to be protected, for life on Earth to be…’
Nick Robinson: ‘Shh…’
Lunnon: ‘…protected…’
Robinson: ‘Sure. ‘
Lunnon: ‘And it’s…’
Robinson: ‘Just one last question if I could, Sarah.’
Lunnon: ‘It’s outside the remit of everything that we, every…’
Robinson: ‘Huuuurgh!’
Lunnon: ‘…thing…’
Robinson: ‘But isn’t…’
Lunnon: ‘…that we fought [thought?]…’
Robinson: ‘Isn’t that, finally, just the problem? Which is, it’s outside the remit as *you* define it. There may be people…’
Lunnon: ‘No, no! It’s science!’
Robinson: ‘Let me just…’
Lunnon: ‘No, this is science!’
Robinson: ‘There may be people listening who say that mass immigration is the greatest threat to our planet [wot?]. There may be people who think that particular religions are the great threat to our society. There may be all sorts of people who think all sorts of things. Are they all entitled to go outside people’s houses and protest?’
Lunnon: ‘So… So what we need to do is to change the system that we have right now, which is failing us. What we are seeing today and what is happening to our politics and our politicians is the result of a failing political system. So let’s upgrade our democratic system. Let’s actually bring people together, so people like me and Stella Creasy actually come together and find a way to solve our problems. I’d be very happy to meet with the Labour front bench…’
Robinson: ‘OK…’
Lunnon: ‘I’d be very happy to stalk… to talk to Stella Creasy. I want the librarians and the engineers and the teachers to define how we address the issues of today. So let’s upgrade democracy and do something different…’
Robinson: ‘Sar… Sarah…’
Lunnon: ‘…because what we have today is not working.’
Robinson: ‘Thank you very much for your time. Sarah Lunnon of… of Just Stop Oil examining – fascinating, isn’t it? – in the examining where the barriers are, where the lines are between legitimate protest and unacceptable intimidation.’
===
I like the ‘stalk’ gaffe.
That edition of Today is still available for streaming:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001wjn0
Lunnon’s segment starts at ~1h35m.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Can’t help but think we need a ‘sceptic’ for balance.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jit – never gonna happen, as we all know.
LikeLike
Net zero democracy at a global level:
“Newly elected leaders to be held to same climate obligations, says Cop29 chief
Exclusive: Incoming UN summit president calls on governments to stay on track, as majority of global population go to the polls”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/12/newly-elected-leaders-climate-obligations-cop29-chief-un-summit-mukhtar-babayev
“…The governments that assume power after elections around the world this year will be held to the same climate obligations as their predecessors, the chief of this year’s UN climate summit has warned.
Cop29 will be held in Azerbaijan in November, near the end of a crucial year in which most of the global population – from the UK, the EU and the US to India and Russia – will head to the polls. The US presidential election, likely to be a bitter fight with climate a key issue, will be held on 5 November, with Cop29 to take place days later, from 11 to 22 November, in the Azerbaijani capital, Baku.
Even if new administrations are formed, they will face the same need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and tackle global heating, the incoming president of Cop29, Mukhtar Babayev, has said.
“I don’t think that any election will change the policy of any countries to move forward the consolidation of these issues [on the climate],” Babayev told the Guardian in his first big interview since his appointment in January. “That’s why our target is to use any chance, any communication, with these countries to move this process to positive results and positive outcomes.”
Incoming governments of whatever stripe would still have to cope with the reality of the climate crisis, he said, and the Azerbaijan presidency would hold them to their committments …”
And if the people voted for governments that don’t share the agenda? Is that just tough, the agenda must go on?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Partial quote from that Guardian link – Stop looking for loopholes, UN warns, after Saudi hints end of fossil fuels ‘just one option’ | Climate crisis | The Guardian
“Governments must not try to pick loopholes in the global agreement to “transition away” from fossil fuels reached last December, the UN’s climate chief has said, as he called for “torrents” of cash for poorer countries to tackle the crisis.”
A bit o/t but look at Haiti, aid was sent after the earthquake, wonder where most of that went?
ps – Like the latest Guardian plea for money below the article –
“Do you know who hates the Guardian?
The billionaires creating a world that’s more unequal than ever.
The populist politicians spreading discord and misinformation.
The fossil fuel executives watching the planet burn as their profits swell.
The tech giants shaping a new world around us without scrutiny.
And do you know who does like us? People who believe in a free press. People who believe that the truth should be available to everyone. And people who recognise the importance of challenging those in positions of power and influence. Does that sound like you?
The Guardian doesn’t have an ultra-rich owner. No one tells us what to write – or what not to write. We’ll stand up to expensive legal threats to bring readers the truth. Often on stories that no one else will touch.
You might not agree with every word we publish but, with your help we can hold the rich and powerful to account. Whether they like it or not.
If you choose to support, it will annoy all the right people. It only takes a minute. Support open, independent journalism on a monthly basis. Thank you.“
LikeLike
The MSM are full of the significance of the local election results, while ignoring the elephant in the room, namely the staggering low turnout.
In the Blackpool by-election, two out of three didn’t vote. Where I live there were no local elections, only a vote for the Police and Crime Commissioner, which saw a 21% turnout. Democracy is broken, and nobody seems to care.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Net Zero got a mention from Sunak just now – a pejorative one linking it with ‘dogma’.
LikeLike
Richard, thank you for the heads-up.
Is he teasing us again? Or does he really, really mean it, this time? Personally, I want and will judge by actions rather than more mealy mouthed words. I’m sure he knows the solution if he really, really wants to rescue his party (and, more importantly, the country) from the imminent drubbing it seems to be heading for.
Regards, John C.
LikeLike
The SDP are putting up a net zero sceptical candidate in my constituency. He will get my vote.
LikeLike
Here’s what Sunak said:
If he really means that and understands its implications, net zero is effectively dead. Unfortunately I doubt if he does understand it. Nonetheless, how each party deals with net zero in its manifesto could be interesting.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So what is Sunak saying here, really? That environmental dogma contaminates the quest for Net Zero? Net Zero IS environmental dogma. If you prioritise energy security and family finances over environmental dogma, you prioritise those things over Net Zero – and then you must be prepared to disarm the lawfare brigade by repealing or amending the statute which writes Net Zero into UK law. Will the Tories commit to that in their manifesto? Almost certainly not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My interpretation of Sunak’s Net Zero statement is that all electricity generation will go to nuclear, then we use the clever ideas of guys like B. F. Randall on Diesel from Nuclear Process Heat (thanks Mike) to get as close as possible to zero emissions.
That may not be Sunak’s interpretation or that of his successors. But it’s mine.
I made a couple of comments on policy issues arising from the election on X yesterday. They may be my only ones thru 4th July. The threads begin with Ed Miliband and Kemi Badenoch …
It’s time to go for the least bad option, just as Nikki Haley has just done, very explicitly, in the States in saying she will vote for Trump, not Biden. That’s national, presidential FPTP of course, whereas in the UK we have to work out who will make the least bad MP for our patch. All the best, everyone!
LikeLike
“Bring on the bloodbath
Rishi Sunak thoroughly deserves the electoral kicking this election is sure to bring.”
https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/05/22/bring-on-the-bloodbath/
…It seems there is no deranged, divisive, elitist policy Labour is not bang up for. But voters may understandably strain to notice much difference, given the Tories’ (at best) listless opposition to greenism and wokeism and the many zealots within their own ranks...
…We seem damned to another electoral cycle in which there isn’t much at stake beyond the respective fortunes of the two main parties. In which big ideas are anathema to the business of politics. In which ordinary people and their desire for a more democratic way of life aren’t really part of the equation. Still, we should relish any opportunity to shake the electoral snow globe. To send a message to our pathetic political class, even if that is via a protest vote, a spoiled ballot or sitting it out entirely. The people of Britain are crying out for a different, better future – not to mention enlightened leadership in these dangerous geopolitical times. We just await a party, a movement or a politician capable of delivering a genuine alternative.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Sunak backtracked on climate policies – and voters may punish him
Fiona Harvey and Helena Horton
Many hoped he would show global leadership – instead he pitched himself as ‘pragmatic’ and slowed the journey to net zero”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/23/sunak-backtracked-on-climate-policies-and-voters-may-punish-him
I suspect the Guardian may be in for a surprise as to what voters want. Of course Sunak has blown it, not by watering down net zero plans too much, but by missing the chance to distance the Tories from the economically and environmentally damaging nonsense.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just a thought……given that we all see the critical priority of stopping, or at least slowing Net Zero, is there a case for tactical voting on that single issue? Should we put our own political preferences to one side and vote for the candidate in our respective constituencies who is anti-NZ, or closest to it? That might give us a few more MPs who will be prepared to challenge the headlong rush to catastrophe.
Seeking to slow NZ rather than stop it outright might be a more fruitful ploy: do what we can when we can afford it; let others take the lead for a while; we’ve done our bit for now; and the like.
After all, the last lemming should have a soft landing!
LikeLike
Mike H, that’s what I will be doing. I am delighted that in my constituency the SDP (with whom I am broadly aligned politically) is putting up a candidate who is sceptical of net zero. There is certainly no point voting Tory, Labour, Liberty Dem or Green, and I would struggle greatly to vote for Reform.
LikeLike
I’m staying with the highly simplistic.
It’s not quite so simple, of course, because all of us care about more than one issue.
Ruth was replying to a maker of horror films saying he can’t vote because, well, the normal nihilism. I wanted to support her instincts. So not this guy.
I know it’s a joke but I didn’t want to feed it. The thing is Jonathan cares too about more things than Net Zero, as does another friend of Cliscep.
Democracy is messy at best.
LikeLike
“2024UK election debates must make climate crisis a key issue, say green groups
Campaigners have written to broadcasters expressing concern that climate is not a more prominent discussion topic”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/03/uk-election-debates-must-make-climate-crisis-a-key-issue-say-green-groups
They asked for the subject to be examined in detail in the context of the campaign. “We ask you to make a commitment to ensure that the main parties’ plans to meet our legal climate and nature targets are properly examined during the course of this campaign and communicated to the public,” the groups wrote.
I am in total agreement, so long as the costs and implications of net zero are also examined in detail and properly communicated to the public. If that happens, then the campaigners may be in for a rude awakening. In that scenario I suspect that public support for net zero would melt away very quickly indeed.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, Mark. It is a very major failure of the democratic countries that the costs and implications (rather than just the benefits) of Net Zero and related policies have been utterly inadequately examined over several decades. This failure is not just that of the political class but also of the mainstream media and of social media. Indeed the media have been very largely partisan on the matter, to the detriment of public debate and public awareness of all the relevant issues.
All in all, this reflects very badly upon current Western society – we need to clean up our act for the benefit of society as a whole. However, there are powerful forces which are very happy with the current dispensation. These forces very largely have the ear of governments, civil services, and media platforms and so their bringing to heel will be no mean feat – but it is an important one if effective democracy (rather than nominal democracy) is to be the legacy of our very privileged generation. Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John, I agree with your analysis. And believe that bringing those powerful forces to heel is well-nigh impossible. But I’m beginning to think that may not matter: very soon – for the reasons that have been discussed in detail on the Net Zero thread (and for example by the likes of David Turver) – under an incoming Labour administration the current dispensation is about to be challenged by reality. And I don’t see how it can prevail.
LikeLike
Robin, I can well believe that the current dispensation will be severely challenged (and perhaps even overturned) by reality when the next UK government bumps into the insurmountable challenges of the Net Zero project . That would indeed be a very great victory for both common sense and ordinary people who have been greatly deceived and immiserated by that decades-long vision/nightmare.
However, from my perspective, Net Zero is but a battle (albeit a huge one!) in the long fight against the globalist rent-seeking forces ranged against Western democracies. Those forces will take their ill-gotten gains from the Net Zero foray and happily decamp to their next chosen battleground e.g. further entrenching global (but biddable) organisations such as the WHO in what should normally be the realm of domestic policy making. The sovereign state has a long campaign ahead of it if it wishes to remain sovereign.
Or do you see things differently? Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No John, I don’t see things differently. Indeed, although I expect Net Zero orthodoxy to take a serious beating and the battle won (by the sceptics) – a huge step forward with the probable avoidance of the massive damage that would be caused by the policy’s implementation – I don’t expect the orthodox establishment to give up. The battle will be won but the war may not be over.
And it certainly doesn’t mean that the war against the globalist rent-seeking forces will be over. Far from it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve just listened to Nigel Farage doing his U-turn, becoming leader of Reform and standing in Clacton. I think Peter Hitchens’ recipe is more important than ever.
LikeLike
John C: Agree strongly about the WHO being used as one prong of a more general attack on national sovereignty. The fact the WHO pandemic treaty was rejected recently was a significant victory. But it’s dead but not buried for Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, according to UnHerd’s man with the stethoscope.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Richard, for the time being I still support the Hitchens recipe. But, if the polls move strongly in favour of Reform within a couple of weeks as Farage just said they would, I may be forced to rethink.
LikeLike
Robin: I have committed myself, twice, already. Once on 30th May on X, replicated on Cliscep, when Victoria Atkins tweeted “Today I have taken bold action to protect children following the Cass Review, using emergency powers to ban puberty blockers for new treatments of gender dysphoria.” I didn’t feel that Labour could go back on that.
And once on Saturday, during an expedition in North Somerset, when I was caught short waiting at a bus stop in Clevedon and dived into the local Conservative club. The young lady at reception helpfully pointed me in the right direction and as I went past I said “Don’t worry – I’m voting Tory.” So I made somebody laugh at such a time of dire predictions.
Hitchens hasn’t changed his evaluation of course. I feel sure he’s right.
LikeLike
Stirring up the wrong kind of memories.
https://x.com/mjeslfc/status/1798030483709923573?s=46&t=4qvSYca0Ii1UBztIQcDpHQ
LikeLike
Mark, if some of the signatories of that open letter to broadcasters hadn’t campaigned for so long and with such success against nuclear power they wouldn’t now have any plausible excuses to keep campaigning for yet more dodgy, expensive and environmentally unfriendly renewable projects as a way of reducing GHG emissions. GHG emissions would now be a lot lower.
The letter:
http://www.wearepossible.org/latest-news/climateelection
Greenpeace is the obvious example but other signatories are anti-nuke and have been for ages.
Then there’s Possible, the activist charity that organised the letter. Here’s one of its earlier efforts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjVW6roRs-w
Yes. Possible is a rebadged 10:10.
(Isn’t it a bit odd that 10:10 founder Franny Armstrong isn’t mentioned at all at Possible’s website or at its Wikipedia page or even in its Wiki’s comments page? PIRC’s Tim Helweg-Larsen’s grandma Everild Vera Undine Lucas-Tooth isn’t mentioned either, but that’s a bit more explicable.)
LikeLike
“Nobody even noticed the Tories’ biggest legacy
Five years ago this week, in the teeth of the Brexit wars, an outgoing Tory prime minister was looking for a legacy. Theresa May settled on net zero —and now it’s on Labour to keep that target alive.”
https://www.politico.eu/article/therea-may-tories-brexit-rishi-sunak-nobody-even-noticed-the-tories-biggest-legacy/
…On June 12, 2019, six weeks before leaving Downing Street, May announced the U.K. would become the first major economy in the world to enshrine in law a target for net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Little over a fortnight later, on June 27 — five years ago this week — the measure was passed into law by the U.K. parliament, with broad cross-party support.
That single piece of legislation today stands alongside Brexit as the most consequential legacy of 14 years of Tory rule.
At a stroke, all future U.K. governments were committed to a vast, complex mandate which will transform the way Britain powers its homes and businesses, fuels its cars, heats its houses and feeds itself, how it manufactures and builds.
Indeed, the net zero law represents nothing short of a full-scale overhaul of the entire U.K. economy, over a 30-year period. And it was agreed with precious little debate — and almost no dissent — at all….
...The political climate around net zero has changed dramatically over the past five years.
As the realities — and costs — of the policy loom closer, net zero is becoming contested in a way few foresaw back in 2019, when the approach enjoyed broad political consensus. (One May adviser referred to the period as “the halcyon days” of climate politics.) Belatedly, a battle is on the horizon.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has already tiptoed away from the policy’s sharpest edges. If the polls are correct, Labour leader Keir Starmer is likely to succeed him in No. 10 Downing Street next week — determined to achieve the net zero target, but aware he faces intensely difficult trade-offs along the way.
For their part, the Conservatives would need to decide which way to turn in opposition: whether to keep May’s “green Tory” legacy alive, or whether to embrace a new, more aggressive net zero-skepticism. Nigel Farage’s insurgent Reform UK party wants to scrap the law altogether...
…The net zero policy did not drop out of a clear blue sky in 2019.
The previous October, with Westminster transfixed by Brexit, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published a report showing how the Paris Agreement target — limiting global warming to 1.5C — could be achieved. Carbon emissions would need to reach “net zero” by “around 2050,” it said.
Days later, Claire O’Neill, then May’s energy minister, wrote to the U.K. government’s official advisers, the Climate Change Committee (CCC), for advice on what the guidance meant for Britain.
The CCC took more than six months to reply. In the meantime, May had secured a Brexit withdrawal agreement with Brussels, only to see her MPs reject it three times. Westminster was gearing up for a Tory leadership contest.
Little noticed by the press pack or by MPs, the CCC came back on May 2, 2019, with a quietly historic report.
“It was a doorstop of a thing — technical, economic analysis,” said Greg Clark, then secretary of state at BEIS. “The thrust of that analysis was that, largely because of technical progress, what had been thought to be feasible by 2050, economically, to achieve 80 percent, was now feasible for net zero.”
The timing was resonant. This was also the year the protest group Extinction Rebellion (XR) — now branded “eco-zealots” by Sunak — first rose to public prominence. Green campaigner Greta Thunberg was invited into Westminster that April, where she hung out with senior Labour and Tory politicians like Ed Miliband and Michael Gove. Her school strike movement had already taken hold in towns and cities across the U.K.
“I had XR in for coffee,” recalled O’Neill, the climate minister. “They said: ‘We want to overthrow capitalism.’ I said that might take a bit longer than net zero, so why don’t we focus on that?”…
I wouldn’t what law-abiding Clisceppers might do to be called if for a coffee with a government minister, with a view to influencing government policy?
An interesting conclusion to a long comment piece:
Climate action is still about “future generations [and] doing the right thing,” Miliband said. But Labour also thinks it will mean “lower bills,” “energy independence,” and “jobs.”
But some of those who were in the room when the net zero law was planned have no illusions about how hard it will be for the next government.
“I don’t doubt for a second that Ed, Keir and many other Labour frontbenchers are personally committed to this agenda,” said Ogilvie. “I just worry that they do not understand what they will need to do, in the first 18 months, to actually deliver. ”
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Far-right win in French election could deal blow to climate policy, say experts
Fears of ‘big regression’ in climate action that could spread across Europe if National Rally gains power”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/03/far-right-win-french-election-could-deal-blow-climate-policy-experts
...Climate action has barely featured in the election campaign but RN plans to roll back some policies if it wins power. The party has ridden a wave of anger at green measures unleashed during farmers’ protests this year and decried what it calls “punitive ecology”. It has has indicated it wants to overturn a 2035 ban on combustion engine cars, block new wind turbines, scrap low-emissions zones and rip up rules on energy efficiency.
“It’s going to be a big regression, at least for climate policy,” said Christophe Cassou, research director at the French National Centre for Scientific Research.…
LikeLike
“Nigel Farage thinks net zero is the new Brexit. Starmer can prove him wrong
Labour must deliver the green transition voters want, leaving Reform and the Tories on the side of economic decline and dictators”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/23/nigel-farage-net-zero-new-brexit-starmer-labour-reform
I suppose all groups live in echo chambers, including us here at Cliscep, but it’s difficult to conceive of anything more out-of-touch with reality than this Guardian piece:
...Opposition to the government’s net zero target is a minority position across every segment of the electorate. Even Reform and Conservative voters are more likely to say that green investment will have a positive impact – growing the economy and reducing the cost of living – than the opposite.
Anxiety about climate change is not confined to places that voted to remain in the EU. In one survey by research organisation More in Common, 68% of Farage’s constituents in Clacton-on-Sea, Essex, declared themselves “somewhat” or “very” worried about the issue.
There are places where net zero is universally despised, but they are online. In those radical rightwing digital arenas, climate consciousness is the stuff of woke activism, a badge of culture-war villainy worn alongside gender-neutral pronouns. Those digital silos, skewed by their fanatical American conservative audience (and, in the case of Elon Musk’s X, a maniacal American proprietor) seethe with conspiracy theories and denial of climate science. Party leaders and prominent commentators of the British right who play to that crowd are pulling away from the mainstream position in their domestic political market....
…Deftly argued, it is a way to position the prime minister on the side of optimism, mainstream British opinion, resilience in an uncertain world and clean air. His opponents can have Putin, Donald Trump and pollution on their team. It is the smart move in terms of electoral strategy. It happens also to be the right thing to do.
When the bills keep going up, when the lights go out, when the few remaining manufacturing jobs disappear, and when the countryside has been destroyed, it is my firm belief that the optimism displayed above will be shown to have been profoundly misplaced. I think the battle-lines are being drawn, and net zero is finally going to be front and centre of politics.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The “transition” is going swimmingly well so far. I can see why they’re so optimistic about it.
LikeLike
For those who, like me, will struggle mightily to vote Reform at the next general election, this might be worth a read:
https://sdp.org.uk/energy-abundance/
Britain needs abundant, affordable energy.
That this Green Paper exists is a tragedy. For decades, Britain has sleepwalked into an abyss which has made us poorer, weaker, and gutted our industrial base. The heart of this is a self-induced energy crisis which has been catastrophic for our welfare and security. Britons now suffer the highest energy prices in the developed world, with our collective wealth continually drained to fund vast energy imports.
How did Britain – an energy rich nation – sink into an energy crisis? We argue below that the causes were part indifference, part profiteering and part lunacy. And it happened because of pretence: an ill-fated attempt to ignore the material world. But as we are finding out, the material world matters, production matters, and tangible needs matter. Our elites have traded our prosperity for their own self-righteousness.
They embraced a worldview where value is unmoored from production, assets decoupled from the tangible, and where industry – the act of making and creating – is wilfully ignored. This worldview must end.
The solution to this crisis requires an intelligent reconnection to material reality. We must reverse Britain’s energy crisis. Our prosperity depends on it.
As the party of the patriotic state, the SDP commends this Green Paper as a path towards energy abundance.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve never had an SDP candidate to vote for anyway. Who will I vote for? There’s a lot of water to flow under the bridge before I need to make a cross, or write “none of the above”! The hope for those who do not like Reform must be that their policies re Net Zero rub off on the other parties.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Because I have been utterly disappointed, but not surprised, by the failings of UK politicians and many others in relation to Net Zero etc, I drew up a quick rap or charge sheet to flag my disgust. Mark Hodgson then provided a critique of my rap sheet here:-(https://cliscep.com/2025/10/02/the-case-against-net-zero-a-twelfth-update/#comment-163029)
So as not to hijack Robin’s “Twelfth update” thread I have brought the discussion here onto Mark’s as it has a more appropriate thread title for the content and it will be interesting to see what, if anything, has changed in the almost four years since Mark wrote the head post.
In my postings below I propose to address the major points of Mark’s critique one by one.
Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark begins his critique as follows. Note that Mark includes in italics my rap sheet comment within his response.
“John C, I believe your charge sheet starts weakly, but gets stronger as it progresses:
Arrogance such that they and only they know what is best and that all contrary opinions should be dismissed out of hand.
They might, with some justification, say that it is we, not they, who are arrogant, since they will point to the mass of support within the establishment, including the scientific establishment, for the views that they espouse.”
In response I will argue (in a subsequent post) that while Mark’s criticism is superficially sound, a more detailed analysis shows that there is a large asymmetry between the Establishment’s claims and those of sceptics; that asymmetry occurs both in the number of supporters and the quantity of resources that each side can command. However, and most importantly, the asymmetry also occurs, but in the inverse sense, in the strength of the scientific arguments that each side can make.
But before I can build my argument I need to set the scene (in a subsequent post) by considering our collective understanding of reality and Western governments’ erroneous response to that reality.
Regards, John C.
LikeLike
In order to demonstrate the asymmetry in the battle of ideas (and the battle for resources) between Establishment and sceptics it is necessary to consider both scientific and organisational issues.
SCIENTIFIC ISSUES
In a dangerous world, one of the key requirements of the government of a sovereign state is that it should be alert to threats. So as not to waste precious resources, government needs to classify those threats and address the most serious in a timely and proportionate manner. For example, coastal defence of an island nation against the sea is an ever-present concern to be addressed by the state itself. However, global warming/cooling might be viewed as another possible threat but, depending upon the cause(s), it may require concerted international action.
In the 1970s the consensus in the scientific climate community was that descent into a new ice age was an imminent possibility. In response the BBC produced a TV programme by Nigel Calder called ‘The Weather Machine’; it also produced a book with the same title [Ref. 1] but included a subtitle, ‘The Threat of Ice’. However, shortly afterwards, global temperatures started to increase and the scientists started to worry instead about excessive global warming. It was conjectured that the increased concentration of atmospheric CO2, largely due to fossil fuel combustion by humanity, might be the primary driver of rising temperatures.
Because CO2 is, globally, a well mixed gas the governments of the world responded in a timely manner and set the global scientific community to study the matter (notably anthropogenic CO2 forcing rather than natural variability) with an expanding scientific workforce commensurate with the possibly existential risk; government bureaucracy, especially in the West, was also expanded to coordinate response to the perceived temperature and related climate change threats. The mainstream media also took increased and often lurid interest in the temperature rise projections of several degrees Celsius per century coming from the computer models of the climate. Models have their uses, but scientific endeavour requires measurements in order to base theory in physical reality.
Fortunately, worldwide temperature measurements started to be available from 1979 with the first satellite-based temperature measurement technology [Ref. 2]. The satellite record is now the better part of half a century old and so comparison can be made between alarmist models and physical reality (with the latter measured by, and with agreement between, satellites and balloons/radiosondes).
The satellite measurements show that the global average temperature of the lower atmosphere is about one degree Celsius warmer now than when satellite records began [Note 1]. Temperature has been measured to rise and fall, typically over scales of about 4 years, with the current temperature having first been exceeded in 1998 (i.e. over 25 years ago in a record less than twice that age). It thus seems appropriate at this point to quote prof. Richard Lindzen, “The influence of mankind on climate is trivially true and numerically insignificant.”
Furthermore, it has been known for some 10 years that the majority of climate models predict greater warming than has been measured in practice [Refs. 4 and 5]. To quote from the Executive Summary of [Ref. 5], “The world’s several dozen global climate models offer little guidance on how much the climate responds to elevated CO2 … Global climate models generally run “hot” in their description of the climate of the past few decades … The combination of overly sensitive models and implausible extreme scenarios for future emissions yields exaggerated projections of future warming … Both models and experience suggest that CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed, and excessively aggressive mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial … U.S. policy actions are expected to have undetectably small direct impacts on the global climate and any effects will emerge only with long delays …”
Given that (i) democratic governments typically have an electoral cycle of about 5 years, (ii) the physical temperature record (as contrasted to the outpu.t of computer models) shows only modest temperature rise over decades, and (iii) as just noted even large very economies (e.g. USA) are expected to have only a tiny and slowly-emerging influence on climate, the question arises, “Why have Western governments continued to spend. so much time and treasure trying to mitigate (rather than adapt to) climate change? To try to answer that question it is necessary to consider organisational issues at national and international levels.
ORGANISATIONAL ISSUES
As noted above, governments have created armies of climate scientists and civil servants to address anthropogenic-driven climate change which seems to be, at worst, but a small and slowly emerging threat, or indeed a benefit when increased greening from CO2 fertilisation is included [Ref. 6]. In a dangerous but rational world such small threats/definite benefits would be relegated to ‘watching brief’ status in the nation’s risk register.
However, what is to be done with the aforementioned standing army of scientists and functionaries who, not wanting to lose their jobs [Refs. 7 and 8], argue for continued hyper-vigilance via the Precautionary Principle? Is there any mechanism to move them onto study more serious and more imminent threats? Well, without civil service etc. reform [Note 2] it appears, as reported by Endress [Ref. 9], that such change may be very difficult to achieve, “A particularly powerful type of rent-seeking coalition … is termed “the iron triangle” because of the strength of the collaborative relationships among a triad of actors: politicians … government bureaucrats … and private sector interest groups … The iron triangle is durable and impenetrable because it functions as a highly efficient, three-cornered, rent-seeking machine.” Endress continued with a prescient warning for our own days, “Nowhere (except perhaps in health care) do third-best politics sink … best economic considerations as deeply as in the realm of energy policy.”
To illustrate briefly how scientists supporting the government’s alarmist warming case have contributed to iron triangle behaviour, it is helpful to understand the principles of best scientific practice. These were set out decades ago by Merton [Ref. 10], of which the following two are relevant for present considerations:-
“disinterestedness: scientific institutions act for the benefit of a common scientific enterprise, rather than for specific outcomes …”
“organized skepticism: scientific claims should be exposed to critical scrutiny before being accepted: both in methodology and institutional codes of conduct.”
Read a couple of comments [Ref. 11] by climate scientist prof. Phil Jones and consider whether they are consistent with best practice:-
(i) “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is!”
(ii) “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
For those wishing to pursue the many breaches of best scientific practice within the climate science community [Refs. 12 and 13], though slightly dated, may be useful. These breaches are highly important because they have helped to steer and distort government climate and energy policy over decades. The broader issue of separating climate politics from alarmism is addressed by prof. Mike Hulme in [Ref. 14].
Among the organisational failures arising from an energy policy that has been driven by climate alarmism are the omission of adequate risk and cost-benefit analyses justifying the rapid roll out of modern renewables rather than a considered, staged deployment starting with a variety of pilot projects. This failure has led to huge costs to be covered by tax- and energy bill-payers. Perhaps this failure is due in part to policy capture by activists, or as prof. Lindzen puts it, “To say that climate change will be catastrophic hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions that do not emerge from empirical science.” [Ref. 15].
A further misdirection by the Establishment is to rely on the concept of ‘consensus’ within a highly contested scientific debate about a highly complex multifactorial topic such as climate [Note 3]. In a different context Albert Einstein had to deal with this issue about a century ago; my computer gave this AI overview of his situation, “When a book was published titled ‘One Hundred Authors Against Einstein’ to disprove his theory of relativity, he famously retorted, “Why one hundred? If I were wrong, one would have been enough!”. Einstein’s response highlighted the scientific principle that a single, valid contradictory fact is enough to disprove a theory, rather than the need for a collective opinion.”
With all the distortions noted above it is perhaps unsurprising that Western governments (which, following World War 2, had invested so much political capital in the United Nations Organisation) have promoted the series of COP (Conferences of the Parties) as a vehicle for their ‘war’ on anthropogenic CO2. The COP of late 2009 in Copenhagen marked a watershed moment in the COP series; it was then and there that the West’s governments, notably Europe’s governments, failed to persuade the rest of the world to adopt an enforceable framework for CO2 reduction. As Rupert Darwall [Ref. 16] put it, “Now the Europeans were not only isolated. They had been crushed. For them, climate change was an existential issue. There could be no more important business than saving the planet … There was just enough in the Accord to keep the whole negotiating process going indefinitely and provide cover for European governments to continue with their global warming policies. Everything could go on much as before.” And so, some 16 years later, it still continues much as before i.e. with all the baked in errors of science, organisation and resultant policy.
CONCLUSIONS
I have attempted to show that climate and energy policy has been distorted due to significant scientific and organisational errors such that, although the Establishment (currently) enjoys numerical superiority over the sceptics, it does not enjoy superiority in the quality of its arguments – far from it! This asymmetry reveals itself also in public behaviour with the Establishment denigrating non-believers in the most derogatory terms; such denigration is not, I argue, warranted given the poor quality of the Establishment’s methodologies. Indeed, much needs to be done to set the Establishment’s house in order and thereby set the West (and notably the Europeans) back on the path to (i) reliable and affordable energy, (ii) much improved democratic governance, and (iii) scientific rectitude.
Finally, it may be appropriate to quote Einstein again [Ref 17], “The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance.” If the great man were alive today I wonder whether he would have anything to say about the combination of arrogance and wilful ignorance. They seem, from my perspective, to have been exceedingly destructive for the West in recent decades.
NOTES.
REFERENCES
Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Bid for referendum on net zero policy rejected”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgrkyv8vpxo
Politicians have rejected a bid to hold a referendum on the future of the Isle of Man’s net zero policy.
MHK Stu Peters had called for the vote on whether the government should continue its commitment to reaching the carbon emissions target by 2050, arguing it would “gauge the appetite” of people on its “eye-watering costs”.
However, Tynwald members instead backed an amendment that stated the 2026 general election would allow an opportunity for all matters – including net zero – “to be democratically considered.“
That was put forward by Environment, Food and Agriculture Minister Clare Barber, who said that candidates would be able to set out their views on climate change during the campaign…..
dfhunter, do you know if voters next year will be given a serious option by candidates of voting against net zero?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Mark – to be honest this is the 1st time I’ve heard about this, so thanks for flagging it up.
As for “would allow an opportunity for all matters – including net zero – “to be democratically considered.“. If “Environment, Food and Agriculture Minister Clare Barber” stated this as quoted, then it should be option for IOM voters to vote yes/no/undecided for net zero. The sad truth is I bet yes + undecided will be enough to carry the day for NZ.
Partial quotes from your BBC link give a taste of the muddled thinking for NZ –
“However, John Wannenburgh MHK said politicians were “duty-bound” to reduce the amount of money on an annual basis spent off-island on fossil fuels, which had a price which “we have no control over”, by using renewables. He argued a referendum risked delaying progress and “oversimplifying the scale of the challenge”
MLC Gary Clueit warned the “language that would dominate a referendum campaign” would be that of “conspiracy”, and “not evidence, not economics, not energy security.”
LikeLike
dfhunter,
Those last two quotes are truly shocking. They pre-judge the issue and assume that the Manx electorate are incapable of judging the issues for themselves. If that’s the case, why bother with elections?
LikeLike