Some sceptics (including YT) see Net Zero as a colossal folly, tantamount to national suicide for the UK. Its premise (the “climate crisis”) is without foundation, and worse, UK Net Zero would not answer any crisis without substantial buy-in from a large proportion of the world’s countries, which only the naïve believe will transpire. Whether the buy-in happens or not, the project will drive down living standards, freedom, trash the environment, etc. So much so obvious.
Sceptics have been taking a licking for years. Few seem to publicly agree with the above diagnosis; support for Net Zero is vocal and allegedly widespread – even if a few cracks have appeared in the last two weeks thanks to the catalyst of the unpopular extension to London’s ULEZ. We in the UK are nominally still on track for Net Zero, even if, as I believe, it will never happen: each incremental step towards Net Zero will be harder than the previous, ensuring its eventual abandonment. It would be preferable if the project was abandoned sooner rather than later; before the lights go out, and before we slide down the greasy pole of civilisation too far.
I got to wondering how supporters of Net Zero could be persuaded to change their minds. And so I fell down a rabbit hole. What induces people to support Net Zero? Do people who support Net Zero all believe that it will solve the “climate crisis”? They can’t be that naïve, surely? Perhaps they support it for other reasons – seeing the UK as bearing a standard that other countries will rally behind? Maybe there are people who claim to support Net Zero, because they don’t dare to openly oppose it?
In the table that follows, I have tried to tabulate the categories of people who support (and oppose) Net Zero. After a lot of head scratching I came up with 6 groups differing in their reasons for supporting Net Zero, together with 5 groups with differing reasons for opposing it. Where I have been able to think of data that might change the thinking within the supportive groups, I’ve added it. Some groups are probably null sets, i.e. no-one believes the combination of propositions as set out, but they are included for completeness.
Please alert me in comments if the sets are logically incoherent.
There are a number of obvious flaws in the classification. The first and most obvious is that the large rump of humanity are in a category we might describe as “shrug.” The second is that the classification largely supposes that people derive their opinions by rational means (cf. Andy’s analysis of cultural forces).
With that preamble, here it is:
| Support | Believe there is a climate crisis | Believe that UKNZ will solve the climate crisis | Hopelessly naïve optimist, you are unaware of UK’s tiny role in CO2 emissions [Group A] | |
| Do not believe that UKNZ will solve the climate crisis | Believe that UK leadership on NZ -> global action -> solve climate crisis | Aware that UKNZ will not by itself solve the climate crisis, you believe that the UK showing moral leadership will result in sufficient other countries joining us that the problem will be solved [Group B] | ||
| Believe UKNZ offers substantial co-benefits | A realist about the prospect of many other countries joining us on the NZ path, you believe there are sufficient co-benefits (green jobs, reduced air pollution, cheap electricity, etc) to make NZ a worthwhile policy [Group C] | |||
| Do not believe there is a climate crisis | Believe UKNZ offers substantial co-benefits | You believe the cost of UKNZ is more than offset by green jobs, reduced air pollution, cheap electricity, etc [Group D] | ||
| Afraid of being “othered” | You recognise that UKNZ will be damaging to the country, but knowing which way the wind is blowing, you are understandably afraid to admit it publicly. [Group E] | |||
| Stand to gain from UKNZ policies / lose out if it is cancelled | You may be particularly selfish and hold shares in renewable companies, or work for an environmental charity, or depend on climate alarm for renewal of research grants, etc [Group F] | |||
| Oppose | Believe there is a climate crisis | Believe that UKNZ will solve the climate crisis | Believe that the costs of UKNZ will outweigh the benefits {Null set?} | An individual in this set would have to simultaneously believe that UKNZ would by itself solve the climate crisis, and that it would be so destructive as to not make it worthwhile [Group G] |
| Stand to gain from laissez-faire situation {Null set?} | An individual in this set would have to be particularly selfish, e.g. holding large investments in fossil fuel industries, and willing to oppose UKNZ for that reason even though believing it would work [Group H] | |||
| Do not believe that UKNZ will solve the climate crisis | By implication, do not believe that UK leadership on NZ -> global action -> solve climate crisis | You believe that there is a climate crisis, but that committing the UK to NZ without substantial numbers of countries joining us would be irrational, and do not believe that our example will be widely followed; UKNZ on its own would have no effect [Group I] | ||
| Do not believe there is a climate crisis | Believe that the costs of UKNZ will outweigh the benefits | Believe that UKNZ will reduce standards of living in the UK, and / or damage the environment [Group J] | ||
| Stand to gain from laissez-faire situation | Believe that UKNZ offers substantial co-benefits that outweigh its cost, but own fossil-fuel related investments [Group K] |
Supporters of UK Net Zero
Group A
This group comprises what we may call naïve optimists. They believe there is a climate crisis, and that UK Net Zero alone will solve, or at least substantially address, the climate crisis. In my view, most of this group have not thought deeply about the topic, so that their beliefs are shallow, formed by propaganda/indoctrination; their role models support the project, and they agree with people they like/idolise. Their support for Net Zero may be purely instinctive, and they consider the question to be a moral one; they know which side the angels are on.
This group have a limited understanding of the matter, but the coupling of the climate crisis as a moral question with black and white thinking in terms of solutions probably makes their support for UK Net Zero strong. They are likely to react to challenges emotionally, so it will be difficult to change their minds.
There is the potential to persuade this group that unilateral action by the UK is pointless, moving them into Group B. (For example, by pointing out the UK’s tiny contribution to CO2 emissions.)
Group B
Catastrophists about climate change/rational optimists about Net Zero. Believe in the climate crisis, and are sufficiently sensible to realise that UK Net Zero will not on its own make the difference. But this group reasons that where the UK leads, other countries will follow, and that the pain of going first will ultimately be worth it. Sufficient countries will follow our lead that the crisis will be averted; we may gain first mover’s advantage.
This group may be persuaded that other countries (in particular, China) will not join hands with us on this. If so their support for UK Net Zero may become conditional on a more hard-nosed approach by our negotiators, thus moving them into Group I.
Group C
Believers in the climate crisis, this group does not believe that UK Net Zero will solve the problem, nor that enough countries will join us to overcome the freeloader problem, but think that it will offer sufficient co-benefits to make it worthwhile. These might be cleaner air, cheaper energy, or green jobs.
Because jobs in “clean” energy are a net cost absent substantial exports, this seems a naïve position. Group C is also vulnerable to data showing that renewable energy is not cheaper than fossil fuelled energy, that there are significant pollution issues for EVs, etc. (Thus moving them into Group I.)
Group D
This group does not think there is a climate crisis, but believes that UK Net Zero offers sufficient co-benefits to make it worthwhile (cf. Group C). Data showing that, e.g., renewable energy is expensive could see members of this group moving into Group J.
Group E
This group does not think there is a climate crisis, and believes that UK Net Zero will cause net harm. They are unwilling to state this position for fear of being “othered”.
Members of this group are probably willing to shift from support of, to opposition to, UK net zero, if the wind starts to blow that way (moving to Group J). As long as it is principally a moral question, and that supporting UK net zero = good, they will continue to pretend support.
Group F
Like Group E, this group does not think there is a climate crisis, and believes that UK Net Zero will cause net harm. Their support for UK net zero is selfish, because the climate crisis/Net Zero project offers benefits to them personally (via investments, employment, research opportunities, etc).
As long as inferior products are subsidised/mandated because of UK Net Zero policies, as long as research will only be funded if it has “climate” in the grant proposal title, as long as environmental charities maintain their focus in this direction in preference to addressing the problems they were created to answer, this group will thrive. But their support for Net Zero is shallow.
Opposers
Group G
A null set included for completeness. The logic here seems incoherent (to believe in a climate crisis and that UK Net Zero will defeat it, but to oppose the solution because of excessive costs).
Group H
Likewise probably a null set; believe in the climate crisis, and that UK Net Zero can fix it, but oppose Net Zero for selfish reasons (e.g. a family fortune tied up in fossil fuels).
Group I
This group believe in the climate crisis, but are realists about the ability of UK Net Zero to do anything about it, and sceptical that enough countries will join us to make our sacrifice worthwhile.
Group J
This group are what you could call rational sceptics. They do not believe there is a climate crisis – there may be climate change, and it may be human-caused – and they think that the medicine is worse than the disease, i.e. that the benefits of UK Net Zero will be outweighed by the damage it causes, to freedom, wealth and/or the environment.
Group K
This group do not believe there is a climate crisis. They think that UK Net Zero will have substantial co-benefits to outweigh or at least balance its costs, but oppose for selfish reasons (fossil-fuel investments, a love of V8s, etc). Presumably a small group.
MPs
MPs have a more complex classification, because in addition to all of the above, their support or opposition to Net Zero may be influenced by (a) what they believe their constituents want and (b) what their party’s policy is.
Conclusion
I set out this classification in an attempt to clarify my own understanding, but I have been left as confused as I began, I think. I place it here in case it provokes a thought or two in Cliscep readers.
Climate Scepticism 
Jit,
Thank you for raising and addressing the need to start a taxonomy of the underlying spectrum of support that makes climate extremism such a powerfully destructive force. I like that you acknowledge one of the important pillars: money. While completely parasitic, the climate exremists do have a vast, unproductive faux economy to reward those who at least bend the knee.
I think a category that recognizes and tries to explain the mindless nihilism of the JSO and ER could be useful.
Category J is the sweet spot. Thank you for listing it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jit,
An interesting analysis. Inevitably I think, as do you by the looks of things, that there are probably more categories of net zero supporters than opponents. Realistically I think most opponents fall into category J – rational sceptics. Certainly that’s where I stand.
It’s important to appreciate that many supporters of net zero are also rational. They, like us, have assessed the evidence, but arrived at different conclusions. Presumably their rationality means that their minds can be changed.
As for MPs, I suspect noises from their constituents and an impending election may be all it takes to change quite a lot of minds.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think there may be a further category, a set of entryists who haven’t thought particularly deeply about the climate ‘crisis’ or how it might be fixed, but simply view Net Zero as a useful weapon to promote their aim of undermining capitalism. As was said about green ‘watermelons’ more generally: “They don’t really care about the environment: they pretend to care, because you care”.
LikeLike
JIT as I’m sure you would acknowledge diagrams like yours have sharply defined boundaries whereas such divisions ought to be more diffuse or porous. The main division for example, at first sight, seems to be between those that believe there is a climate crisis and those that don’t. But what about people like myself who mostly believe that there will be no crisis, but have some lingering doubts and so fall along the major division in your diagram?
With respect to the divisions between support or opposition to net zero in terms of its potential effectiveness I have no doubts over which box I fit into, but it occurs to me that regardless of someone’s belief in a future climate crisis, one’s support for net zero might not only vary significantly but their degree of support for it might also be tenuous or flaccid (and so the rigid compartmentalism of your diagram is again erroneous).
Despite my criticisms I believe you have done everyone (supporter or objector) a great service by untangling the complexities of the net zero debate. I am much reminded of John’s treatment of FLICC last year which I was also very appreciative of.
LikeLiked by 2 people
What about those who know it is a total hoax from the malign Globalists such as Christiana Figueres, with the express intention of destroying Western capitalism and implementing the UN Population Replacement Migration Project?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m proud to be a member of Group J.
LikeLike
Group J is the best. It would be, naturally! It’s probably the only group to be in if you want to be remembered fondly by history.
JJ
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jit,
You do realise, of course, that, according to the approved narrative, the two groups that you expect to be pretty empty (H and K) are actually full of climate deniers who know full damn well that we are doomed to climate catastrophe but who are lying through their teeth for the benefit of Big Oil, or just to selfishly hang on to their lifestyles. Meanwhile, Group J is empty because it presupposes an ability to think critically, and if we sceptics could do that, then we wouldn’t be such filthy climate deniers. Cue John Cook.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well, I’m in group [M]. Don’t believe there is a climate crisis and believe that the UKNZ will collapse due to its internal inconsistencies before it does too much damage to the majority of people.
LikeLike
I’m with J,
all the way.
LikeLike
Alan, the point is taken about the grey areas. People are quite complex, and I am usually to be found complaining about black and white thinking – for example regarding ECS where there is a range of possible values, but policy assumes the only possible respectable answer is catastrophe. In this case the categories are rather too concrete but I hoped they would clarify my thinking.
Quentin/Cat, I don’t like to question people’s motives generally. Yes, we do see that claiming there is a “climate crisis” can benefit certain groups or individuals, and reaching for the “climate crisis” as a handy excuse when anything bad happens is rife (cf. the Greek wildfires). My question then is do the likes of Guterres believe there is a “climate crisis”? I have to say yes.
There seems to be some allegiance to group J here. My next question: to what extent is the sceptic’s belief in his or her own rationality an objectively supportable fact? Because I have no doubt that our alarmist friends who have thought deeply on the topic believe that they have reached their conclusions on valid grounds. We can’t both be right.
LikeLike
Jit,
Being human of course, we all like to think that we personally have, if not exactly an unassailable monopoly on clear, rational thinking, at least a very substantial shareholding in that particular enterprise. It’s the other side who are nuts, of course. You define Group J as follows:
“This group are what you could call rational sceptics. They do not believe there is a climate crisis – there may be climate change, and it may be human-caused – and they think that the medicine is worse than the disease, i.e. that the benefits of UK Net Zero will be outweighed by the damage it causes, to freedom, wealth and/or the environment.”
Cold, hard data, facts, observations and testable science are the ultimate arbiters of who can claim to be rational, not our inevitable personal biases and feelings. In that respect, the weight of the evidence (real evidence, demonstrable evidence) is stacking up firmly in favour of there NOT being a ‘climate crisis’ (at least, not one which is caused by anthropogenic GHGs) and of the demonstrable and real environmental, economic and social harms of Net Zero vastly outweighing any theoretical (currently not demonstrable) benefits.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“My question then is do the likes of Guterres believe there is a “climate crisis”? I have to say yes.”
And yet Christiana Figures (Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 2010-2016) has flat out denied that the the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
Hmmm…..
LikeLike
“The second is that the classification largely supposes that people derive their opinions by rational means (cf. Andy’s analysis of cultural forces).”
Indeed. So while your great analysis is useful for the very small number of people who do, it is inappropriate for the big majority of publics across the world whose opinions don’t stem from rationality. And we don’t really have to speculate about what these big majorities think, because they tell us in many different surveys about climate change and associated policy, so we can use data instead, which indeed confirms that their attitudes must stem from cultural mechanisms (and for instance vary dramatically per nation according to national religiosity – a purely cultural phenomenon – and also vary dramatically depending on whether the question was unconstrained or reality-constrained – another classic signature of cultural attitudes). Many independent surveys all fit the same pattern, they are extremely stable.
As Geoff of this parish has pointed out, for a lot of people we can’t even say whether they are really believers or sceptics, because the cultural (so effectively, emotional) nature of their responses means that they appear to be believers in some circumstances and disbelievers in others (‘innate scepticism’ is also a cultural mechanism). If you look at Figure 5 in my book (basic responses), or Figure 8 (full set of climate-change most-endorsing responses), this shows the unintuitive response patterns (there’s a free PDF at the GWPF site for the book).
Unfortunately, policy also does not appear to track those few who may at least be attempting objectivity. We can use actual data for this too, measuring the downstream result of policies, such as the commitment per nation to renewables or EVs, and these also follow a cultural pattern that tracks the (reality-constrained) public attitudes, rather than aligning to say the climate or climate exposure of nations, or technology factors or indeed anything rational.
BTW, my interview in the excellent Tom Nelson podcast series, in which he quizzes me on aspects of my book, came out a couple of days back on YouTube (also other media access types to follow soon). This may be useful for folks who want to get the gist, but may be daunted be tackling a work that is necessarily an academic (and large) one, rather than a popular science format.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Catweazle: “And yet Christiana Figures (Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 2010-2016) has flat out denied that the the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.”
I think that’s because she’s more inside a communist, or at least anti-capitalist belief system, than she is in the climate catastrophist belief system; but a thing with belief systems is that they can very easily form alliances with others that happen to usefully coincide with their emotive narratives – its no doubt very easy for Figures to belief that evil capitalism caused catastrophic climate change anyhow, yet to her personally bringing down the former not the latter remains the primary goal, but will usefully kill two birds with one stone. My book briefly covers ‘agenda incorporation’ narrative variants in Chapter 5.
LikeLiked by 1 person
P.S. the link for ‘The Grip of Culture’ at the GWPF (pointing to free PDF and also Amazon for paperbacks) is:
https://www.thegwpf.org/publications/culture/
LikeLike
Jaime, of course you are right about cold, hard data, whether or not that is yet sufficient to describe (and predict) the climate system; if not, the logical response is ‘withheld judgement’, and meanwhile *not* believing in emotive memes of global catastrophe that have a clear cultural origin, and which disagree with both the sceptical and mainstream science stances anyhow.
“It’s the other side who are nuts, of course”
But, unfortunately, the situation is far, far worse than some people being nuts. As a % of the population very few people indeed are truly ‘nuts’. The reason that this is such a giant phenomenon and so hard to resist, or indeed even have rational discourse in its presence much of the time, is that the behaviour of believers (and indeed the largely innately not rationally sceptical public feeling), is absolutely bog-standard normal for humans, and has occurred throughout history and indeed from our evolutionary past. Belief systems are really really hard to combat.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Andy – We all like to think of ourselves as rational beings. Even if we recognise that culture is in some way determining our beliefs, we use that recognition itself to tell ourselves that we are in fact rational, having an objective view of things by understanding ourselves. Maybe that is a conceit that we have, because recognising irrationality in other spheres does not automatically cure it. For example, if I recognize that I have an irrational fear of the dentist, that does not cure me of that fear.
However, it seems to me that if you found someone whose opinion about climate change was entirely cultural, and engaged them in conversation about the topic, you would discover an implicit set of beliefs which would then have to be justified rationally.
I might believe that the Spitfire was the best fighter plane of the war for cultural reasons, but if you asked me why, I would have to find rational arguments to back up my claim – “I’m British” is no answer.
The fact is that most people do not think deeply about climate change. Eventually I suppose the conversation will move on to the more concrete effects of policies like Net Zero; the question is, how long can our politicians keep gaslighting us about the negative consequences?
I have not yet read your book, but will certainly do so!
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I have not yet read your book, but will certainly do so!”
Thanks Jit!
“However, it seems to me that if you found someone whose opinion about climate change was entirely cultural, and engaged them in conversation about the topic, you would discover an implicit set of beliefs which would then have to be justified rationally.”
Unfortunately, this is not so. While some fig-leaf or better justifications may be deployed insomuch as they can be, and according to the level of knowledge the individual has, overall the whole point of cultural belief is that it completely *bypasses* rationality. So it literally blinds adherents to inconvenient truths, and illuminates fairy-story narratives as blindingly obvious truths. This is why so many people think believers are lying, their views can seem radically hypocritical, but they aren’t lying they are simply believing, which is a far, far more potent force than lying, and can link literally billions of people in a subconscious consensus.
“The fact is that most people do not think deeply about climate change.”
Indeed this is the case, which would seem to give emotive cultural belief an easy run for its money. But interestingly, Dan Kahan has shown that where cultural believers are more knowledgeable and cognitively capable, they show *more* cultural belief, not less. This is because belief is upstream of rationality, and directs intelligence to promote the culture in any way possible, and people who are more intelligent and knowledgeable (bearing in mind that the culture has restricted *what* knowledge is accessible), are better able to execute this task.
“Eventually I suppose the conversation will move on to the more concrete effects of policies like Net Zero; the question is, how long can our politicians keep gaslighting us about the negative consequences?”
I guess it already has to some extent. And cultures do yield to reality. However, they only yield to the minimum extent they can get away with, which may mean enough to keep the lights on, but not enough to release most of the adherents from its grip.
LikeLike