The Energy Security and Net Zero select committee has a new report out,

Zero sum game: How the UK can reframe the energy transition

The second line of the summary is,

The political consensus that enabled the UK to be a world leader in tackling climate change and transitioning to clean energy has broken down.

This was a political consensus that seems to have been the result of calculated triangulation that measured the popularity of an idea rather than its feasibility. The Tories probably thought that by standing where the centre was, they would win votes from the other lot, push them left. They thought they could depend on their base as well. That was the only reason that the Net Zero consensus persisted as long as it did.

Well, they blew that. Last time around, they stood in the centre and lost to a less unpopular party which pretended for the while to also stand in the centre. And they lost from their base those who had finally given up on them. As we know, the first thing the blue team “discovered” upon their unceremonious defenestration was that UK Net Zero was also UK self-destruction. The consensus, for so long their true north, actually pointed to a long road of decline ending in either a dry corpse falling into a ditch…

…or the first step back whence we had come.

The road to hell was flanked by signs like:

Net Zero is the growth opportunity of the twenty-first century

The Tories are now ready to at least apply the brakes. But the country is in the charge of those who form a majority on the ESNZ committee. Their preferred explanation for the new schism is the “gas price shock,” whose effects resulted in “scapegoating of the transition.”

I have to note that the gas price shock pre-dates the crumbling of the consensus by two years. The end was just a matter of when: the consensus was held together by moral posturing, not because it was the right answer to a difficult question. It was impossible to oppose Net Zero, because to say it was a mistake brought a stink and a stain upon the sayer, resulting in them being cast out, banished. Only the old, or those with no standing to lose, or a brave, principled and foolhardy few could offer token resistance to the madness.

The madness defined itself as good, and by the nature of things, everyone who stood in its path was therefore evil. So if MPs had doubts, they smiled blandly and said nothing – with a few honourable exceptions. They didn’t take it as seriously as they ought to have done. If you accede to the madness of Net Zero, you have to say no to anything of any actual use you might want to do for your country. Such is the appetite of Net Zero that, like dry rot, it has turned the timbers of the UK to powder.

Net Zero has nothing to do with tackling climate change. Climate change may have been the impetus for the Climate Change Act, but as Mark has pointed out in these pages, it was acknowledged at the time that unilateral action was pointless. But after the debacle of Copenhagen, that was all that was left. Then in 2019 we offered what we offered without conditions, in the hopes that others would follow.

Emissions cuts from the UK are not enough to dent the global total, which continues to rise. And as I am fond of saying, and I think a few more people than before are noticing, the rule applies only to territorial emissions. It means we can reduce our emissions by outsourcing manufacturing and importing the goods we used to build here. So, when a factory closed, it took us a little further down the road to Net Zero, the road to hell. The jobs lost were a parochial concern, and parochial concerns cannot be a justification to halt progress.

It would have been better, and may even have had a slight relevance to the climate, if in 2019 Theresa May had simply amended the 80% territorial target to 80% consumption instead of 100% territorial, “Net Zero.” It would have been better because the pain would have been severe straight away, and the threshold for general opposition, the cracking of the consensus, would have been reached sooner: remember, this could only happen when necessity overcame the inevitable moral stain that came with speaking up.

Net Zero may have been raised to “tackle climate change,” but a child could understand that it never had a chance of doing that. For we can just keep importing things we can no longer make. It can almost be as if nothing has changed, for a time. The lights go on, and the supermarket shelves are stocked. We can just keep importing things we can’t make any more until we run out of money. (We’ve already run out of money. But our good standing means we can get a new credit card every month, and use the advance to pay the minimum repayment on the other 150.)

According to the Committee, the term “Net Zero” has become toxic.

Well, no. The term is not the problem. The problem is the insane law that mandates it, a law that is insane now and always has been:

  1. As a unilateral action, it can have no effect on climate even under the most alarmist of scenarios.
  2. As a territorial action, we can pretend to be virtuous for a time with little pain, while exporting our emissions and continuing as before.

Territorial Net Zero is Net Zero Lite. But there is still pain. The effort to tie up our bit of the problem – the territorial emissions that we cannot export away – is eroding our way of life. Because the easy stuff gets cut first, escalating pain has to be applied to cut the rest. It means a vast and dilute network of intermittent electricity leading to ruined landscapes, damaged ecology and expensive energy. Expensive energy leading to self-imposed rationing.

We are now far enough down the road to hell that, looking over our shoulders, we see a life that was better. For the first time in Britain’s history we have not just lost prosperity, we have chosen to give it up. Just as every parent looked forward to a better life for their child… they now look forward to bequeathing them a country that is worse. And not worse because of climate change: worse because of the insane medicine we took to cure it. We see in the distance behind us better things that we have thrown away deliberately, not had wrested from us by an adversary.

Then we turn our backs on the past and trudge on.

The next freshly-stuck billboard we pass has a slogan that reads,

Remember the wider benefits of the energy transition

They say it’s about the messaging, but it isn’t. A bleak vista surrounds us: what is the messaging supposed to say? That others see differently, see lambs gambolling on a hillside of spring grass?

The messaging that the Committee says we need connects “the energy transition” – no longer Net Zero, that phrase has been struck out by the censor’s pen – with benefits such as,

Lower bills,

Warmer homes,

Jobs and career opportunities for young people,

Energy security,

And health improvements.

That’s all great, but these things are all features of the world we are deliberately abandoning, not features of the Net Zero world we are travelling to, if we don’t just throw ourselves into the ditch before we get there.

The Committee says that the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero should drop Net Zero from its name. I concur. They should drop it from their remit, too.

Calling this journey the road to hell may be overly dramatic. The road to hell is long, and life is still good. That we can see cracks appearing, and can point to individual instances of decline, is something that has always been. In generalising from the specific, I am engaging in just the sort of thing that happens when the localised destruction of a weather event is generalised to the global destruction of climate change. So there should always be a questioning voice: can it really be that bad? I’ve already said that we can partly sidestep Net Zero by exporting emissions, after all. That will still be the case when the new Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism comes in. And ultimately, fossil fuels will run out either way. Net Zero may shorten the journey, but the destination is the same. Is it hell, regardless? If so, human civilisation is kaput everywhere, not just here.

In the absence of Net Zero, the future history of dwindling hydrocarbons plays out quite differently, I think. In any case, in the absence of Net Zero, our own reckoning with the final hydrocarbon drought comes much later. A hundred years later? Time in which the cost of hydrocarbons rises, and this incentivises alternatives. Renewables have never been these alternatives, nor can they ever be. If history is a guide, then the new energy will be more dense than the old, which, superseded, will never run out. If the new energy is less dense, then the foundation of civilisation is cracked from side to side.

Towards the end of their summary, the Committee says:

We are concerned at the increasing use of “credibility laundering” of internet myths relating to the energy transition. We would like to see social media platforms encouraged or mandated to emphasise credible information sources over those working to engender outrage and misinformation.

I had to look up what “credibility laundering” means. It means to demonstrate virtue publicly, to deflect attention from more sinister realities. I do not know who the Committee accuses of this. I do know that the charge of “credibility laundering” finds an exemplar in the Committee itself, whose pursuit of virtue has seemingly blinded it to physical realities.

The consensus has broken. The pain is now such that the moral cost of opposition to Net Zero has dwindled by comparison. So the dogged virtue hunters fear they are losing the debate. Their solution, freshly stuck to the next billboard on the road to hell is the slogan,

SILENCE

==

Apologies for this slightly incoherent rant. I was working out my thinking as I went on Sunday evening, and suffering from the first virus of autumn. I would appreciate it if, in comments, anyone has a better explanation for Net Zero than a triumph of virtue-signalling over good sense.

==

The last two recommendations of the Committee:


The Committee’s report.


David Turver on the report.

Tags: , , , ,

20 Comments

  1. Outstanding Jit: a rant maybe, but incoherent decidedly not. Thank you.

    Like

  2. I believe Net Zero has nothing to do with virtue signalling and I agree it has nothing to do with saving the planet. Our Uniparty political leaders simply cannot be so thick as to not realise that Net Zero is wrecking the economy to no useful purpose. I believe that Net Zero is just one of various desperate ploys by the British deep state to impose totalitarian, coercive one-world governance on the populace via their compliant Uniparty puppets.

    Fortunately the deep state now has no chance of achieving that malign goal thanks to the US Trump administration, except that it has still to accept that reality.

    Here’s a mini-essay comment on that theme I posted 6 months ago under a David Turver post.

    Here’s a short comment on that theme I made recently on the origin, unachievability and nefarious purpose of Net Zero under a Paul Homewood post.

    Like

  3. Seconded, Robin. The two paragraphs from the Report, highlighted at the end of Jit’s piece, are terrifying. That a report full of misinformation seeks to clamp down on accurate criticism, by labelling it as misinformation, and seeks to extend still further Ofcom’s powers in this regard, beggars belief. Featuring George Orwell as the backdrop to the article is sadly all too apposite.

    As for this:

    Climate change may have been the impetus for the Climate Change Act, but as Mark has pointed out in these pages, it was acknowledged at the time that unilateral action was pointless. 

    I point it out regularly, because it bears repetition, but this is where I made the point most forcefully:

    https://cliscep.com/2023/05/05/read-it-and-weep/

    By the way, I was unaware of the implications of the Impact Assessment to the Climate Change Act until Robin drew the relevant paragraphs to my attention – full credit goes to Robin, not to me.

    Finally:

     I would appreciate it if, in comments, anyone has a better explanation for Net Zero than a triumph of virtue-signalling over good sense.

    Nope. It makes no sense at all. An energy transition, over the long haul, will be necessary, but the establishment chose to rush to the wrong solution. This has had many negative consequences – job losses; export of jobs, money, industry and emissions to countries with lower environmental (and often lower human rights) standards; higher bills; reduced energy security; less reliable energy; massive constraints payments, as the government now rushes to mess up the solution to the problem caused by rushing to net zero, namely building renewable energy structures in remote locations before ensuring the connections were in place; environmental destruction; and so on ad nauseam. It never did make sense. That was obvious from the start to anyone prepared to think about it. It’s increasingly obvious now even to those who are hard of thinking – the evidence is all around us. Why does much of the establishment continue to cling desperately to the wreckage? Is it because they simply can’t acknowledge that they got it terribly wrong? Do they fear the anger of the masses if they admit it has all been in vain (and worse than in vain,because of the damage caused)? Does the Labour Party fear that the voters will cast it into the outer wilderness for decades once the madness has been acknowledged? Thus they can’t acknowledge it. I don’t know. But I do know that throughout history society has done crazy things, and history shows that they were crazy. History will show that of Net Zero too.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Mark, you ask whether the Labour Party fears that the voters would cast it into the outer wilderness for decades once the madness has been acknowledged. Perhaps it does, but the Conservative Party is at least as responsible as Labour for the madness – arguably more so – yet it seems willing to face up to and introduce changes that would in effect get rid of it.

    Like

  6. Robin,

    Oh yes, the Tories are fully culpable. But at least they (some of them, anyway, including most relevantly their current leader) are showing signs of repentance. Labour, by contrast, is doubling down on the madness. And madness it is. The evidence just keeps mounting:

    “Hundreds of jobs under threat at Grangemouth chemical plant”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9n747kgx6evo

    Like

  7. Wonder if we forget the “Hockey stick & Greta” effect on how we go here.

    Seems to me UK ministers past & present are determined to leave a legacy policy that appeals to the UN (Guterres), thinking about the next lucrative career move. Or are they all stupid?

    PS – great rundown of stupid by Jit & the end quotes tells you everything you need to know about this “select committee” of “yes” morons.

    Like

  8. Do you remember when we had snowball earth or when there was no snow at the poles, and sea level was 200′ higher? Me neither. Do you remember Camelot when-

    The rain may never fall till after sundown
    By eight, the morning fog must disappear
    In short, there’s simply not a more congenial spot
    For happy-ever-after-ing than here in Camelot

    What do we do now?

    Doug Allen

    Like

  9. “US pressures Europe to release diesel reserves as Trump threatens export ban”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5zjzjgdeneeo

    …Over half of the UK’s diesel is imported, with 31% of the imports coming from the US….

    Meanwhile, Kathryn Porter is also commenting on the diesel issue:

    https://watt-logic.com/2026/10/01/us-diesel-export-ban/

    …The UK’s dependence on imported diesel has risen significantly as domestic refining capacity has fallen. Fuels Industry UK says the UK now imports about 55% of the road diesel it consumes, compared with just 14% in 2003, while the US supplied 31% of UK diesel imports in 2025 and was the largest individual supplier to the UK. On that basis, American diesel directly accounted for roughly 17% of UK road-diesel consumption – about one litre in every six.

    This dependence has increased as Britain’s refinery fleet has shrunk: the closure of Grangemouth and Lindsey in 2025 removed almost a quarter of the country’s remaining refining capacity, leaving only Fawley, Humber, Pembroke and Stanlow operating. The UK is therefore far more exposed to disruption in international product markets than it was twenty years ago. The timing of the proposed US diesel export ban is particularly poor for the UK as Fawley, the country’s largest refinery, has just begun a turnaround (major maintenance outage) which will continue until December.

    A US diesel export ban would remove around 1.5 million barrels per day (bbl /day) of diesel from the global market, forcing buyers to compete for diesel produced elsewhere. Europe is particularly vulnerable because it has lost much of its former Russian supply while Middle Eastern availability has collapsed due to the war with Iran. Middle Eastern diesel exports to Europe fell to around 110,000 bbl /day in September, their lowest level since 2020, compared with 191,000 bbl /day in August….

    …For Britain, the episode highlights three distinct policy questions:

    • What should we do about security of fuel supplies?
    • What can we do about high fuel prices?
    • What can be done to protect UK refineries so we do not increase vulnerability to such market shocks?

    The Government insists that Britain has adequate fuel stocks, with Chancellor John Healey saying this week that “we’ve got the stocks that we need”, but the reality is less comfortable. Britain reportedly has around 40 days of diesel reserves, one of the lowest levels in Europe. The UK is formally required by its membership of the International Energy Agency to maintain emergency oil stocks equivalent to at least 90 days of net oil imports – the Government says it complies with that obligation.

    However, this is not a requirement to hold 90 days of diesel consumption, but to hold crude oil and other petroleum products covering 90 days of net imports rather than consumption. Having crude oil inventories will not help if there isn’t enough capacity to refine it. The IEA requirement can also be met with stocks held overseas, which might be vulnerable in a supply shock. The UK should look at whether its individual stocks of diesel and jet kerosene are sufficient (petrol is less of a concern as the market is better supplied with gasoline).

    In terms of prices, there is actually a lot the Government can do. The largest component of pump prices in the UK isn’t the cost of crude oil or the energy costs of refining, it’s tax. The UK imposes a significant fuel duty on petrol and diesel and then levies VAT on top – we pay tax on tax every time we fill our cars. Because of this leveraging effect, a 1p reduction in fuel duty would reduce the pump price by around 1.2p if passed on in full. 

    In relation to the competitiveness of Britain’s remaining refineries, the obvious move, as I described in my recent report, is to abolish the UK Emissions Trading Scheme which imposes a significant carbon cost on domestic refiners not borne by many overseas competitors. Removing the ETS cost would not translate directly or immediately into lower pump prices, but it would support refinery economics, lowering the risks of further closures and greater reliance on imports.

    What the current crisis demonstrates beyond doubt is the value of domestic refining capacity. Britain has gone from importing 14% of its road diesel in 2003 to importing about 55% today. 17% of the diesel we consume comes from US refineries. The UK lost almost a quarter of its refining capacity in 2025 with the closure of Grangemouth and Lindsey. Diesel remains essential to road freight, agriculture, construction and many other parts of the economy – allowing domestic refineries to close increases reliance on imports.

    Theoretically, liquid fuels are globally traded commodities and Britain can buy whatever it needs on international markets. This is true, but at what cost – during supply shocks prices go up and countries must compete for limited supplies. Britain can afford to outbid many countries to secure the volumes it needs but it will have to pay a high price, which feeds though to pump prices and drives inflation.

    Retaining domestic refining capacity and maximising domestic crude oil production reduces our dependence on imported energy in a world of growing energy nationalism. Britain should formulate its energy policy on the assumption that other countries will act in their own national interests, and start doing the same.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. Paragraph 54 of the Report:

    The costs of the transition are not currently falling fairly. Policy costs recovered through electricity bills are regressive, taking a larger share of income from poorer households. Those in poorly insulated or privately rented homes are least able to act and most exposed to high prices, yet they are the people who stand to gain most from cheaper clean power and warmer homes. A transition whose upfront costs fall on those least able to pay, while its benefits accrue first to those who can afford a heat pump or an electric vehicle, will not command public support and does not deserve to.

    Er, that’s right. The Annex is worth a read too, relating to a programme of inviting the public to participate prior to the report being produced:

    One participant responded:

    I want to place on record that the published summary does not accurately reflect either the nature of the discussion or the way the session itself was structured.

    The session was not a neutral, open-ended evidence-gathering exercise. It was clearly directed. The framing of the discussion, the structure of the questions, and the way topics were introduced were all aligned toward a particular policy outcome. The questions were not exploratory; they were, in large part, designed to elicit responses that supported a pre-existing direction of travel.

    This matters, because the summary note now presents the outcome as if it were the product of balanced deliberation and broadly shared conclusions. That is not an accurate characterisation of the process I took part in.

    In particular:

    First, the scope of the discussion was constrained by the way the questions were set. Fundamental issues—especially around deliverability, grid constraints, system risk, cost exposure, and infrastructure timescales , were not treated as open questions of principle, but implicitly framed as secondary “implementation challenges” to an assumed strategy.

    Second, the structure of the session made it difficult to challenge the underlying premises. When the starting assumptions of a discussion are fixed in advance, and the questions are designed around those assumptions, the range of permissible answers is inevitably narrowed. That is not genuine consultation.

    Third, the summary itself smooths over disagreement and uncertainty. It gives an impression of alignment and confidence that simply does not match the reality of either the system or the discussion. Real, substantive tensions were present. They have not been faithfully represented.

    Having been in the room, I do not believe it is accurate to describe this as an open engagement whose purpose was to test policy direction. It was, in effect, a guided discussion about how to proceed with a largely predetermined approach.

    If this document is to be used to inform ministers, Parliament, or wider stakeholders, then I think it is important to be honest about what it is and what it is not.

    It is not a neutral summary of unconstrained stakeholder views. It is a narrative shaped by the way the engagement was designed and steered.

    I would therefore strongly urge the department to reconsider how this exercise is being presented, and to reflect more transparently:

    how the questions were framed,

    what assumptions were treated as fixed, and

    what substantive disagreements and risks remain unresolved.

    Without that, the document risks being read , entirely reasonably , as policy-based evidence making, rather than evidence-based policy making….

    …Another commented:

    I hope these points can be more clearly and robustly woven into your final submission, as they better capture both the breadth and intensity of the views expressed….

    …Lastly, a participant commented:

    If this Summary Note is to be used as true record of public opinion used to inform effective Government communication of Net Zero policies with the aim of building more support for those policies, then it’s important that it properly reflects the public views of the successes, limitations and the critical problems of current policy.

    I agree wholeheartedly with the well written comments published in the Annex.

    The purpose of the meeting, as set out in the summary was, “to greater understand public perceptions regarding the energy transition”

    and

    “ to provide insight into how people engage with the Government’s policy of shifting away from the use of fossil fuels to renewable energy sources and better understand how the public are responding to Government communication of the energy transition”.

    “A key purpose of the event was to ensure that Members of the Committee heard directly from members of the public, to understand more about their views and opinions.”

    Despite those honourable intentions, the Summary Note does not convey the views of a significant proportion of the public present so that Members of the Committee can ‘hear directly from the public’. It is effectively a sanitised and rather biased interpretation of public views and opinions aired at the meeting which gives minimal weight to views opposing or questioning the wisdom and speed of the current Net Zero transition strategy, or importantly, the actual purpose of having a Net Zero goal for the UK at all.

    The anger about the economic burden on ordinary people for funding the extraordinary costs of meeting ideological, politically driven Net Zero targets were not resolved in round table discussions but were not mentioned in the summary.

    From heated discussions there was certainly an impression that the significant environmental impacts of the UK’s Net Zero policies, which includes loss of biodiversity, were, to politicians and some urban dwellers, seemingly acceptable as collateral damage in the utopian goal to save the planet for future generations.

    Whilst there is mention in the Summary Note of rural citizens feeling that they are bearing the brunt of the implementation of Net Zero policies, the summary does not convey the anger about the very real damage that is being inflicted upon rural Britain.

    At my table, there were rural participants who had been seriously and directly affected by impacts from the imposition of renewable generation to provide ‘for the greater good’ of reaching Net Zero and providing electricity for urban dwellers who would never suffer from those impacts such as loss of, or pollution of their water supplies, noise and permanent visual intrusion from windfarm development.

    Surely views and opinions from those with first hand experience of hosting ‘the transition to renewables’ should be one that Committee Members read in these Summary Notes.

    Politicians should be exposed to a ‘warts and all’ truthful summary of the public’s perception of the implementation of Net Zero policies if there is to be any hope of honesty and engendering more public support for such policies.

    The Summary Note highlighted the need expressed ‘by some’ for more community support and community benefit.

    Without mentioning the discussion of the adverse consequences of Net Zero policies upon host rural communities, the environment and the huge loss of jobs to the fossil fuel and heavy industries in particular, the ‘need’ for mitigation in the form of financial benefit becomes simply a bribe and is disingenuous to those members of the public who actually bear the brunt of what is palpably an ‘unjust Net Zero transition’.

    The Summary Note failed to give adequate weight to the views from many participants that the emphasis by the Government should be on mitigating the effects of climate change, not trying to stop climate change when, even if we reached Net Zero, the UK contribution to global carbon emissions is currently approximately 0.7%. Whilst the actual contribution of the UK to global carbon emissions was notably absent from the presentations, common sense logic of the insignificant contribution to global carbon emissions of the UK reaching Net Zero was clearly expressed in post presentation discussions, but has been completely omitted from this summary.

    What evidence was presented at the meeting that the rest of the world would look on in admiration and follow the UK’s lead in attaining Net Zero at the expense of our economy, industry and in providing reliable and affordable electricity supplies? None that I was aware of.

    Dr Marina Romanello spoke of the impacts of climate change on weather events and public health in the UK, including increased deaths from climate change induced heat waves. This presentation completely failed to recognise that more people die from the cold than from heat in the UK. Global warming is, to date, reducing not increasing deaths from extreme temperatures in the UK. Morbidity and decreased NHS expenditure also occurs when there are fewer falls on icy days. Why was this not mentioned? Why was there no opportunity to question the validity of any of the data presented?

    This presentation was an example of how selective and skewed reporting of data is presented to the public to engender a sense of climate change hysteria and compliance with Net Zero ideology.

    The narrow scope of the questions used to frame discussions and this public ‘consultation’ exercise basically confirmed that this meeting was designed not to obtain public views about the value or potential weaknesses of Net Zero targets and policies, but a meeting designed to see how Government communication could be improved to convert the sceptical public participants into believers and engender more public support for very expensive and unpopular Net Zero policies.

    As highlighted both in the annex responses and in the summary, there is a repeated need for honesty and transparency from this Government in the presentation of climate change figures and the economic costs, subsidies and taxes which are needed to support the politically defined Net Zero transition.

    I don’t feel the summary is a true and accurate representation of the dissenting views and opinions at the meeting and this is supported by the Annex responses which reflected similar views from other tables.

    What is interesting is that participants were shielded from knowing the discussion and views of other tables as we were not allowed to mix. For that reason, the views expressed in the Annex are particularly valuable in providing personal reassurance that Net Zero sceptics, as opposed to climate change sceptics, are not that uncommon.

    It would have been more transparent if the results of the post meeting questionnaire were published showing how many participants had changed their views and opinions as a result of the presentations and round table discussions.

    Despite the lack of that published data, it is evident that the presentations and discussions failed in one aim of this meeting: to convert sceptics to supporting this Government’s Net Zero policies.

    That is perhaps the best evidence that the Government’s communication strategy for Net Zero is not working.

    And that is because the reality is that increasing numbers of the public are not seeing any tangible benefits of decarbonisation, despite figures which show significant reduction of UK carbon emissions over the past 20 years (mostly due to loss of heavy industry and fossil fuel generation).

    Many members of the public are instead suffering the consequences of unmitigated effects of climate change, such as flooding, despite their own significant personal financial or employment losses in being made to support the ‘green’ Net Zero transition, regardless of their opinions and views.

    As discussed at the meeting, significant personal investment in heat pumps and EVs, which in practice have real life limitations of effectiveness combined with increased cost, has added to disillusionment with Net Zero policies. The distrust and lack of honesty in information provided by the Government in published documents is alluded to in the summary , but almost in passing. The Committee Members need to understand why there is growing public resentment and scepticism about Net Zero and the Summary Note does not convey that.

    Thank you for sharing this.

    I do feel, however, that the language as it currently stands is too soft and does not fully reflect the strength of feeling expressed at my table. There was not merely disagreement with the government’s drive toward ‘Net Zero’; there was with some absolute, though controlled anger about the policies and messaging being pursued. This sentiment was shared across all age groups represented at the table.

    There was a clear consensus that the focus should be on mitigating the impacts of climate change, rather than attempting to “fix” what many regarded as so-called climate change through rigid and ideologically driven targets. In particular, there was deep concern about the loss of employment and national profit from the North Sea, especially given the perception that we are increasingly exporting both jobs and profits overseas.

    Members from rural communities expressed considerable dissatisfaction with the proliferation of large-scale solar farms. These were seen as actively damaging communities, heritage, and biodiversity, all in pursuit of what was widely viewed as a spurious target. Strong concern was also raised about the erosion of local democracy, particularly through the designation of such projects as Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs).

    From the younger, more urban participants, there was a different but equally troubling concern. Many felt that the relentless emphasis on ‘Net Zero’ and climate change messaging has created a deep anxiety about the future. Some questioned their own responsibility for the situation and expressed genuine fear about bringing a new generation into what they described as an increasingly dystopian world.

    Liked by 3 people

  11. Thank you Mark. That was a devastating critique of their “Public Engagement Event.” Unfortunately it seems that they only heard the answers they wanted to hear.

    Meanwhile, I have just listened to the Andrew Neil Report. From about 20 mins discussion with Liam Halligan turns to the way Net Zero has led to the loss of most the UK’s refineries. In other words, it has demonstrably made us less “energy secure.” But don’t worry. It’s still the right road.

    Liked by 2 people

  12. Mark – great find, what a travesty.

    Jit – thanks for the vid link, lets hope N England & Scotland have a mild winter.

    Like

  15. Jit (and everyone else),

    It’s also worth looking at the witnesses cited by the Report. It seems that in order to bear witness, you had to belong to an organisation which supports Net Zero. In order, as they appear in the Report:

    Climate Change Committee

    Bob Ward, Policy and Communications Director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment (gets more than one mention)

    United Nations (“has warned of a “massive disinformation campaign” that is hindering the transition to low carbon energy”)

    The Welsh Government (“stressed that climate, health, economic and security benefits are “interconnected” and should be communicated through a “strong national Government-led narrative” that is simple and coherent.”)

    Rachel Brisley, Director, Energy and Environment, Ipsos UK

    DESNZ, specifically Ben Golding, Director, Clean Power 2030 Unit, DESNZ

    Chris Stark, Head of the UK’s Mission for Clean Power 2030 at DESNZ (gets more than one mention)

    As well as individuals, the Report cites “a recent report by Potential Energy Coalition, commissioned by the Rockefeller Foundation”

    David Whitehouse, Chief Executive, Offshore Energies UK (some mistake, surely!)

    Andrew Sissons, Deputy Director, Sustainable Future Mission at Nesta

    Luke Tryl, Executive Director at More in Common

    Professor Hugh Montgomery, Director, Centre for Human Health and Performance, University College London (UCL)

    The Minister for Energy, Michael Shanks

    Numerous references to the former Energy Secretary (presumably one Mr E, Miliband)

    Dr Romanello (presumably this Dr Marina Romello: “the Executive Director of the Lancet Countdown: Tracking Progress on Health and Climate Change, an independent and multi-disciplinary research collaboration of almost 100 academic centres around the world, and headquartered at University College London’s Institute for Global Health. Marina led a team of researchers in developing England’s National Health Service’s Net Zero commitments, and is a member of numerous advisory boards for projects focusing on health and climate change.”)

    The Royal Society and the Academy of Medical Sciences (“have recommended incorporating health further into climate narratives, suggesting that the “UK Government has a key role to promote a stronger focus on health within the international climate narrative”.”)

    The Country Land and Business Association (CLA) (“told us that climate change is already having a significant impact on food production, citing the increasing prevalence of flooding in recent years.”)

    Judicaelle Hammond, Director of Policy and Advice at the CLA (“dismissed the myth that solar energy threatens food security, with current solar deployment using only around “0.1% of UK land”, meaning its land impact remains minimal”…She stressed that “the best and most versatile land [ … ] is already protected under planning system”. [sic]). Interesting deployment of a meaningless statistic – 0.1% of UK land is not the same as 0.1% of UK farmland: https://cliscep.com/2026/09/18/what-price-solar/

    Dr Amanda Slevin, Co-Director, Centre for Sustainability, Equality and Climate Action, Queen’s University Belfast

    Claire Chappell (she isn’t identified any more than that, but I guess she might be the Claire Chappell who is Head of Climate Behaviour Change & Engagement, Welsh Government: https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/143860/pdf/)

    The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors

    Geraldine Bolton, Chief Executive of the Confederation of British Metalforming

    Andrew Sissons (presumably this Andrew Sissons: “Andrew is a director on Nesta’s mission to create a sustainable future, which focuses on decarbonisation and economic recovery. His team focuses on setting up innovation projects and partnerships that reduce carbon emissions from homes, which is a key part of the UK reaching net zero. Andrew has a background in climate change, economic geography and productivity. Andrew joined Nesta from the Environment Agency, where he led the agency’s work on funding and green finance, having previously been the agency’s chief economist. He has worked in government (Cabinet Office, MHCLG) on cities and local growth policy, helping to create the new metro mayors in several cities in England. He has also previously worked at The Work Foundation and as an economic consultant.” https://www.nesta.org.uk/team/andrew-sissons/)

    Emma Pinchbeck, Chief Executive at the CCC

    The MCS Foundation (“a UK-based charity working to make every home carbon-free through the adoption of renewable energy and low-carbon technologies“)

    The CCC Citizens’ Panel 

    Ofgem

    Dr Tom Franklin (“wrote to tell us that misleading narratives surrounding the energy transition, fuelled by misinformation, are gaining traction and require proactive, fact-based counter-campaigns, including targeted myth-busting (e.g. on heat pumps and EVs) and the use of trusted third-party voices such as scientists and community leaders”)

    The Dalton Nuclear Institute, University of Manchester 

    Dr Amanda Slevin (QUB’s first cross-University Lecturer in Climate Policy, Politics and Sustainability. “presented examples of scaling community-based models such as climate action hubs and mobilising existing networks (e.g. Northern Ireland Community Energy, Drumlin Wind Energy, Rural Community Network, NICVA) as trusted messengers”)

    Dr. Roger Harrabin, journalist and former BBC Energy and Environment Analyst (that’s an honorary doctorate from Cranfield University, by the way). (He “contended that climate change is underreported by broadcasters compared to other topics with similar levels of public concern such as crime, which he argued broadcasters covered much more regularly and prominently than they did climate change”!)

    Ian Macrae, Ofcom’s’ Director of Market Intelligence “told us “the corollary to having a whole load of, frankly, misinformation and rubbish out there is that people have access to trusted news and information””)

    Professor Hugh Montgomery (again – “warned that widespread misinformation and deliberate disinformation are undermining support for the energy transition, including activity by state-linked “malign actors” identified in the United Nations and NATO reports (2022–2024). He argued that Government must “inoculate with information first” by proactively improving public understanding before false narratives take hold”)

    Laura Rhea, Ofcom’s Director of Standards and Audience Protection

    I suppose one way to be able to produce the Report you intend to produce is to ensure that the only people invited to comment are people who are pretty much guaranteed to tell you what you want to hear. Why am I not surprised?

    Liked by 2 people

  16. Thank you Mark. That was something I had a mind to mention, but forgot. In particular, I wanted to point out that perhaps they could have heard from Dieter Helm. Although they probably would have forgot about whatever he told them as soon as he was out of the door. Helm has a double-pager in today’s Times, titled “Net-zero drive is only making us poorer: time for climate realism.”

    The GMB’s general secretary also featured in the Times, where he described DESNZ as “basically the ministry for P45s.” [Sorry for the bad photograph, taken on the train this morning.]

    Liked by 2 people

  17. Pingback: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove

  18. Thanks for this excellent article and comments. We really are in deep do-do.

    Given Mark’s list of participants, I’m surprised they received so much dissenting comment. Good to know there are still some folk around who are resolute enough to spell out the reality. Assuming the comments are roughly accurate, it is appalling to think that such effort went into this nefarious behaviour. There must have been a large team working on how to ensure they got the outcome they wanted.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. MikeH,

    They held a roundtable event, inviting members of the public (I know not on what basis they were selected) to meet with members of the Committee and guest speakers. I know someone who attended, but only now has she been able to tell me what went on – they were sworn to secrecy until such time as the report was published! Hers is one of the contrarian comments. She is not particularly a climate sceptic, but is an energy realist, and she was disappointed in the way the process was managed. If I understand her correctly, she felt that the event was held to try to persuade any doubters that they were wrong, rather than to listen to people’s doubts and concerns. The only credit I can give to the committee is the fact that in the Annex to their incredibly biased report, they did print the comments from people who attended and who were upset by the nature of the round table event.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. Mark; Thanks for that explanation. Clearly the result was pre-ordained so the whole exercise was nothing more than propaganda. As you say, it’s surprising they published any dissenting comments.

    Like

Leave a Reply