August 1, 2023 - 7:00am
The UK population is overwhelmingly in favour of the aim to reduce carbon emissions to Net Zero by 2050, but flips to strong opposition if the policy imposes any “additional costs on ordinary people”, according to new polling.
As Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announces his intention to expand carbon capture and increase the amount of oil and gas drilling in the North Sea, the results show a preference for the general goal of Net Zero, rather than any commitment to the policies which would be necessary to deliver it. While over 70% support the broader aim, less than half (42%) agree with the decision to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel cars after 2030.
The survey, carried out by YouGov, asked 2000 adults from across the UK how they felt about the Government’s green agenda. As well as the marginal opposition to banning petrol cars, only 42% of respondents support the phasing out of new gas boilers, which is due to begin in 2035.
The YouGov poll reveals a significant gap across party lines: even though 59% of those who voted Conservative at the last general election back the 2050 target, this figure rises to 84% among 2019 Labour supporters, and 87% among Lib Dems. For Remain and Leave voters, the proportions are 83% and 58%, respectively. Notably, Shadow frontbencher Jess Philips has criticised Sunak’s decision to distribute licences to companies seeking to extract oil and gas from the North Sea, labelling it the “wrong priority” on Monday.
Among Tory voters, only 25% are in favour of banning petrol and diesel cars, while just 26% agree with phasing out gas boilers. By contrast, the Labour support for each issue sits at 57% and 58%, with even higher figures for Lib Dem voters. There is also more openness to Net Zero policies among London residents and those belonging to higher social grades when compared to the rest of the UK population.
Support for Net Zero becomes opposition once the question of cost is introduced. Most voters believe that “policies to reduce carbon emissions should only be introduced if they do not result in additional costs for ordinary people”, while less than half as many people believe that the policies should be pursued “even if they result in some additional costs for ordinary people”. Though the gap is smaller when looking only at Labour or Lib Dem voters, in both cases there is a higher proportion in favour of policies which do not result in extra costs for Britons.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeOf course we’re all in favour of futile token gestures that we know aren’t going to work – until we have to pay for them.
You could put a stop to the activities of Tarquin and Lucinda JustStopOil in an hour. Just take away their passports for a year or two.
Indeed Tarquinius and Lucinda should be punished for their futile and damaging interference with people going about their ordinary business by banning them from foreign travel and the use of a car – a punishment they should welcome if they were sincere in their hysterical propaganda as a contribution to a desirable end.
Indeed Tarquinius and Lucinda should be punished for their futile and damaging interference with people going about their ordinary business by banning them from foreign travel and the use of a car – a punishment they should welcome if they were sincere in their hysterical propaganda as a contribution to a desirable end.
Of course we’re all in favour of futile token gestures that we know aren’t going to work – until we have to pay for them.
You could put a stop to the activities of Tarquin and Lucinda JustStopOil in an hour. Just take away their passports for a year or two.
Well, what a surprise!
You took the words out of my mouth! The pollsters could have saved money and effort by asking you or I in 2019, when Theresa May and parliament enshrined net zero by 2030 into law. I said then that it wouldn’t happen. I’ve just been waiting for the penny to drop.
The penny drops the moment that people realise that the cost of net zero is not just high, but is completely unaffordable for all but the very well-off. What we are witnessing is the failure of the political class to understand the financial constraints under which the majority of the population are obliged to exist.
Very well said
Not only unaffordable but physically impossible. There are not enough minerals on planet earth to make all the electric vehicles, wind turbines and solar panels that will be needed to power them, and electricity distribution infrastructure needed to make this utopian vision happen. Not to mention the equipment required to mine them all.
We are about to smack head first into the brick wall of reality.
Yes, exactly.
Very well said
Not only unaffordable but physically impossible. There are not enough minerals on planet earth to make all the electric vehicles, wind turbines and solar panels that will be needed to power them, and electricity distribution infrastructure needed to make this utopian vision happen. Not to mention the equipment required to mine them all.
We are about to smack head first into the brick wall of reality.
Yes, exactly.
The penny drops the moment that people realise that the cost of net zero is not just high, but is completely unaffordable for all but the very well-off. What we are witnessing is the failure of the political class to understand the financial constraints under which the majority of the population are obliged to exist.
You took the words out of my mouth! The pollsters could have saved money and effort by asking you or I in 2019, when Theresa May and parliament enshrined net zero by 2030 into law. I said then that it wouldn’t happen. I’ve just been waiting for the penny to drop.
Well, what a surprise!
The issue is trivially simple, and sooner or later anyone in the UK who is pushing green costs onto people will hit this wall: whatever the UK does is dwarfed by what China, the US, and large emerging nations like India and Indonesia trying to get wealthier do – and anyone who thinks those nations will drive their citizens to penury simply to support net zero is living in cloud cuckoo land – even the CCP would be turfed out (with huge bloodshed resulting no doubt) if it tried that.
You may or may not have taken a surreptitious pee while bathing in the sea off the coast of Cornwall on holiday, but that is literally about the difference whatever the UK does would make to the sea. You would be asking the UK population to be plunged into poverty to absolutely no purpose, and I submit you either know that’s a very difficult sell or you think people are all stupid.
My point is, once this stark fact enters the public debate, then those politicians asking the UK population to back green policies are going to have their work cut out. They can try and be as honest as they want (as Sunak supposedly wants) or as surreptitious as for example various EU ruling technocracies are trying to be, but you cannot impose what ultimately boils down to large scale cuts in living standards and a draconian and uncomfortable policing cultural climate, unless you can show that those same ruling elites have your back and everyone across the world is making the same sacrifices – and the chances of doing that are pretty much zero.
The issue is trivially simple, and sooner or later anyone in the UK who is pushing green costs onto people will hit this wall: whatever the UK does is dwarfed by what China, the US, and large emerging nations like India and Indonesia trying to get wealthier do – and anyone who thinks those nations will drive their citizens to penury simply to support net zero is living in cloud cuckoo land – even the CCP would be turfed out (with huge bloodshed resulting no doubt) if it tried that.
You may or may not have taken a surreptitious pee while bathing in the sea off the coast of Cornwall on holiday, but that is literally about the difference whatever the UK does would make to the sea. You would be asking the UK population to be plunged into poverty to absolutely no purpose, and I submit you either know that’s a very difficult sell or you think people are all stupid.
My point is, once this stark fact enters the public debate, then those politicians asking the UK population to back green policies are going to have their work cut out. They can try and be as honest as they want (as Sunak supposedly wants) or as surreptitious as for example various EU ruling technocracies are trying to be, but you cannot impose what ultimately boils down to large scale cuts in living standards and a draconian and uncomfortable policing cultural climate, unless you can show that those same ruling elites have your back and everyone across the world is making the same sacrifices – and the chances of doing that are pretty much zero.
After the 2008 banking crisis the (poor) taxpayer found themselves bailing out (rich) banks. With Net Zero, people rightly fear that the poor will once again be asked to foot the bill.
After the 2008 banking crisis the (poor) taxpayer found themselves bailing out (rich) banks. With Net Zero, people rightly fear that the poor will once again be asked to foot the bill.
Just think, two years ago they seriously believed people wouldn’t just tolerate climate lockdowns, we’d actually welcome them.
Just think, two years ago they seriously believed people wouldn’t just tolerate climate lockdowns, we’d actually welcome them.
I think, I remember that a majority also supported Covid passports and lock-ins. Most people are still in thrall of the scare tactics by MSM, so-called experts and politicians. Same is true about “Climate Crisis” and people want something to be done about it, but finally realise, that there is a huge price to be paid. Hopefully they’ll recognise that the science isn’t settled and that there are Nobel Price physicists ( recently Dr.Clauser) and other sceptical scientists, who say, that we live at a time of “corruption of science”.
I think, I remember that a majority also supported Covid passports and lock-ins. Most people are still in thrall of the scare tactics by MSM, so-called experts and politicians. Same is true about “Climate Crisis” and people want something to be done about it, but finally realise, that there is a huge price to be paid. Hopefully they’ll recognise that the science isn’t settled and that there are Nobel Price physicists ( recently Dr.Clauser) and other sceptical scientists, who say, that we live at a time of “corruption of science”.
Opinion polls that don’t include the cost of the options presented are worth little.
Opinion polls that don’t include the cost of the options presented are worth little.
If the world’s richest 15% reduce their per capita carbon emissions to that of the average European, then net zero could be attained without the world’s poorest 85% having to make any sacrifices. So the UK can play its part in the attainment of net zero by restricting the carbon emissions of anyone in the UK who is in the top 15%. Everyone else can just carry on as they are.
(Boy, am I gonna get flamed for this one. Ouch!!!))
I’d be curious to the source of your data on that statement. My understanding is that with China and India continuing to expand coal and nat gas any actions the West take still won’t get us to global net zero by 2050.
Yes. Emissions are dominated by three countries – China, US and India.
“Carbon Inequality The Role of the Richest in Climate Change” by Dario Kenner and also research by the Stockholm Environment Institute. There is an exponential relationship between wealth and per capita carbon emissions. Thus Bill Gates (he uses his private jets more than once per week) has more CO2 emissions than 100 average Americans and and average American has more than 10 times the CO2 emissions than an average African. You mention India, but an average American emits 7 times the CO2 of an average Indian.
My (admnittedly flippant) proposal is of little practical value, since quite a large proportion of the people in the UK are in the world’s richest 15%.
You also mention China. The UK has run down its industry and now imports pratically everything from China. In effect, this means that the UK has “exported” its carbon emissions to China. But I totally concur with you that its expanding use of brown coal is dodgy.
Yes. Emissions are dominated by three countries – China, US and India.
“Carbon Inequality The Role of the Richest in Climate Change” by Dario Kenner and also research by the Stockholm Environment Institute. There is an exponential relationship between wealth and per capita carbon emissions. Thus Bill Gates (he uses his private jets more than once per week) has more CO2 emissions than 100 average Americans and and average American has more than 10 times the CO2 emissions than an average African. You mention India, but an average American emits 7 times the CO2 of an average Indian.
My (admnittedly flippant) proposal is of little practical value, since quite a large proportion of the people in the UK are in the world’s richest 15%.
You also mention China. The UK has run down its industry and now imports pratically everything from China. In effect, this means that the UK has “exported” its carbon emissions to China. But I totally concur with you that its expanding use of brown coal is dodgy.
I’m not sure this is true, but it’s interesting nonetheless. The policy options we hear about right now disproportionately impact lower income workers. A heat pump or new EV is easier to swallow if you make $200,000 compared to $20,000.
Even Tony Blair..in another not so subtle nudge to put the (headless policy free but still too Millibandy Leftie) Starmer back on course…has told the naked truth. We got rid of manufacturing and coal in favour of an unproductive graduate white collar quango/service economy. So we have done the macro bit. China and the US are the ONLY story in the Big Battle versus polluters. Imperial Groupthink Science and its sheepy meek ignorant eco nut allies in the BBC, politics and academia have told incredible covid-like porkies and engaged in the Boiling Project Fear Playbook for a decade, legitimized by irresponsible glory seeking fools like May and Johnson. A crock of S. A trillion quids worth of costs – all uncosted. Of course the public would react with fury when this surreal reality finally cut through the Wall of Lies!!! Now its Game on….at last!!!
I’d be curious to the source of your data on that statement. My understanding is that with China and India continuing to expand coal and nat gas any actions the West take still won’t get us to global net zero by 2050.
I’m not sure this is true, but it’s interesting nonetheless. The policy options we hear about right now disproportionately impact lower income workers. A heat pump or new EV is easier to swallow if you make $200,000 compared to $20,000.
Even Tony Blair..in another not so subtle nudge to put the (headless policy free but still too Millibandy Leftie) Starmer back on course…has told the naked truth. We got rid of manufacturing and coal in favour of an unproductive graduate white collar quango/service economy. So we have done the macro bit. China and the US are the ONLY story in the Big Battle versus polluters. Imperial Groupthink Science and its sheepy meek ignorant eco nut allies in the BBC, politics and academia have told incredible covid-like porkies and engaged in the Boiling Project Fear Playbook for a decade, legitimized by irresponsible glory seeking fools like May and Johnson. A crock of S. A trillion quids worth of costs – all uncosted. Of course the public would react with fury when this surreal reality finally cut through the Wall of Lies!!! Now its Game on….at last!!!
If the world’s richest 15% reduce their per capita carbon emissions to that of the average European, then net zero could be attained without the world’s poorest 85% having to make any sacrifices. So the UK can play its part in the attainment of net zero by restricting the carbon emissions of anyone in the UK who is in the top 15%. Everyone else can just carry on as they are.
(Boy, am I gonna get flamed for this one. Ouch!!!))
We went through all this in the 70’s when companies had ‘green audits’ and everybody was ‘interested in a vegan lifestyle’. Then we all forgot about it and binged merrily for 50 years. In another 10 years this will all be history until the next cycle ( but I won’t be here for that one)
We went through all this in the 70’s when companies had ‘green audits’ and everybody was ‘interested in a vegan lifestyle’. Then we all forgot about it and binged merrily for 50 years. In another 10 years this will all be history until the next cycle ( but I won’t be here for that one)
who actually gives a s…t about carbon emissions? My air is perfectly lovely.
who actually gives a s…t about carbon emissions? My air is perfectly lovely.
Why aren’t we asking who profits from the current system and asking them pay to repair the damage they are causing?
It’s akin to recycling. Manufacturers reduce their production costs by using new materials, charge us for their products, and then tell us we need to recycle – even though hardly any recycling takes place. and we are at fault. Perhaps we are (as a part of a mass culture) but individually we are pretty powerless.
We only have to look at the money, who is profiting from the current situation, to see where the effective responsibility lies. There is a huge amount of money in the world that could be put into cleaning up our act, but it’s not in the personal interests of those who control it to do so. Just check out the huge number of multi-billionaires that have recently been created.
Let’s make people struggling to survive to pay to clean up the mess the super-wealthy have caused!
Why aren’t we asking who profits from the current system and asking them pay to repair the damage they are causing?
It’s akin to recycling. Manufacturers reduce their production costs by using new materials, charge us for their products, and then tell us we need to recycle – even though hardly any recycling takes place. and we are at fault. Perhaps we are (as a part of a mass culture) but individually we are pretty powerless.
We only have to look at the money, who is profiting from the current situation, to see where the effective responsibility lies. There is a huge amount of money in the world that could be put into cleaning up our act, but it’s not in the personal interests of those who control it to do so. Just check out the huge number of multi-billionaires that have recently been created.
Let’s make people struggling to survive to pay to clean up the mess the super-wealthy have caused!
The public wants Net Zero – until it sees the cost. The public wants high immigration – until it sees rent going up. The public wants to Rejoin EU – until it means joining the Euro.
Public support for Westminster’s priorities is wafer thin. This house of cards will collapse.
The public wants Net Zero – until it sees the cost. The public wants high immigration – until it sees rent going up. The public wants to Rejoin EU – until it means joining the Euro.
Public support for Westminster’s priorities is wafer thin. This house of cards will collapse.
The whole climate change debate needs a broader understanding by us all. Back in 2000, the then UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair, urged drivers to change from petrol to diesel on the basis that diesel contained lower CO2 emissions than petrol. Despite strong advice from experts, Blair went ahead, for political purposes, with that policy, knowing that diesel contains far higher levels of health harming particulates than petrol. This is a prime example of why politicians are the last people to be involved in Climate Change debates which lead to greater understanding of all of the causes; the ones we can affect and the ones that we cannot affect , such as El Nino. Are there any detrimental contributions to CC by the millions of square miles of solar energy panels sited in the Sahara and other of the world’s hot deserts? What are the negative socio economic affects of the excavation of the minerals which are needed to make batteries for electric cars? What research is being undertaken to manufacture hydrogen engines for vehicles? Many more questions to answer before we are United in solving this dilemma rather than be Divisive
http://www.whatisgreen.co.uk
The whole climate change debate needs a broader understanding by us all. Back in 2000, the then UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair, urged drivers to change from petrol to diesel on the basis that diesel contained lower CO2 emissions than petrol. Despite strong advice from experts, Blair went ahead, for political purposes, with that policy, knowing that diesel contains far higher levels of health harming particulates than petrol. This is a prime example of why politicians are the last people to be involved in Climate Change debates which lead to greater understanding of all of the causes; the ones we can affect and the ones that we cannot affect , such as El Nino. Are there any detrimental contributions to CC by the millions of square miles of solar energy panels sited in the Sahara and other of the world’s hot deserts? What are the negative socio economic affects of the excavation of the minerals which are needed to make batteries for electric cars? What research is being undertaken to manufacture hydrogen engines for vehicles? Many more questions to answer before we are United in solving this dilemma rather than be Divisive
http://www.whatisgreen.co.uk
“Sunak has maintained that his drilling expansion is “entirely consistent” with the Government’s Net Zero goals.”
Watch out, don’t get run over by a reversing ferret.
“Sunak has maintained that his drilling expansion is “entirely consistent” with the Government’s Net Zero goals.”
Watch out, don’t get run over by a reversing ferret.
I suggest a new policy.. ban all electric cars, and all eco sandaloid legislation.
I suggest a new policy.. ban all electric cars, and all eco sandaloid legislation.
As one of the founders of modern advertising put it: a principle is only a principle when it costs you money.
Of course, that’s not totally true (principled opposition to slavery, rape, murder etc doesn’t require you to lose out materially) … but you see what he was getting at: Beliefs based in principles will continue to be held despite causing hardship for the believer. Opinions will bend with the wind.
As one of the founders of modern advertising put it: a principle is only a principle when it costs you money.
Of course, that’s not totally true (principled opposition to slavery, rape, murder etc doesn’t require you to lose out materially) … but you see what he was getting at: Beliefs based in principles will continue to be held despite causing hardship for the believer. Opinions will bend with the wind.
Govt policy shouldn’t be dictated by opinion polls. It’s a poor and lazy substitute for actually talking to people.
Govt policy shouldn’t be dictated by opinion polls. It’s a poor and lazy substitute for actually talking to people.
Regardless of your position, that is a stupidly worded and leading question.
As it stands, that is a statement of fact and NOT a question.
It’s not a question, it’s not stupid, and the position a person takes here is entirely dependent upon their general attitude to climate change policy and the political/economic consequences it imposes.
You seem to have got literally every possible aspect of this wrong.
It’s a question since it’s in a survey and prompting a response. It’s not a neutral statement since it leads the respondent into the answer. Just garbage.
It’s a question since it’s in a survey and prompting a response. It’s not a neutral statement since it leads the respondent into the answer. Just garbage.
I wonder if you know what NetZero means.
“Come home to a real fire, buy a cottage in Wales”?
Ha!
This debate is ridiculous ! We do not have “options” regarding emissions. We stop it–or we disappear. That’s the ONLY choices! Rich or poor–or in between–it won’t matter. The planet is dying and we are debating who should do something about it? The rich might escape to another planet–but it ain’t gonna be EARTH. Perhaps lead by example???
This debate is ridiculous ! We do not have “options” regarding emissions. We stop it–or we disappear. That’s the ONLY choices! Rich or poor–or in between–it won’t matter. The planet is dying and we are debating who should do something about it? The rich might escape to another planet–but it ain’t gonna be EARTH. Perhaps lead by example???
Ha!
“Come home to a real fire, buy a cottage in Wales”?
As it stands, that is a statement of fact and NOT a question.
It’s not a question, it’s not stupid, and the position a person takes here is entirely dependent upon their general attitude to climate change policy and the political/economic consequences it imposes.
You seem to have got literally every possible aspect of this wrong.
I wonder if you know what NetZero means.
Regardless of your position, that is a stupidly worded and leading question.