Skip to content

Petition To Scrap Net Zero

March 11, 2020

By Paul Homewood

h/t jc

A new petition has been set up calling for a referendum on the Net Zero policy.

Let’s see if we can get it rolling with a bit of momentum. It’s at a very low number at the moment, but I presume that is because it is still new. (But it’s gone up 10 since I’ve been typing this!)

Please note, click on the link, not the image!


  1. Luc Ozade permalink
    March 11, 2020 10:19 am

    The link doesn’t work Paul. I tried but all that happened was my pointer turned alternately into a plus and a minus magnifying glass.

    • Geoff Peters permalink
      March 11, 2020 11:23 am

      Doesn’t work for me either – nor has it all morning…

      • Mike Jackson permalink
        March 11, 2020 3:43 pm

        I got in last night and signed but so far I haven’t had the confirmation email.

        Now I’m not one for conspiracy theories, but … 🕵🏻‍♂️

      • March 11, 2020 3:58 pm

        Mine came through in seconds, Mike

      • Derek Reynolds permalink
        March 11, 2020 4:44 pm

        Just clicked on the link (not the image) received notification of email sent immediately, clicked confirmed – signature added immediately.

        No problem. This needs to go viral.

  2. Luc Ozade permalink
    March 11, 2020 10:21 am

    (Or maybe I should have said when I pushed the button to “Sign this petition”.)

  3. Harry Passfield permalink
    March 11, 2020 10:22 am


  4. Ian Magness permalink
    March 11, 2020 10:29 am

    Done and sent to another dozen like-minded people.
    We’ll get there.

  5. Phil Wood permalink
    March 11, 2020 10:42 am

    Me too, Luc (Paul).
    Itching to sign – but can’t. Help !

    • March 11, 2020 10:49 am

      You have to go to your email inbox and click the confirmation link before it registers. If it’s not there check spam.

  6. Dave Ward permalink
    March 11, 2020 10:42 am


  7. March 11, 2020 10:52 am

    I signed it a couple of days ago.

  8. Ian Miller permalink
    March 11, 2020 10:59 am

    Desperate to sign !
    For God’s sake make the page function at LEAST !!!!

  9. Malcolm Chapman permalink
    March 11, 2020 11:04 am

    Luc – go to the web address given below the picture. That works. I have just signed.

    How do we get signatures on to this? Most of my mail list is made up of 97%ers, who have been told about the 97% consensus and don’t want to know anymore. I am, however, encouraged by the number and the quality of the comments on sights such as this, to hope that we are in sufficient numbers to make some sort of noise. Indeed, it has often struck me that when there is a forum where comments are allowed and not censored, that the skeptical usually outnumber the alarmed. (for example, comments on books on Amazon; and others). I think there is a majority of sane unalarmed people out there, who have not yet been given the opportunity (as the petition makes clear) to express an opinion on this. The alarmists are generally frightened of open information and uncontrolled debate, and perhaps this is an opportunity to give them some. I do hope so.

  10. JimW permalink
    March 11, 2020 11:05 am

    Had to use VPN but signed from Thailand

  11. Robert Christopher permalink
    March 11, 2020 11:05 am

    Signature done!

    The ‘Absolute Zero’ paper can be downloaded from here:

    It describes what will need to be done to attain Absolute Zero Carbon Dioxide Emissions by 2050, with contributions from several eminent university departments. It also explains why this is required to meet the goal.
    It gives an overview, ensuring that nothing is missed, rather than going into the detail. It looks an insurmountable task which, I think, is the purpose of the paper.

    Currently, the public have not yet been confronted with reality and condemn those who do.

    This paper is a first step to correcting that. 🙂

    • Gerry, England permalink
      March 11, 2020 1:49 pm

      Are you sure you are reading the same paper I found at your link? The one I have is a complete guide to unicorn thinking. Apparently a heat pump is 200% efficient…..

      • Robert Christopher permalink
        March 11, 2020 4:37 pm

        What were you expecting?
        And why?

    • Robert Christopher permalink
      March 11, 2020 4:31 pm

      This link above works OK.

  12. Vernon E permalink
    March 11, 2020 11:07 am

    Me too. It just bounces me around. How does it work?

  13. Vernon E permalink
    March 11, 2020 11:15 am

    OK done. Use the link.

  14. steveh366 permalink
    March 11, 2020 11:39 am

    Had to go to the Petitions web site. Done and signed. Count stood at 2091 at 11.30…

  15. Terry permalink
    March 11, 2020 11:55 am

    A petition is very dangerous. what happens if there is a majority for keeping net zero?. you should scrap this idea. TerriJackson climate physicist

    On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 10:09 AM NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT wrote:

    > Paul Homewood posted: “By Paul Homewood h/t jc A new petition has been set > up calling for a referendum on the Net Zero policy. Let’s see if we can get > it rolling with a bit of momentum. It’s at a very low number at the moment, > but I presume that is because it is still ” >

    • john cooknell permalink
      March 11, 2020 12:06 pm

      We keep net zero, or the government will ignore the referendum as they sometimes do.

      All human activity is ultimately pointless, why will this be any different? It cannot be achieved in reality, but on paper anything is possible!

      the first Climate Change act was 1662, it has not been repealed.

      1. Samuel Pepys 21st jan 1661
      It is strange what weather we have had all this winter; no cold at all; but the ways are dusty, and the flyes fly up and down, and the rose-bushes are full of leaves, such a time of the year as was never known in this world before here.
      House Of Lords 11th jan 1662
      The Fast to be observed in Westm. Abbey, and the Bp. of St. David’s to preach.
      ¶Whereas His Majesty hath been pleased, by Proclamation, upon the Unseasonableness of the Weather, to command a general and public Fast, to be religiously and solemnly kept, within the Cities of London and Westm. and Places adjacent: It is ORDERED, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in Parliament assembled.
      Samuel Pepys 15 jan 1662
      fast day ordered by the Parliament, to pray for more seasonable weather; it having hitherto been summer weather, that it is, both as to warmth and every other thing, just as if it were the middle of May or June, which do threaten a plague (as all men think) to follow, for so it was almost the last winter; and the whole year after hath been a very sickly time to this day

    • March 11, 2020 12:21 pm

      I don’t believe there’ll be a referendum, however many sign. But I think the petition is useful as a tool for drawing people’s attention to the reality of what their elected politicians are doing in their name. I’ve spoken to lots of people over this issue and they either have no idea what is happening, or if they do know, don’t realise the implications.

  16. devonblueboy permalink
    March 11, 2020 12:08 pm

    Done. Yes, it would be nice to have an input into whether we cause total destruction of our economy based on the views of a scientifically illiterate, mentally challenged 17 year old.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      March 11, 2020 1:54 pm

      Meanwhile in the EU they are talking about how are the morons in charge going to deal with the 11 million jobs that will be lost due their climate lunacy. There is the carbon tax tariff of course, but also on the GWPF site is how badly that will play with China and the US, and it will be interesting to see how the EU defend the charge of protectionism. I can’t see how they can given the tax is to protect EU industry losing out due to world-leading electricity costs.

    • dennisambler permalink
      March 11, 2020 6:05 pm

      A mentally challenged 17 year old who is being manipulated by some very canny UN bureaucrats. Theresa May brought the 2050 thing through having been lobbied by Christan Figueres, who these days is based in London:

      “U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May insisted it’s possible to cut pollution without harming economic growth after becoming the first leader of a Group of Seven nation to set a target for net zero greenhouse gas emissions.

      The comments, made in an interview with Christiana Figueres, the former United Nations climate change chief, set May up for a clash with Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond after he raised concerns about the costs of the new goal.

      But Hammond raised concerns about the cost, writing in a letter to May that it would cost taxpayers 1 trillion pounds ($1.3 trillion) at the expense of investment in schools, police, hospitals and other public spending, according to a person familiar with the matter.

      While the Treasury supports the emissions reduction target, it wants a review before the final decision is made, the person said.

      May said she was inspired to act by her holidays to the Swiss Alps, where she became concerned by a fast-retreating glacier.”

      It moved for her……

      Figueres is travelling the world, picking up prizes and pushing “world leaders” to go for broke (literally) on climate laws. She collected $1million, just last year for “climate heroics”.

  17. March 11, 2020 12:21 pm

    Done, it’s at 2,290

  18. Phil Beckley permalink
    March 11, 2020 12:39 pm

    I’ve signed. I think this is worth trying because if there is a referendum there will have to be a serious debate, and we can get facts to the public who are being denied them now. Once that happens, I believe we will win.

  19. David Virgo permalink
    March 11, 2020 12:50 pm

    Signed yesterday.
    Off target – two letters in the D T this am objecting to Boris’ Irish tunnel. Have sent a response pointing out that come 2050 that, because of the zero carbon target, it will be the only link between Ireland and Britain as there will be no fuel for ships or aircraft. Don’t suppose it will be published…

    • Dave Ward permalink
      March 11, 2020 3:54 pm

      “It will be the only link between Ireland and Britain as there will be no fuel for ships or aircraft”

      And how long (assuming it ever gets built) before an EV driver runs out of juice half way through…

  20. Simon Chalton permalink
    March 11, 2020 1:03 pm

    I have tried to sign the Petition but my iPad will not respond. Can you help me please?

    Simon Chalton Email:

    Sent from my iPad


  21. Richardw permalink
    March 11, 2020 1:20 pm

    I’m not sure this is a good idea. The decision to scrap net zero should be driven by rational scientific and economic debate. The focus should be on enabling this to happen e.g. By reversing the bbc’s recent charter commitment to treat global warming as settled science so that public discussion can be more effectively conducted. Such is the emotive pull of Greta Thunberg et al there is a powerful reason for many to vote ‘no’ to such a referendum even though the evidence is (in my view) against them. Let the net zero policy collapse under the weight of its own contradictions.

    • Broadlands permalink
      March 11, 2020 1:57 pm

      Agree. When more people begin to realize that a net-zero goal is zero carbon fuels for transportation and that means increasing shortages, fuel rationing and much higher prices, this global warming scam might disappear. Wishful thinking?

  22. Harry Passfield permalink
    March 11, 2020 1:23 pm

    The good thing about having a referendum on Net-zeroC is that at least the argument for and agin CC can be exposed to the public. In that way we shall be able to point to the liars in the Green activists and show them up for the liars they are. If, after such a debate the people still want to drive (or pedal) towards Net-zeroC, then on their heads be it. At least it might only take another generation to reverse the nonsense when it finally dawns on people how they’ve been conned.

  23. 2hmp permalink
    March 11, 2020 1:25 pm

    What worries me is are theer 100,000 sensible people who know the facts about CO2. i have been asking people for the past two years what they think the CO2 percentage is of the atmosphere. The average is 15% – One Conservative MP an ex Minister thought it was 60% !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • CheshireRed permalink
      March 11, 2020 5:59 pm

      I asked the same question of 4 friends. All senior people including a former company boss and an ex-police officer. Guesses ranged from 20% down to ‘er, er, I don’t actually know’!

      ALL of them are solidly convinced of AGW yet not one actually knew the exact amount of CO2. The value of extreme propaganda, eh? Incredible but unsurprising.

  24. HotScot permalink
    March 11, 2020 1:39 pm

    As much as I admire the desire, a referendum on this will not work and could make the situation worse.

    There are far too many alarmist’s out there, and even more ‘don’t knows’, who will just vote safely. Most have no concept of the implications of NetZero, the £3tn is an insight almost unique to the sceptical community. The ‘science is settled’ meme and the 97% are embedded now and can’t be countered by those without a reasonable knowledge of AGW and the dodgy science.

    In the unlikely event a referendum was called it would be overwhelmingly won for NetZero as there are no official bodies with the cash to mount a campaign to inform the public of the sceptical side.

    And then there’s the Brexit referendum. Leave won, but were almost defeated by a biased parliament. Just how much less partisan is parliament to this than it was to Brexit?

    If sceptics lost a referendum that would be debate over altogether, politics would have won.

    • March 11, 2020 3:26 pm

      Sad to say, this is all too true 🤢

    • March 11, 2020 8:44 pm

      Everything you say is true HS but I will add my name anywhere, ANYWHERE, to show my antagonism against the lies of AGW.

  25. It doesn't add up... permalink
    March 11, 2020 1:39 pm

    Looking at some recent polling, it appears propaganda is winning.


    Of 28,088 respondents to the survey, 62% favored a ban and an even greater majority of 72% said they would support a carbon tax on flights. The poll, conducted in September-October 2019, covered the then-28 European Union member states, including Britain.

    It simply asked about support for a ban on short-distance flights and did not specify the length.

    A large majority of respondents – 91% – were in favor of schools teaching about climate change and recycling, while 85% said they supported a ban on single-use plastic items. The EU will ban single-use plastic items, including straws, cutlery and cotton buds, next year.

    The poll found 59% of respondents were in favor of higher prices for carbon-intensive food and goods, such as red meat, food transported over long distances and some clothing.

    The first job is to counter the propaganda before submitting it to a public decision. My idea is some reality TV, with contestants chosen largely for pretending that they support zero carbon (a high ranking civil servant would be a bonus), perhaps with an ex SAS soldier there who knows how to live off the land. Each week the conditions of living would be progressively tightened, with some speed-ups imposed e.g. ragged clothes representing the lack of imported ones, etc. There would also be a little lecture on why the conditions were necessary for zero carbon, and on alternative policies and the sceptic side of the climate debate. Participants would be allowed to vote themselves off the show, and suitably rewarded for recasting from being hypocrites.

    • It doesn't add up... permalink
      March 11, 2020 1:40 pm

      Ugh. Auto correct. Recanting

    • Gerry, England permalink
      March 11, 2020 2:01 pm

      Poll results can be completely skewed by the format of the questions and the options provided for the answers. I have done plenty of surveys where you can’t provide your honest opinion since the answer choice is not provided.

      • It doesn't add up... permalink
        March 11, 2020 4:14 pm

        Such polls are often used to justify policy decisions. An example of a highly specialised poll being used to do just that is the zero carbon policy forums. People tend to accept the propaganda as being true, making them less inclined to fight it.

  26. Coeur de Lion permalink
    March 11, 2020 1:56 pm

    Can one recruit say Tallbloke and others to ask their clientele to support the same proposition?

  27. A C Osborn permalink
    March 11, 2020 2:12 pm

    My wife & I signed it yesterday when it was about 640.

  28. Simon Kelly permalink
    March 11, 2020 2:40 pm


  29. MrGrimNasty permalink
    March 11, 2020 3:24 pm

    If this petition was to impose net zero, the BBC would headline it in every news bulletin breathlessly declaring how it was gaining massive support. The result being that a large % of the people that support that will sign.

    Sadly without that biased advertising this is doomed to only pick up a fraction of a % of the people that support it, and be ignored by the millions that don’t have a clue what it entails.

    And even if it did get millions, the government will just brush the issue aside as they did with the UN migration compact, poo-pooing the obvious risks.

    Send the link to everyone you know, but it’s never going to be enough. The time isn’t right, we’re going to need some serious economic pain/power cuts before people wake up.

  30. Vernon E permalink
    March 11, 2020 3:25 pm

    At least it would force open discussion of the facts, especially in the MSM.

    • Mad Mike permalink
      March 11, 2020 4:48 pm

      I agree. I signed and passed it on but I don’t expect a referendum regardless of how many sign but it should lead to more facts coming before the public. It would be interesting if some clever person could concoct a quiz on facebook or whatever where you could test your knowledge against facts or myths about CC. Questions like “what percentage of our atmosphere is CO2?” Judging by some comments here most of the public have no idea what is going on.

  31. Rob permalink
    March 11, 2020 3:38 pm


  32. MrGrimNasty permalink
    March 11, 2020 4:17 pm

    The WMO’s latest report is a bunch of wildly negatively spin and empirically false assertions.

    The DM is now just another climate propaganda mouthpiece, the newish editor is clearly one of ‘their’ people, they’ve done what they’ve done everywhere else, taken over from the inside at the top.

    (The video of the tundra in that report is bizarre – what is the problem? All it shows is a stream changing slightly over time – as they all do, and the 1989 picture is further away and appears to be a different point in the year – is that supposed to make you think there’s suddenly more melt water or something?)

  33. Martin Howard Keith Brumby permalink
    March 11, 2020 5:01 pm

    Of course, I signed.

    But just take a look at:-
    Public inquiry into the bias in the BBC
    This 105,421 signatures.
    Read the debate on the Hansard link

    They had cobbled it together with another petition about the end of the 75+ years old ‘free’ licence concession and spent most time discussing that, (when they weren’t just saying how much they had enjoyed ‘Gentleman Jack’ or whatever.
    Only 2 MPs really considered the petition and the BBC’s bias. Both Labour. One was Clive Lewis who obviously lives in a parallel universe where the BBC is full of right wing and pro-business propaganda. That leaves a timid response from Graham Stringer, who made a couple of good points but clearly recognised he’d get much more sense talking to his cat.

    If you want a clear demonstration of the utter contempt of our beloved elite ‘leaders’ towards those who pay their salaries (and pay the BBC £154.40 a year to be bombarded with GangGreen agitprop, this debate would be hard to beat.

    Come back, Wat Tyler & Guido Fawkes.
    All is forgiven…

  34. CheshireRed permalink
    March 11, 2020 5:32 pm

    The best form of dissent against this utter garbage is ridicule. Net Zero common sense and Net Zero chances of success, more like.

    Please crunch the numbers and make government ministers squirm with all the embarrassment they deserve.

    O/T, the Guardian has yet another hysterical article, this time claiming the Antarctic is ‘melting 6 times faster than in the 90’s’. Or something. Can you crunch the numbers to expose the facts the Guardian WILL have omitted?

  35. Steve Hutton permalink
    March 11, 2020 5:47 pm

    Just signed the petition. I’m struggling to believe that a ‘Conservative’ government is putting forward this ‘Carbon Net Zero’ nonsense.

    Watching the Chancellor waxing on about carbon capture and the like during the Budget today was just cringeworthy.

    • It doesn't add up... permalink
      March 11, 2020 9:50 pm

      Of course, it will be financed by “using consumer subsidies” and an £800m CCS fund. Pouring money into a hole to try to fill it up. If they succeed, the consequences could be interesting (see Lake Nyos, and seismic events caused by waste fluid injection)

  36. Howard Curnow permalink
    March 11, 2020 6:14 pm

    How about a petition to repeal the Climate Change Act? So many seem to think that achieving net-zero is no great problem!

  37. Robert Loraine permalink
    March 11, 2020 6:48 pm

    Not feasible

  38. Peter Yarnall permalink
    March 11, 2020 8:27 pm

    Cannot sign. Cursor just slightly enlarges text, then decreases it.

  39. I Phillips permalink
    March 11, 2020 9:31 pm

    Great idea in principle, but a serious mistake in politics. The odds on winning this are close to zero, with the momentum of propaganda engulfing the media from all directions. Is it a blind, perhaps, by the warmists to try to get a referendum held and quickly won, an an attempt to stamp out all opposition. At present there isn’t even a campaign to expose the alarmist deceptions. This is the first step then, as with Brexit,…… months if not years of re-educating public opinion. We have time to do this, if everyone gets moving now.
    There then needs to be opinion polling to test the water before any formal steps are attempted. For a start, how many understand the role of the UN in devising the strategy of frightening the worlds’ populations into accepting a World Government by them…..another bunch of unelected bureaucrats seeking power? Now where else have we come across this in recent years….let me think!!
    My advice. Ignore this petition. Start campaigning pronto.

    • Gas Geezer permalink
      March 11, 2020 10:52 pm

      Sound advice , it would be like holding an EU referendum before UKIP had ever existed .I rarely ever meet anyone who doesn’t fully accept the premise of human induced climate change ,if one tries to posit some counter narratives one is either politely met with a bewildered smile and shake of the head almost as if they feel sorry for me and my profound ignorance or alternatively one is unceremoniously told to stop talking boll..ks. Incidentally this was by a sixty five year old man who had gone vegan and was worried about methane emissions aka cow farts and was seriously considering ripping out his gas boiler in favor of an air source heat pump.These are of course just my own anecdotal experiences and general feeling of where the UK is on this topic at the moment ,whether this is typical for others or not I can’t be sure.

  40. John189 permalink
    March 12, 2020 12:35 am

    After reading these comments I conducted some research amongst friends on the composition of the atmosphere. Only one responded with a less than 1 percentage figure for CO2, to wit “0.4” per cent. He then argued fiercely when I proposed to move his decimal point: “It can’t be that little!”. Everyone else assumed the proportion was well above 10 per cent – highest was 40 per cent. All one can do is keep challenging and educating. but meanwhile I have signed the petition.

    • Broadlands permalink
      March 12, 2020 1:18 pm

      And after moving the decimal point you get 400 parts-per-million. We are now at 415 ppm. To return to 400 ppm we would have to capture and safely bury 117 GIGAtons of this trace gas….and do it by 2050??? Where is sanity to be found in these ‘green’ proposals? It can’t be that much…but it is.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: