Three in five Brits reject higher taxes to reach Net Zero
By Paul Homewood
- 70% of Brits worried about energy costs this Christmas, new ComRes poll reveals.
- Over 60% of Brits say they won’t benefit from the government’s ‘green’ subsidies in poll commissioned by campaign group Net Zero Watch.
- Three in five UK adults aren’t willing to pay higher taxes on their energy bills to help reach Net Zero targets.
- 65% of UK adults say they haven’t been given enough of a say on the government’s Net Zero policies.
- “Net Zero could deliver a political crisis greater than the Poll Tax”
A staggering 70% of Brits say they are concerned about the financial impact of increased energy costs this Christmas, according to a new poll released today. This includes 79% of Labour voters. You can view the data tables here.
Meanwhile three in five (58%) UK adults say they would NOT be willing to pay higher taxes on their energy bills to help reach Net Zero targets including 49% of Labour and Green Party voters.
Two thirds (65%) of UK adults say the public have not been given enough of a say on the Government’s Net Zero policies, and while 30% of 18-24 year olds feel their voices have been heard, only 10% of all those over 45 feel they have had sufficient input.
The poll, commissioned by Net Zero Watch and conducted by Savanta ComRes, also found over 60% of Brits believe they won’t benefit from government’s ‘green’ subsidies – £5,000 to replace gas boilers with heat pumps and 35% of the cost of an electric vehicles, up to £2,500.
The most unpopular policy of the late twentieth century, and one that ultimately brought down Margaret Thatcher, was the introduction of the UK Poll Tax. In the months leading up to its introduction in April 1990, polls showed around 60% of the population were opposed to it.
With a raft of measures set for introduction, such as the phasing out of gas boilers by 2035, petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2030, and the mandatory EPC ‘C’ rating for landlords by 2025, the current government looks as if it is heading towards a “Poll Tax” moment of their own. These figures clearly show that the country is not behind either the policies or the direction of travel, and over two-thirds don’t feel they’ve been given a say.
Craig Mackinlay MP, Chair of the Net Zero Scrutiny Group said:
“As I’ve been saying for some time, I didn’t become a Conservative to make my constituents colder and poorer.
“It’s clear, looking at these figures, that the British public are not signed up to the government’s plans. They feel they haven’t been consulted or had their say; the majority don’t feel that government grants for air pumps or electric cars are either relevant to them, or more fundamentally needed to nudge them towards unreliable technologies they don’t want, and there is real worry about the ever-increasing costs of energy bills this winter.
“The general public are quite obviously not onside, and we need to be very careful about just whose shoulders are going to be carrying the very considerable costs of Net Zero.”
Steve Baker MP, who heads up the steering committee of the Net Zero Scrutiny Group said:
“I’ve warned that the cost of Net Zero could deliver a political crisis greater than the Poll Tax, and these figures show that the government are heading straight for such an eventuality.
“The British people are clearly deeply unhappy about paying higher taxes to help reach Net Zero targets and feel they haven’t been consulted about the choices the government are making.
“Grants for air pumps and electric cars are all very well, but how many people can actually afford to pay all the additional costs? 20% think they will actually benefit.
“We are heading down a path where blithe promises are made without considering the realities of current technology and the fact that many people in this country will just be left colder and poorer.“
Benny Peiser, Director of Net Zero Watch, said:
“Whilst these are not shocking figures to us, they should ring alarm bells in No. 10. Britain may have hosted COP26, but the general public feel that they have not been given a real say on the changes the government are forcing through.
“Millions of families will be struggling to keep their homes warm and their cars running this winter. Fuel prices continue to soar and the burden of these energy costs will fall on the elderly and the low paid at a time when people are already finding things tough.
“The government need to start listening and setting a more realistic path. We cannot bankrupt the country for an arbitrary goal or to look good on the international stage.”
https://www.netzerowatch.com/three-in-five-brits-reject-higher-taxes-to-reach-net-zero/
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
We need REDUCTIONS of existing taxes and scrapping of the invented ones since the “global warming” and “green” hysteria started.
Take transport fuel alone: around seventy percent of the actual price at the pump is tax!
Higher, if you include the taxes on the other costs, such as shipping, wages and storage.
Don’t forget the subsidies for those ‘Magic Emissions Free’ Electric cars that actually burn 15 % more CO2 than gas cars the same size . . .
https://www.academia.edu/62574334/Tesla_Versus_Toyota_Camry
“Electric cars that actually burn 15 % more CO2 than gas cars ”
I think you mean ..
Electric cars actually produce 15 % more CO2 than gas cars
Quite right . . . Thanks !
Yes but try avoiding or evading that tax! It’s very cheap to collect, pretty steady in size and large invisible. As a tax therefore its actually very good. If you shifted it to income tax, people would be appalled at how much tax they pay.
When the price cap is increased next year, NetZero need to be flooding the media with adverts and interviews explaining the real reasons, and why it’s only a taste of the cost to come.
How unusual to find an opinion poll supporting the common sense point of view. I hope the questions weren’t too leading?
BEIS ran a poll recently that claimed 87% support for renewables with only 1% actively opposed. You can be sure the questions were very leading.
Are there any polls asking: ‘Would you like to be colder and/or poorer in future in order to make no difference to the climate’?
Only 3?
Wait until after this winter.
The national grid on interconnectors – not sure if we’ve seen this before. Anyway, it’s full of coffee splattering gems.
***https://www.nationalgrid.com/document/141856/download***
“full of coffee splattering gems” .. such as?
Try some critical thinking and you might learn something.
Mr GM is probably too polite to reply to you what he feels. But allow me to give you an example.
“..Interconnectors act like super-highways
for clean energy. They are high-voltage
transmission cables that efficiently
transmit electricity between countries,
from where it is produced to where it is
most needed. For Great Britain, subsea cables enable large volumes of
zero-carbon generation to be imported
or exported over long distances without
significant energy loss along the way.”
Unmitigated bullshit. Interconnectors transmit electricity…period. It would be impossible for them to discriminate so why terms like “clean”, “zero carbon”
The advertising standards agency would ban such misleading crap.
Do you think things like that are acceptable? I believe such deception is illegal.
Quite !
Not to mention OHM’s Law and the losses incurred in transmission.
All Electricity Poisons Planet Earth YES . . . Even Renewables . . .
https://www.academia.edu/52039545/All_Electricity_Poisons_Planet_Earth
SOLUTIONS . . . .
Scrubbers and Electrostatic precipitators remove 95 % of the foul effluent from coal fired power Plants. $800 million to $1.2 billion for each 450 MW coal fired plant that will produce Electricity dependably and will last at least 50 years. Page 6 & 7
https://www.academia.edu/45570971/The_Environmentalist_and_The_Neanderthal
Wind turbines cost an average of $1.3 million per MW to build . . . plus infrastructure . . .
https://weatherguardwind.com/how-much-does-wind-turbine-cost-worth-it/
So – to build a 450 MW of wind turbines it will cost $1.3 X 450MW = $585,000,000
OH times 2 because wind turbines only last 20 – 25 years or almost 1.2 billion plus all the infrastructure and environmental damage building them.
OH and that is . . . When The Wind is Blowing . . .
FACT . . .
Wind Turbines are the ultimate in embedded costs and environmental destruction. Each weighs 1,688 tons (the equivalent of 23 houses) and contains 1,300 tons of concrete, 295 tons of steel (14.5 % Global CO2 is from concrete and steel), 48 tons of iron, 24 tons of fiberglass, and the hard to extract rare earths neodymium- Boron, praseodymium, and dysprosium. Each blade weighs 81,000 pounds and will last 15 to 20 years, at which time it must be replaced. We cannot recycle used blades.
There may be a place for these technologies, but first we must look beyond the myth of Zero Emissions. I predict EVs and windmills will be abandoned once the embedded environmental costs of making and replacing and operating them become public. Once it becomes Clear that 28 % of the Electricity is lost as HEAT between production of Electricity and having a fully charged battery . . . For that Electric Car.
I am trying to do my part with these comments. Bringing ‘The Embedded Costs’ of Going Green to light, but those who never ask . . . will never know. Then there are the ‘Greenies’ who do not want to Know ?
https://www.academia.edu/52039545/All_Electricity_Poisons_Planet_Earth
No such thing as an electric car. Coal fired is accurate.
Exactly ! For every KW of Electricity produced 28 – 31 % is lost as HEAT on the way to having a charged Battery in that Car . . . Ohm’s Law . . .
Electric Vehicles burn 15 – 18 % MORE CO2, per mile, than Gas cars . . .
https://www.academia.edu/64085546/Electric_Cars_The_Untold_Story_
https://www.academia.edu/62574334/Tesla_Versus_Toyota_Camry
Sorry chum, I stopped reading your paper when you declared all power plants are 35% efficiency, as if this was some basic law of thermodynamics. ICE engines typically run at 18% efficiency. An Achates Juno type engine gets a claimed 40% efficiency. A coal plant does indeed run at around 35%. And a gas power station runs at 55% efficiency. If you were burn gas at power station instead of in your car, ie power station to Tesla as opposed to burning in an LPG adapted car you theoretically get around 50% better fuel economy in the Tesla. This of course takes no account of the embedded energy cost of the huge battery pack. However most electricity doesn’t come from gas plants, yet alone renewable.
Tesla fan boys seem to believe that the electricity for their cars is zero emissions, or perhaps that the additional demand that e cars create will magically result in additional renewables to meet that demand. In fact the only feasible way to meet this is with additional coal generation, you can ramp coal production up at the drop of a hat, whereas gas fields invariably run at maximum output throughout the life of a well, you can’t just open the tap a bit more.
This quote is from Schneider Electric, one of the biggest power producers in The USA . . . “The efficiency of power plants like nuclear, coal-fired or natural gas turbines. These technologies are based on a thermodynamic cycle, that efficiency is in the order of 35%. This means that the combustion of coal, for example, will produce heat, which will be converted into mechanical energy and then into electricity”.
https://blog.se.com/energy-management-energy-efficiency/2013/03/25/how-big-are-power-line-losses/
When I am making a ‘broad based’ argument it’s NOT about splitting hairs. It’s making ‘generalizations’ to establish the ‘fundamental’ discussion. Between 8% and 15% is lost uploading and transmitting Electricity . . . I use 12% as a guide. When Electric Cars are NEW they burn 16% of the electricity as HEAT just to charge the battery. I do not quibble over the increases as the battery get’s older!
Electric Cars WASTE 28 – 31% of the electricity PRODUCED as HEAT into the environment before the wheels ever turn. This is about OHM’s LAW and getting the message out there that . . . Electric Cars AIN’T Zero Emissions !!
https://www.academia.edu/49057069/Electric_Cars_Burn_31_More_Energy_than_Gas_Cars
Will the public gain any say?
Who would represent us?
“70% of Brits say they are concerned about the financial impact of increased energy costs this Christmas”
Just wait till next year, when domestic tariffs start reflecting the current wholesale gas & electricity prices! And by then the lunacy of Germany’s energy policies will probably have caused Europe wide power cuts…
Yes indeedy, undoubtedly the pooh is about to hit the fan and greatly.
For the UK, the path to “net zero” relies on gas. Many UK domestic consumers are already paying an exhorbitant price for energy due to over-reliance on gas. This needs publicising.
See above . . . You can do it by cleaning up the flue gases at coal fired power generating stations !!
One of the oft-overlooked problems is going to be rental housing. Making g many – if not most – rentals compliant is just not going to happen as the costs far outweigh any ability to recoup them. My elder mother lets out a Victorian terraced house in South Wales she inherited. Making it comliant to continue letting it would cost around 40% of the value. She doesn’t have the capital nor could she increase the rent she charges to cover it anyway. So it will be sold. I understand in London lots of landlords are moving into their previously rented properties – undoubtedly to avoid capital gains tax when they sell. This lunacy is going to have a severe impact on the rental market.
Many would argue it would be a good thing if landlords were forced to sell up. Give Generation Rent a chance to own their own home instead of renting their whole life.
But can they afford to buy?
A dangerous truth about UK energy policy
https://mobile.twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/1474308281669763081
Phoenix44,
exactly, if you base a policy on a simple if we do x then we will save so much percentage of Y with no regard of what is involved, even with subsidies the cost is beyond any economic benefit it simply will not happen.
This, I think is why we have such nonsense from the Climate Change committee; they wee asked to advise the government on how we can reduce CO2 emissions, which they have done, with no regard to practicability or cost. If you ask something simple you get a simple answer.
“Where there is no market there is no price system and where there is no price system, there can be no economic calculation.”
Ludwig von Mises
1881 – 1973
CO2 is the wrong target.
The Sun, cosmic rays and water vapour are by far the main controllers of the planet’s climate.
All decolonization is useless despite UK costs of between £3 and £73 trillion estimated by
T May and M Carney respectively
DECARBONISATION, not as stated above
Also . . .
On July 18th, 2011 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), declared, in Scientific American, that More Than 50% of the heat that keeps Planet Earth Warm in the Universe, comes from the fission reactor at the Earth’s core. Not one Climate Change Forecast includes this Scientific Fact of how Planet Earth works. All the studies look only to the Sun for answers. That means All Current Projections examining Climate Change are missing 50% . . . 1 / 2 of the Input Factors effecting the Surface Temperature of the Earth!
From . . . https://www.academia.edu/51184433/Climate_Change_For_the_21_st_Century
But even though the Majority of Brits opposes this load of Net Zero they will just o ahead and do it anyway doing what the Globalists demand they do and t hats reduce their whole nation to poverty over a total,y fake threat of Global Warming/Climate Change
It’s not only the majority of Brits. It is the majority of ordinary people in all countries that do not want the “climate”, “green” and now “Covid” hysterics. Strange they all have the same objective of destroying normal life.
Afraid so, but what could be done to change these turkeys which are voting for Xmas?