Nigel Farage Demands Referendum On “Ruinous” Net Zero
By Paul Homewood
Bring it on, Nigel!
Net Zero is net stupid. By taking Britain down its ruinous path, the political class in Westminster has made a decision on behalf of the rest of us without any public debate being held, saddling taxpayers with a debt that few politicians are brave enough to quantify publicly and even fewer economists are clever enough to forecast accurately.
It is a scandal of epic proportions and it must be challenged. That is why we are launching a campaign today for a referendum on the Net Zero delusion, under the banner of Britain Means Business.
The origins of the Net Zero delusion can be found in the dying days of Theresa May’s time in Downing Street in June 2019.
Desperately in search of a prime ministerial legacy, Mrs May pushed for an amendment to the Climate Change Act which would enshrine in law a commitment for Britain to reach Net Zero carbon emissions by 2050, making the UK the first G7 economy to advocate this.
Even though many privately knew it was an ill-thought-through aim, it has since become an article of faith among most MPs, with the mainstream media following obediently behind.
The same high-minded principles that pertained to Britain’s membership of the EU apply to Net Zero.
The Net Zero zealots are the same elitists who sneered at Brexit and don’t have to worry about paying their gas bills
What will Net Zero cost? Former Chancellor Philip Hammond is one prominent player who has been prepared to put a number on this crazy scheme. He has said it could hit £1 trillion.
For this reason alone the time has come for a public debate and plebiscite on this act of appalling self-harm.
If we are not careful, the only zero will be the amount in people’s bank accounts as we send our jobs and money overseas.
Aside from the cost, the conflict in Ukraine is the sharpest reminder of how little consideration has gone into the Net Zero policy.
Consider this. There are vast reserves of shale gas in Lancashire and Yorkshire, yet, even with the world in such a fragile state, the Government prefers to import natural gas instead.
Indeed, there are two shipments from Russia docking at a Kent Port this weekend. Yet importing gas in tankers creates substantially more CO2.
It is far more environmentally friendly to use our own shale gas. This shale treasure under our feet is owned by us all, with a value of trillions of pounds. We can slash our energy bills and create a sovereign wealth fund for future generations. Not using our shale gas amounts to gross negligence. Let’s be a world leader in the new technologies in order to extract it.
The same applies to coking coal, on which the steel industry relies.
Britain’s last deep coal mine closed in 2015, yet for as long as our steel industry survives, coal is needed. Guess how we get it? Britain buys in millions of tons of coal each year that is mined overseas.
It is for this reason that it seems crazy not to open the proposed (but so far not commissioned) Woodhouse Colliery in Cumbria. It would provide what is needed.
Under the Net Zero delusion, this will never happen.
Much the same can be said for our offshore oil industry. Recent major North Sea projects such as the undeveloped Cambo oil field have been shelved, so hostile are London and Edinburgh to the existence of this energy resource.
The Net Zero crowd are happy to outsource our energy production as they seek to turn Britain into the ‘Saudi Arabia of wind’, in Boris Johnson’s words. Yet it is clear that those espousing these ideas appear not to have given serious thought to where they are taking us. The more we rely on wind energy, the more gas we need to use when the wind doesn’t blow.
If we carry on, we will end up like Germany: entirely dependent on other regimes to keep the lights on.
By using shale gas, we can slash our energy bills and create a sovereign wealth fund for future generations he says
The Britain Means Business campaign recognises that as energy bills rocket to £2,000 per household, and possibly beyond, we are exposed. Warnings are mounting about supply concerns –the UK must become energy self-sufficient.
Not only is this achievable with Britain’s own resources, it will provide tens of thousands of well-paid jobs in the North of England. That really would be ‘levelling up’.
Our campaign slogan is ‘Vote power, not poverty’, and we believe that many millions of people will rally to this cry.
The impact of expensive energy is not just felt on household bills.
For years, our manufacturers, refiners, chemical producers and heavy engineers have been punished too. Without any debate, our energy bills have been loaded with green subsidies. Our businesses have been disadvantaged, yet our leaders seem happy to outsource industrial production just as long as they can say it reduces Britain’s CO2 emissions.
Of course, the upshot of their insistence in being seen to be ‘green’ is that goods – such as steel – are produced in countries like India, where lower environmental standards are accepted. These goods are then shipped back to the UK. This may keep the privileged rich happy. It may also keep Downing Street happy. But the perverse irony is that, ultimately, it leads to higher global CO2 levels.
We will campaign for the five per cent VAT on energy bills to be removed. Green subsidies are shovelled straight into the bank accounts of rich landowners, wealthy investors and foreign-owned conglomerates who own much of the renewable energy sector. This is sheer madness. It is also morally indefensible, as it costs jobs and makes ordinary people poorer. Removing the VAT penalty was a fundamental Brexit promise and its continuance is outrageous at a time when energy bills are soaring.
The Government’s ludicrous green energy plans have been exposed in recent days by the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee as uncosted. This is a truth that Net Zero fanatics would rather keep quiet. They are hell-bent on changing the way we live, forcing motorists to drive electric cars and buy heat pumps.
Yet the fact is, many – perhaps most – people cannot afford these products. They represent an idealistic dream that bears no relation to the hard realities of life for the majority.
And since Britain produces just one per cent of global CO2, while China builds scores of coal power stations every year, why on earth are British taxpayers being penalised in this way? Only a public debate can settle this question.
During the past decade, the people forced the political class to allow us a Brexit vote. The same needs to happen again in relation to Net Zero. Citizens of a free country deserve a free choice.
Britain Means Business will hold its first public event in Bolton on Saturday, March 26. Other events in other parts of the country will follow.
This is a cross-party campaign. It will have considerable support from business.
To truly succeed, though, we will need to hear from the public. We intend to provide people with the means to make their voices heard in this most vital debate.
Be in no doubt, this argument matters to every man, woman and child in Britain. It is not fair that under Net Zero the elderly will die colder, poorer and sooner.
It is not fair that the young will be burdened with higher costs, fewer jobs and less money.
Common sense must be allowed to prevail.
Comments are closed.
As I’ve said before, without reform to Ofcoms guidelines regarding climate change debate (I.e.don’t allow any) this campaign will be seriously disabled by those who support net zero and oppose Farage. I fear such is his polarising effect he may even divide the anti net zero camp. I hope I am wrong.
That’s quite possible, of course, RW…..but it might also start the first real, structural crack in the dam wall that we need to bring an end to the insanity of ‘Nett Zero’
One lives in hope…
As things stand we’re getting next to net zero media or political traction for opposing this policy. Nigel Farage’s efforts might be in vain but without trying we definitely lose.
I’m not so sure he’ll lose. Much of the public has seen through this racket while doubters will have their minds focused when electric and gas bills start landing on doormats.
Stands a chance if its kept to how much average family will have to pay. Veering off into geo-politics or CO2 issues is going to turn most off. KISS.
You may well be right, Richard. By his endorsement of hydroxychloroquin(?), Trump inadvertently killed off the possibility of using cheap pharma products to deal with Covid 19, a unbelievable cost to us all. The same could happen on net zero, if sneering dismissal of Farage is allowed to go unanswered.
Hydroxy, Ivermectin etc were never going to be allowed by big pharma, big money and the politicians they had bought. Trump brought these drugs to public attention but yes they got blocked and he got blanked. Without Trump we may not have heard of these alternates.
Nigel has the profile to at least alert the public that there’s a debate to be had. At the moment, many being spoonfed by BBC etc dont even know the Green agenda is debatable.
They don’t work.
End of.
Huw Grant apparently does not like the idea of this campaign .If the luvvies are against it as well Nigel is on the money ..
Exactly, and this is how even the Graun are now portraying some of the luvvies.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/mar/07/putin-hollywood-pals-leonardo-dicaprio-steven-seagal-depardieu-rourke-stars-snuggled-up-russian-dictator
It never ceases to amaze me how many deep, serious issues Grant is an expert in. I do wonder where he finds the time?
I think he is having a career break post Paddington lol
This is just a bandwagon for Farage to jump on this week that covers up his history of pro-Putin rhetoric. Many people will just react against this divisive man, and say if he’s against NetZero then it must be a good thing. It will set any chance of a reasonable debate back b6 years as it becomes yet another pointless culture war issue.
Contrast Fargel’s “pro-Putin rhetoric” with the current governments “pro-Putin” actions and contractual agreements.
“his history of pro-Putin rhetoric.”
Really?
So you can supply examples, right?
Or – as seems more likely – you’re just making stuff up.
In 2014 in a GQ interview Farage said Putin was the world leader he most admired, because of his handling of Syria. Sorry to burst your bubble.
There’s a difference between admiring someone and supporting their policies.
Don’t exaggerate. Farage is not some pro-Putin stooge just because he has made a few comments here and there.
In 2014 Alistair Campbell for GQ asked Farage whom he admired most as a World Leader and Farage replied:
“As an operator, but not as a human being, I would say Putin. The way he played the whole Syria thing. Brilliant. Not that I approve of him politically.
How many journalists in jail now?”
Is this ‘pro-Putin,’ or a bit of ‘give the Devil his due’? Or trivial saloon-bar blather?
I take the Mail and found his article inspiring. The same issue contained a piece by Anti-Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng which couldn’t have been more different.- anti shale gas on utterly spurious grounds, claiming it would take five years (Francis Egan claims one year), wouldn’t affect gas prices (has he never heard of the law of supply and demand?) and, so help us, just wants yet more of the same renewables which in January’s anticyclone yielded at one time under 1% of our electricity. He repeats yet again the bogus claim renewables costa are ‘plummeting’ (why do they need subsidy then?)
He likes nuclear but that would take much longer than the five years he objects to over shale and he is a member of a government which has yet to order a single small modular reactor.
Ian, I think the only SMR one could currently buy is Russian. But – baby steps…
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Rolls-Royce-SMR-design-accepted-for-review
Good start, but such a referendum needs to happen in _every_ country (particularly in Europe) to put an end to the “climate”, “green” and anti-mobility vindictiveness
I think it would be a big risk – nearly EVERYONE is totally indoctrinated by this myth. I wouldn’t even rely on my family to vote the right way.
Good comment – I agree 100%. Schools have been pushing the co2 myth for 30 years or more. I have a friend who has a masters in chemistry and he believes in AGW! Even Farage still talks about reducing co2 emissions – even he does not understand that there is no correlation between climate and co2. Until Joe Public understands the whole co2 idea is a scam, the referendum will be a big risk. The gov’t propaganda ministry will go into overdrive to convince the sheep!
What David Pounder said!
Farage is a director of a company that benefits from carbon credits, paid for by the taxpayer. Not entirely to be trusted.
“Farage is a director of a company that benefits from carbon credits”
Please provide proof.
Too risky at the moment. You have to think of the consequences of the referendum supporting Net Zero. It’s so imbedded in the every day thinking of the general public that it will hard to shift. The supporters would inevitably emphasise the link to Climate Emergency and too many people still believe that scenario.
A referendum supporting Net Zero would give Boris a free hand to turn the screw as hard as the Alarmists want. Too dangerous.
The harder the screw is turrned, the sooner the disastrous consequences will become clear to the general population. Mind you, I’d rather Farage gained enough traction now to force a change of policy.
I don’t think Farage will be entirely serious about actually getting a referendum on Net Zero. I’ve heard him saying on GB News that just talking up the idea of holding a referendum on Net Zero could in itself have some effect on the implementation of Net Zero.
I can’t see the British political class wanting to hold referendums on non-constitutional issues. They are agreeable to holding referendums on constitutional issues, but the main reason for that concession was ‘the Troubles’ in Northern Ireland. The first ever referendum to be held in the UK was in 1973 asking the people of Northern Ireland whether they wanted to remain in the UK or join the Irish Republic. Subsequent referendums on constitutional issues have been the referendum on Common Market membership in 1975, Scotland separating from the UK in 2014, a minor change to the first past the post voting system in 2011, and the EU Referendum in 2016.
If the British political class conceded a referendum on Net Zero, that might create a precedent for other referendums they wouldn’t want to hold like abolition of the death penalty, whether the UK should be a multi-cultural country, etc.
You will recall the fear of mutually assured destruction. The same recognition seems to be denied mutually ensured impoverishment — so far at least. A Farage initiative might put the mockers on it but a start has to be made somewhere.
In a sense a ‘bluish’ tabloid is not the best place either but we should not rely on the broadsheets yet. A somewhat out of focus by G.Trefgarne headed ” Britain is sleepwalking into an energy crisis” in the Sunday Tel. yesterday is a step in the right direction.
Divisive? Of course a referendum will be divisive! It is essential that it be divisive – that is the point! The arguments against climate alarmism have to be heard and understood by the general public rather than blanked out by compliant media and the great and the good.
Those who oppose a referendum are scared stiff of Farage’s ability to open the floodgates of debate on this pseudo-scientific and financial scam. A referendum will spur ALL the political parties towards more rationality through fear of losing their seats. As long as the current alarmist consensus prevails in parliament and government there can be no change in their fantastical climate and energy policies and no choice for the voters.
I have signed the petition for a Net Zero Referendum and put my money where my mouth is with a donation to Reform.
Farage; the best PM we’ve never had.
Indeed!
Much like climate skeptics Tony Heller and the late David Bellamy, Nigel is actually a traditional naturalist and ecology restorationist …. Net Zero is unachievable insanity and If the United Kingdom does not start a fracking revolution the country will become vulnerable to energy dependence extortion …….Ironically Margaret Thatcher in 1990 was instrumental in promoting the global warming crisis to deter this very scenario of the hard left Communist infiltrated British coal mining unions holding the nation to ransom
I would add to that Stuart – Thatcher was a big supporter of free market economics, and privatised the electricity industry on that dogma.
Free market incentives have been a player in the short-term financial gains which now leave us dependent on gas and energy imports. I know there has been government and regulatory interference, but that doesn’t change my point.
I have said here before, the free market is not sophisticated enough to provide the security of supply needed for power supply to homes and business. Without that degree of sophistication, there would be massive suffering from any attempt to step aside and leave power supply to the market.
This is because the market cannot put an investment grade valuation on all of the necessary component parts needed to secure supply. They are not transparent enough to be freely discovered.
It is simply not credible to expect enough the market to “discover” (asses and put an investment grade value on-) the optimum investments needed to secure supply. Even setting that point aside, it is equally not credible to expect a sufficient number well-informed investors to bring free market disciplines to these investments. This never happened in any meaningful way in the privatised UK electricity industry, and if we stepped aside to leave it to happen of its own accord, it never would. We would just arrive at an insecure non-functional market, much the same as we have today after toiling to make Thatcher’s version of electricity supply work.
Thatcher was both dogmatic and wrong. It’s not all her fault, but that doesn’t excuse her mistake.
You clearly don’t remember the pre-Thatcher era of dozens of nationalised industry utterly at the mercy of the Hard Left trade unions.
catweazle666 Good guess, but wrong. I do remember those days. I agree there was plenty wrong with the nationalised industry, but it doesn’t make the privatised model better.
In the nationalised days, we had too many costs in the industry, we had no choice of supplier, but we had certainty. The CEGB (and Regional Electricity Boards) carried out long-term planning, capacity and fuel sourcing, and tariffs were boringly predictable. True, they were higher than we wanted.
In the privatised days, we have had an attempt at reducing costs in the industry through market pressure from the transparency of choice. It has resulted in shortage – which is due to the market failures I mentioned (and you failed to pay attention to). Now we have zero certainty – try predicting what your tariffs will be in 2-3 years (choice or not). The competitive industry does very little in the long-term, and tariffs are alarmingly unpredictable. They are STILL higher than we’d like. That’s the cost of loss of technical resilience and shortage of primary resource.
We can have price certainty with no transparency. Or we can have price transparency with no certainty. We cannot have both.
“I agree there was plenty wrong with the nationalised industry, but it doesn’t make the privatised model better.”
You clearly never tried to get a telephone line installed, travelled regularly on British Rail or bought a BMC car built by Red Robbo and his Unionised workforce – amongst a plethora of ot problems caused entirely by nationalisation.
And then there was Arthur Scargill…
Nationalisation empowered the Hard Left USSR-supported trade unions to effectively destroy much of the industry in this country, I was in Manchester when the dockers destroyed the Manchester Docks and thus the Ship Canal docks, for example.
Nationalisation was a disaster across the board – face it – and thank we got Margaret Thatcher to put the unions back in their box.
As to the price of electricity, it wouldn’t make any difference at the moment whether the industry was private or public owned or how much long term planning there was and I suspect that that if the Government was in charge of the power industry Net Zero would be enthusiastically implemented because there would be no profit motive to inspire them to keep the lights on, the price would still go through the roof – there’s a war on, or hadn’t you noticed?
I’m suspicious of referenda in a country that isn’t used to them. Without re-visiting the Brexit debate, it would be wrong not to remember that both sides were short on facts and long on emotion.
A referendum on net-zero would be just as bad especially when the vast majority of people do not understand the full implications of the objective itself or the ramifications of the steps needed to reach it — assuming all sides can agree on whether it is even possible scientifically, in the country’s best interests if it is, and achievable at a cost that the country can bear.
Given the level of deliberate misinformation from the eco-warriors and other vested interests on the question of fracking, I have no doubt that as much mendacity (if not more) will be employed by the same agencies to distort the facts of the matter, or perhaps more accurately to represent as facts what can only be speculation since nobody knows for certain how or whether net-zero is achievable.
An Act of Parliament can be repealed. The outcome of a referendum is not so easily overturned even if it is proved to be impossible to implement. And that applies both ways!
“I’m suspicious of referenda in a country that isn’t used to them.”
I don’t know where you get that idea from.
We’ve had ten since 1973.
That’s one every four and a half years, give or take.
I’m talking about national referenda, of which there have been four. As a country we are not used to deciding major items of public policy by plebiscite. Unlike, for example, the Swiss.
We should have learnt a lesson from 2016. Both sides treated it like a General Election campaign as if it was reversible in 5 years time if it wasn’t working. We ended up in a mess because we pretty much knew what we wanted but couldn’t agree on the details.
In a referendum on net-zero the vast majority won’t have any idea of the implications, virtually nobody knows how to get there or whether it is scientifically feasible and the whole argument has been tainted by activist groups whose aim is not the stated one and whose acquaintance with objective truth is, to say the least, suspect!
We coped OK with the EU Referendum!
Mike Jackson, people voted Leave on a long term basis with the UK deciding what it would do over years. We were an EU member for decades but things like the Single Market didn’t appear until 20 years after we joined. Remainers seem to ignore that we can now choose (and may choose badly) and seem to think thd EU we kept was the EU that always existed. Both positions are pretty silly.
Phoenix, in fact the EU came into existence in 1993 with the implementation of the Maastricht Treaty which converted the European Economic Community from an economic entity into a political entity.
NO! as a few have noted, it is likely that the green blob would win. My family, 4 grown up kids in forties believe in all the warming crap, particularly the two in USA, who hated Trump and worship Biden. I have tried and tried to convince them, but to no avail, all I have managed was to get them to put the electric vehicle on hold. We have to wait a few more years for the power cuts to click in. Although the Putin invasion may get us back into using UK oil and gas, all the rubbish that Kwarteng spouts about renewables, makes sense to the green blob. Incidentally XR are planning three weeks of protests starting April 9 in Hyde Park against fossil fuel industry, lets see what sort of reception they get this time, and who knows the police might take some action.
Not only would the green blob win, but a loss of Tory votes at the next GE might result in a “progressive alliance”, which is sure to outbid the Tories on timescales.
I fully understand your points Geoff but actually getting a referendum held would be a long drawn out process taking several years in which time those bills and repercussions would have hit and reinforced the case.
P.S.
I also wrote to my MP, Hilary Benn, a former Sec of State for the Environment. See below
4 March 2022
Dear Mr Benn
As a former Sec of State for the Environment I hold you personally responsible (amongst others) for the direction Energy policy has taken in the UK over the last decades. Your uncritical agenda to demonise the harmless CO2 molecule and raise the agenda of climate alarmism to boiling point has caused the fatal reduction in energy security and domestic fossil fuel exploitation that now leaves us open to the blackmail of Putin.
You took your eye off the ball BIG TIME, Mr Benn, and I am sure there were others apart from me who warned you long ago about Green insanity regarding climate and energy. Only Germany went further than the UK in destroying its own energy security but now Germany has seen the light. The UK should do the same. Your speaking out to apologise for your part in the UK’s energy debacle would be a big help in balancing the debate and admitting the mistakes of the past.
I hope you are going to redeem yourself at last by supporting a move to increase the tapping of the UK’s North Sea’s oilfields and ending the totally invidious and stupid moratorium on fracking. Fracking is an industry that could provide much needed well-paid jobs in the North of England and start to put into effect the levelling up agenda that I suppose you support? It would massively boost the Treasury”s tax take (as most UK fossil fuel extraction does) unlike so-called “renewables” which are a perennial drain on the public purse (i.e taxpayers) via various huge subsidies. It would also improve Britain’s permanent Balance of payments deficit.
Get a move on, Mr Benn. President Putin is REAL and dangerous. The cost of living emergency is REAL and dangerous unlike the FAKE much-hyped so-called “Climate Emergency” which has so beguiled much of the woke West. It is the biggest pseudo scientific and financial scam ever perpetrated.
YOU were a prime enabler in advancing it in the UK. Let there be no doubt about that.
Yours faithfully, your constituent,
Susan Ewens
Farage is just the man for this. No one else has better connections or a better track record. I am 100% behind him. What’s more now is the perfect time to start. The cost of fuel and the cost of electricity will galvanise the public like nothing else could. The Mail are also backing him. It will be hard to ignore, even for the BBC and ITN.
I think GeoffB is right – it is too early to mount a high profile referendum campaign, and having a person who does not do detail like Farage to head it would be a mistake. The energy costs have yet to hit as most people have yet to receive their new tariffs. And given that there will be another huge increase in October, I suspect in a year we will be in a better place. Having seen a letter in the Mail highlighting the big increase in the standing charge, I wonder if this might be a good target as I presume the massive increase in grid management costs is behind it.
No the ncreae in the standing charge is a way to both lock in revenue against price falls and to make the increase in tariffs look lower.
If I had asked my daughter for her views on this subject when she was 18 and just starting university she would have been completely anti Nigel Farage and pro net zero. Asking her now (she is 24) and is paying 12% NIC, 20% Income Tax, 9% student loan repayment, 6% pension and of course increasing council tax and a mere £600 per month rent on a shared London flat and you start to to get a different answer. Sadly when the next energy bill comes in it will likely be at £180 per month (£60 each) up from £110.
Unfortunately she is rather poorly off despite working full time in graduate level employment and things are only getting worse.
The Green blob better look out – it is amazing how money (or the lack of it) focuses the mind and re-evaluates opinions.
She’s in for a shock, like most of us, when the bills for everything start coming in later this year. I’ve got plumbers here doing some work for me atm and they are telling me of the price rises in their trade, 30-40% is common. These guys will be subject to the same general price rises as the rest of us and they will want an increase in their rates etc, etc.
I’m not sure where all this will end but we’ll all be poorer, except those renewable guys, for years to come.
The right time for a referendum is after a few weeks or months of blackouts to bring home to the population what Net Zero really means – on top of horrendously high bills.
I think you’re right but I’m not at all sure that I know just what it is that net-zero does actually mean, largely because it seems to mean different things to different people. Does it mean only using fuels which emit no CO2? Does it mean extracting from the atmosphere an amount equal to the amount we generate in producing fuel or our total emissions? Where does breathing come into the equation, in that case? How are plants supposed to thrive if we are determined to limit their food supply? And several dozen other questions to which — I suspect — no climate activist group or scientist or politician or the Prime Minister’s wife knows the answer.
‘Net-zero’, like Schellnhuber’s meaningless (as he admitted) 2° limit, is a slogan; it has no scientific basis or significance; it assumes that CO2 plays a part in changing the climate (for which there is no scientific evidence) and that eliminating mankind’s 3% of 0.004% is possible or necessary. And there is no scientific evidence for that either. Nor is there any evidence that if achievable it will have any beneficial effect on mankind which is, after all, the only consideration that really matters.
And all that said, we are toying with the idea of asking the British voter to decide whether to proceed with this dubious course of action. It’s sheer madness!
In reply to Mike Jackson, yes it is madness. In reply to Susan Ewens, I agree with you in almost every particular. A debate has to happen, and it has to be public. I am not sure that waiting for the right combination of power cuts and weather will ever get us anywhere. We know that the climate alarmists are afraid of public debate. On the few occasions when senior alarmists have made the mistake of joining in public debate, they have been obviously and openly trounced. (I’m thinking of Michael Mann at Senate Committee, Gavin Schmidt and the empty chair, and a few other events…; you may all have your own favourites). If we can find a way to force public debate, then the public mood may change. I agree that having Nigel Farage as the figurehead is problematic in some ways, but I do not see a better alternative. Pre-Carrie Boris could and perhaps would have done the job, but he is now a naive traveller lost in the green fog. We (and I mean the major public fora for skeptic debate – here, WUWT, Net Zero Watch, GWPF, and so on) could try to make sure that Nigel Farage travels with well-informed scientists and policy makers. I will certainly try to attend the first meeting on March 26th. I hope to see some of you there!
Net Zero is a spread sheet exercise, using all the fabulous and fallacious “carbon credit” exercises, such as planting millions of trees, buying carbon credits from the “developing world”, which still includes China. With creative accounting they can get the Net Zero that they will claim.
Yes but that means the time to start the campaign is now. It took decades to get a referendum on the EU. Farage needs to be working on people’s perceptions now and to be proven right when costs soar and blackouts arrive.
Reluctantly I have to agree with those commenters who say it’s too soon. Real world events have to start demonstrating the Green argument is fallacious before we begin. Farage may have been relatively successful over the political area of ‘Brexit’ but this is a whole different ‘ball game’ and requires an altogether different individual at the helm. Mind you, I think Vladimir Putin has made a very good start, at least for us, if not for the Ukrainians.
“Reluctantly I have to agree with those commenters who say it’s too soon.” No that is completely wrong. How long do you think it would take to have a referendum even if the process were started now? At very minimum two years and likely much longer.
It’s the job that never gets started that takes the longest to finish.
I agree with Mad Mike, GeoffB, Gerry and others, a net zero referendum is a very dangerous strategy.
The danger is that the turkeys will vote for Christmas.
There are too many employed in government, civil service, councils, quangos, agencies, charities who are alarmists, and others making money out of the renewable scam, and the rest who are brainwashed, coerced and propagandised who believe in the CO2 fairytale.
Fear rules, if all the useless idiots voted in favour of net zero that may never ever be reversible and we will be worse off than now.
The law of unintended consequences.
Beware what we all wish for!!
I hope Nigel’s proposal is a tactical statement rather than one of intent.
A previous contributor alerted me to the ” Revoke the 2050 Net Zero ” Petition. I’ve just signed it.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/599710
Need to get a move on with that. Only 171 sigs so far!
Public support majority of net zero policies … unless there is a personal cost
https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/public-support-majority-net-zero-policies-unless-there-is-a-personal-cost
Which goes some way to backing what I was saying earlier.
Do people know what the costs are? Do you? Does anybody? The obfuscation — or lying, as we call it in the trade, sir! — by the CCC, the ‘renewables’ lobby, the green lobby, the Whitehall ‘blob’ would have us, like Alice’s White Queen, believe six impossible things before breakfast.
“It will only cost £x00”, until Paul does a bit of digging and tells us “yes, but that’s each of us, and every year”.
“We’ll have the technology by the time we need it.” Along with nuclear fusion, no doubt.
“Renewables are cheaper than fossil …” Only if you ignore the subsidies and the emissions released during manufacture and assembly of the kit.
And they seriously expect us to believe that it’s cleaner to cut American forests and send wood chips across the Atlantic than to use the coal that Drax is sitting on.
Doesn’t Net Zero just flow from the Climate Change Act? If so, shouldn’t referendum be on the Climate Change Act? Or is an incremental approach better, so just key on the Net Zero part first?
You need to start to resist the Net Zero nonsense now. It may be a long drawn out battle, but it is fundamentally a battle of the truth against lies. One must always resist lies. There is no best time to do it. We all need to start now.
And, concerning Mr Farage. Since no one else is willing to fight, if you don’t back him, you have no one. So it doesn’t matter what your sensitivities are, You need to forget about your sensitivities, roll up your sleeves, and begin the fight back.
For those who say it is not the right it will never be the right time. They are already casualties in the conflict.
We can already see casualties in the conflict minute by minute as Putin, emboldened by the West’s destruction of their own energy sources and reliance on his finger on his tap, gratuitously rapes and destroys Ukraine with very little let or hindrance.
As for Boris, just this evening he was on telly saying that Nuclear and renewables are the way forward and thus he has doubled down on his green crap program.
In the past few days I have read on this site apologists for Putin and his actions and now I read people opining that we should wait, take no action, disregard Nigel, and generally act in a shameful manner when compared to the bravery of the Ukranians.
Go to the link, donate some cash, and set Nigel loose amongst the thieves at Westminster.
Link
https://votepowernotpoverty.uk/
Done!
Some (un) official pushback? …
https://www.businessgreen.com/news/4046068/attention%E2%80%99-anger-nigel-farage-launches-campaign-net-zero-referendum?utm_medium=email&utm_id=5500b1cd7111aa95653fccba30d57ab2&utm_content=%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%27Cry%20for%20attention%27%3A%20Anger%20as%20Nigel%20Farage%20launches%20campaign%20for%20net%20zero%20referendum%20%20%20%20%20%20&utm_campaign=New%20Daily%20Template&utm_source=BG%20New%20Newsletters&utm_term=2020%20TRUSTEES%20LTD
Awful Farage show on GB news tonight, he had guests to discuss GB energy strategy were Bob Ward and Dale Vince! I’m afraid Nigel was no match for these experienced duff gen merchants – he just doesn’t know enough about the subject. Who’s idea was it to give them the oxygen of publicity?
As I was saying…………..
I refer to my previous comment. We need to try to connect Farage with skeptical commentators, rather than media weasels like Bob Ward. The attention structure of the media is as it is; we need to (help to) change it. Publicity surrounding a referendum at least offers scope for that.
Spot on. I have sent him the facts on video e.g Happer, Lindzen etc. He obviously hasn’t watched any of them
“There are too many employed in government, civil service, councils, quangos, agencies, charities who are alarmists, and others making money out of the renewable scam, and the rest who are brainwashed, coerced and propagandised who believe in the CO2 fairytale”
Exactly like the split for and against Brexit. In addition, all the media was against that, too. But the nay-sayers were finally overcome by the sane and sensible amongst us.
People who try to prevent referendums are not democrats. Full stop.
No-one is arguing for an immediate referendum on Net Zero. That is a straw man. A head of steam against Net Zero must be created and that can start now. It has started. Opinion polls already show the public are against EVs, heat pumps, hydrogen boilers, etc. The press are in full cry explaining the drawbacks and the pubic is getting more and more “educated” on the issues all the time. It’s not rocket science, after all. WE all understand the issues. Let’s not underestimate our fellow citizens.
If Germany, the greenest of the green, can undergo a sea change so can the UK.
It is the complete absence of knowledge about climate that allows the alarmists so much headroom. Ask anyone what percentage of the atmosphere is CO2 and it will range from 60% (answer given to me by ex Govt. Minister) to 1% – rarely if ever below.. Then ask them if they understand the result of it having a logarithmic effect on temperature and they are soon back swimming in alarmism.
Roger explained in the next thread that libmob have already moved in to deplatform the event
The Ukraine conflict will take the blame for all our energy cost woes, the futility of net zero policies is already lost in the fog of war.
The first casualty of War is the truth.