Voters will not pay extra to achieve Boris’s Net Zero targets – POLL
By Paul Homewood
While polls show overwhelming support for Net Zero, it appears that very few actually want to pay for it!
The poll for Express.co.uk has shown that 53 percent will only support ending traditional gas boilers if they do not need to pay more for the alternative. Another 14 percent oppose the ban altogether while a mere 28 percent support it whatever the cost.
The results come amid fears carbon neutral heat pumps for houses will cost between £15,000 and £22,000 to install, crippling people in the cost of living crisis.
Under current plans, new homes will not be allowed gas central heating from 2025 and will have to use heat pumps or other alternatives.
From 2035, the Government plans to ban all new gas boilers altogether meaning that any replacement from then will have to be environmentally friendly.
Along with electric cars, which currently cost significantly more than petrol and diesel vehicles, there is a significant concern that people will be unable to afford the so called Green alternatives.
The findings of the poll have boosted calls for a referendum on Boris Johnson’s Net Zero plans which he agreed at the COP26 summit in Glasgow and at G7 meeting in Cornwall both last year.
Reform Party leader Richard Tice, who has led demands for a referendum on the Net Zero by 2050 goal, said: “There is no prospect of alternatives to gas boilers being cost neutral or actually costing less.
“That means this poll confirms that around seven in 10 people oppose these plans and only just over one in four support them.”
He went on: “It shows that Boris Johnson and the Government are completely out of touch with the views and concerns on this issue with ordinary people across Britain.
“With the cost of living crisis people are really despairing on how they can afford to pay the bills and this government is just adding to them with these green measures.
“It is all unnecessary and totally irresponsible.”
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Let the 28% lead by example.
Much of the 28% believe either there won’t be much cost or somebody else will pay.
The fact is, whether we like it or not, we’re already paying dearly for the Net Zero scam.
carbon neutral heat pumps
‘Carbon neutrality’ is an irrelevant nonsense. Are they water vapour neutral as well?
As a pensioner living on just a little more than the state pension, the idea that I could possibly spend £20,000 installing a heat pump is pure fantasy. But none of the elite in government could possibly comprehend my situation. Boris probably spends that much on a holiday.
“Boris probably spends that much on a holiday.”
I doubt it, his last one was paid for by Zac Goldsmith.
But his wife spent more than that on wallpaper!
We installed a new gas boiler a couple of years ago. I’m seriously considering buying another identical one and storing it for when this one expires.
Looks like the government wants to counter that idea…
Refusal to install a heat pump could lower the valuation of your house
Those who do not adopt green technology will receive a lower score, which can reduce the value of a home or make it more difficult to rent
3 May 2022
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/05/03/no-heat-pump-means-drop-house-value-government-plans/
Just ride around all day on a nice, warm bus & carry on voting for the LibLabCons party.
A poll means nothing. Consumers are stiched up big style and no longer have any choice in the matter.
I worry for the 28% that find the cost irrelevant. Rich and stupid.
Alternatively, they’ve bought into the “Save the Planet” message.
Most are saying what they imagine makes them sound virtuous to the pollster
Stupid either way.
The Ukrainian war has revealed the absolute failure of the green agenda.
If new-home owners aren’t going to be on the gas grid I wonder if there will be a surge in large Calor gas bottles – allowing gas boilers to function?
I wish that every politician and every bureaucrat and every media personality would read these ‘Facts’ and ‘get a grip’ on this whole ‘Net Zero’ fraud . . . the whole Clean Green agenda is fairy tales on STEROIDS !
https://www.academia.edu/76965285/Clean_Green_Energy_and_Net_Zero_Fairy_Tales_on_Steroids
Quite right Jim. Strange that the public should be unaware of the inflated prices paid to sustain the racket that is renewables which you could regard as the halfway house to net zero. One must conclude that the public and our MPs have never understood where their sleep walking has taken them.
Most of the public (and probably all of the politicians?) do not really understand what Net-Zero actually means. Negative emissions! Taking out of the atmosphere as least as much as was put in…carbon neutrality.
If they understood what that would entail, how long it would take and what it would cost this scam would have never taken off.
The public’s been told that wind & solar are cheap, after all, their CfD bids have been cheaper than gas!
How long will it take before everyone realises that the so called climate crisis is a delusion based on junk science? By arbitrarily choosing an ECS of 1.5 and above when it should be 0.8 or lower demonstrates it is a politically motivated choice. Anyway it is likely C02 has already reached saturation and The Pause will continue on its current path so we can all enjoy the increased plant growth with no fear of catastrophic global warming.
Regards
DaveD.
Amazing that 28% are stupid enough to support net zero whatever the cost.
Off-topic and for a bit of humour, this vid from 2013
‘Ex-Navy Nuclear Engineer Trevor Jackson has developed a highly energy dense aluminium fuel cell. Why will the government not support bringing it to market?
https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/aluminium-fuel-cell-why-government-blocking-it
If it worked you’d think private investors would be hammering at his door
Because the energy to mine the bauxite ore and refine the aluminium from it would considerably exceed the energy acquired from the battery?
Net Zero will fail on cost first, then on futility. Our problem is the percentage of the population that are deluded, thinking that NZ is a Good Thing. Of course they won’t pay for it.
Ever wanted to be on a jury where climate change is being deliberated?
A new book (available since LATE 2021) is an evidence-based look at whether CO2 is, in fact, a discernible climate change force.
Readers are members of the jury. The prosecution (IPCC) has waged a war against fossil fuels for more than 40 years and its case is anchored in its theory that additional atmospheric CO2 causes planetary climate warming.
The book examines the evidence and presents the case for the defense based on CO2 and global temperature evidence spanning three timeframes:
Geologic – dating back 550 million years
Ice Core – (1) Antarctic dating back 800,000 years and
(2) Greenland during the current (Holocene) interglacial
Contemporary records – dating from 1880
The book is written so non-scientists can understand the evidence and what it reveals. The Scientific Method is described and used to guide the jury through the evidence.
Readers are given a historic perspective on both atmospheric gases and global climate. Understanding is often aided by visualization so aids are offered to help readers gain a good understanding of perspective. Just how typical is the current Holocene interglacial climate? Is it a good measure of what “should be”? How has atmospheric CO2 varied over the past half-billion years? What does the evidence tell us about the relationship between changing atmospheric CO2 and changing climate? These questions are addressed by Looking Out the Window.
Novel graphics are used to help non-scientists visualize relationships that may not otherwise appear evident.
“Looking out the Window: Are Humans Really Responsible for Changing Climate? The Trial of Carbon Dioxide in the Court of Public Opinion” can be ordered online from both Amazon and Barnes & Noble.
The publisher set a steep price (US$59.95), but in defense of their price, it is a large format book (8.5″ x 11″… landscape), 232 double-column pages and the paper quality and color reproductions are outstanding. Amazon has several sellers at discount (mid US$40s).
While the book is available in popular eBook formats, the eBook version is NOT recommended because they are all inferior quality to the printed version.
From the book’s back cover:
“The hot dry seasons of the past few years have caused rapid disintegration of glaciers in Glacier National Park, Montana…Sperry Glacier…has lost one-quarter or perhaps one-third of its ice in the past 18 years… If this rapid rate should continue…the glacier would almost disappear in another 25 years…”
“Born about 4,000 years ago, the glaciers that are the chief attraction in Glacier National Park are shrinking so rapidly that a person who visited them ten or fifteen years ago would hardly recognize them today as the same ice masses.”
Do these reports sound familiar? Typical of frequent warnings of the dire consequences to be expected from global warming, such reports often claim modern civilization’s use of fossil fuels are the dominant cause of recent climate warming.
You might be surprised to learn the reports above were made nearly thirty years apart! The first in 1923 prior to the record heat of the Dust Bowl years in the US during the 1930s. The second in 1952 during the second decade of a four-decade cooling trend that had some scientists concerned that a new ice age might be on the horizon!
Did the remnants of Sperry Glacier disappear during global warming of the late 20th century?
According to the US Geological Survey (USGS), today Sperry Glacier “ranks as a moderately sized glacier” in Glacier National Park.
What caused the warmer global climate prior to “4,000 years ago” before Glacier National Park’s glaciers first appeared?
Are you aware that during 2019 the National Park Service quietly began removing its “Gone by 2020” signs from Glacier National Park as its most famous glaciers continued their renewed growth that began in 2010?
Was late 20th-century global warming caused by fossil fuel emissions? Was it really more pronounced than early 20th-century warming? Or was late 20th-century warming perfectly natural, in part a response to the concurrent peak strength of one of the strongest solar grand maxima in contemporary history?
These and other questions are addressed by “Looking Out the Window.”
Be a juror in the trial of carbon dioxide in the court of public opinion and let the evidence inform your verdict.
‘Why will the government not support bringing it to market?’
Probably because aluminium is ‘bottled electricity’. The efficiency losses from electricity to aluminium and back again would be enormous but more importantly the electricity supply to the aluminium pot lines needs to consistent and RELIABLE. Solidified pot lines following a power interruption are not an option.
PH: ” Reform Party leader Richard Tice, who has led demands for a referendum on the Net Zero by 2050 goal, said: “There is no prospect of alternatives to gas boilers being cost neutral or actually costing less.” ”
Quite correct and no-one – especially in Government or the Civil Service has considered the waste mountain that will be created of redundant gas boilers that may contain hazardous substances.
More likely the exact opposite if they actually asked ordinary people and businesses instead of only alarmists and other fanatics who hate everybody else.
>>overwhelming support for Net Zero