Telegraph Calls For Referendum On Net Zero


OCTOBER 22, 2021

By Paul Homewood

 The public got it right over Brexit. Now give them the chance to vote on the biggest decision of all:

Does the blob never learn? Voters don’t like being treated like naughty children, let alone apathetic imbeciles, by technocrats convinced that they know best. Much of the electorate is now in a permanently defiant, irritable mood. It has grown allergic to stitch-ups by the ruling class across Westminster, the City, the arts and academia, and is repelled by attempts to impose a single political vision as a fait accompli, with no debate and no consultation. This applies as much to radical environmentalism and net zero, the groupthink du jour, as it does to Brexit, the NHS, overseas wars, crime or immigration.

The universal franchise was hard-won. The electorate is deeply attached to its democratic rights, not just when it comes to form – elections being held, and results respected – but also in terms of ethos. It expects the great questions of the day to be carefully discussed, and for voters to have the ultimate choice between meaningfully different options. Decisions cannot be delegated to a self-anointed, conformist oligarchy.

Voters hate it when, as with the EU, they were told by Labour, Tories and Lib Dems alike that ever-closer union was the best of all possible worlds, that the only acceptable debate was about the speed of integration, and that only a racist would disagree. Ordinary folks’ revenge, when it came, was devastating.

It beggars belief, therefore, that a government of Brexiteers, in power only because they led a populist rebellion against another cross-party consensus, have forgotten this crucial lesson when it comes to net zero, and are seeking to enshrine a revolution without consulting the public. Yes, the vast majority, at least in wealthy nations, wants to improve the environment, reduce pollution, bolster biodiversity, treat animals better and prevent man-made catastrophes.

But that is where the near-universal consensus ends: the details of how to proceed are explosively contentious, and require democratic assent to be legitimate. The parallel with Brexit is clear: the fact that voters all agreed that another European war must be avoided didn’t mean they all wanted to fuse their countries into a superstate.

The Government has learnt the wrong lessons from Covid – in a genuine health or military emergency, the electorate temporarily gives its support to any government it believes is doing its best. Even in such cases, a minority will favour alternative solutions, such as a Swedish approach.

Decarbonisation is entirely different to the pandemic, whether or not you judge that we face a climate emergency. The public won’t automatically rally around whatever the government proposes. Many, perhaps most, will hate much of it. Net zero involves long-term, hugely significant measures that could drastically modify lifestyles and give the state immense, permanent powers to socially engineer as it sees fit.

Do you agree that all new petrol and diesel cars should be banned in just nine years’ time? Or that gas boilers should be replaced, at great cost, with heat pumps, a technology that doesn’t quite work yet? Are you willing to eat less meat and pay higher taxes? Do you disagree entirely, or accept some of these ideas but not others? Or would you prefer to take it more slowly given China’s reluctance to act?

The shocking reality is that how you answer is irrelevant. The public isn’t being given a choice. The fact of, and speed, scale and method of decarbonisation have been decided: Tories, Labour and Lib Dems all agree on all the essentials. It doesn’t matter who wins the next election: a new orthodoxy rules supreme. There is no functioning democracy, no mechanism by which outcomes might change. This is a disgrace and extremely dangerous.

One doesn’t have to disagree with everything the Government is planning to be concerned. I really like electric cars, though I can’t see how banning combustion engines so quickly in the absence of better, long-range batteries can work. Why not let capitalism continue to organically shift consumers over? It is great that Boris rejects the hair-shirt, neo-communist approach to greening Britain, and that he backs nuclear and hydrogen. But do I really trust a government that has waged war on the car, invented so-called low-traffic neighbourhoods and campaigned against Heathrow expansion not to revert to banning everything vaguely carbon-positive if it falls behind on its targets?

Why is its nudge unit advocating a tax on meat and producers and retailers of “high-carbon” food? The inflammatory document, disowned by the Government but commissioned by the Department for Business, demonises business travel and seeks to reduce international tourism and restrict airport expansion – goodbye, capitalist freedom. Can the Government guarantee that it would never impose extreme restrictions, rationing on homes and business or even mini eco-lockdowns? Or use a punitive form of road pricing to drastically reduce mobility (as opposed to ensuring motorists pay appropriately for road usage)? Will the courts start striking down high-carbon housebuilding or farming?

Net zero isn’t a technical issue: it is an inherently political question, one of the greatest choices we have ever been asked to make. In the sickening absence of disagreement between the parties, a massive, uncontrollable backlash is guaranteed, at least when the bills start to drop. The only question is who the new green-sceptic Nigel Farage will be, and the next Boris figure? What will Vote Leave II look like?

Johnson should preempt this war, which could destroy the Tories, and call a referendum on net zero today. His obligation, in doing so, would be to explain in exhaustive, costed detail how he proposes to achieve the changes he so fervently believes in. The No side would present its case, holding Johnson to account, proposing alternatives, with the public taken through the pros and cons and trade-offs. The results should be legally binding, with MPs compelled to implement the verdict, and the question tightly defined. The Government will have its work cut out: the Swiss have just rejected plans to slash their own emissions and to slap higher taxes on fossil fuels.

The green challenge is too important, its implications too dramatic, to be left to an establishment that has embraced net zero as if it were a new religion. The public must have the final say, and the only way this will happen is through another referendum.

I know I may sound like a stuck record, but where have the media been for the last 13 years? It’s almost as if they think that Boris plucked these ideas out of thin air yesterday!

We have known for years that the country cannot run on intermittent wind and solar power alone. We have known that heat pumps are an extremely expensive and inefficient way to heat homes.

That hydrogen is no solution, and that electric cars are not fit for purpose.

Above all we have known all along that the cost of first the Climate Change Act, and subsequently Net Zero, were going to be horrendous.

So why is it only now that they are beginning to wake up?

4.8 32 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Andrew Wilkins
October 23, 2021 6:05 am

I’ll be very surprised if they allow a referendum. Brexit didn’t go the way the elites wanted, so I doubt they’ll let the little people have any kind of say again.

Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
October 23, 2021 6:24 am

They will allow the referendum if they know they can fix the vote(I guess the referendum needs less dead voters than Biden did,)
And they obviously can, otherwise tptb wouldn’t have instructed the telegraph to start with this indoctrination campaign.

Steve Case
Reply to  SxyxS
October 23, 2021 8:01 am

The only question is who the new green-sceptic Nigel Farage will be, and the next Boris figure? What will Vote Leave II look like?

What will the vote look like?


Which party will be better at
stuffing the ballot box?

Reply to  SxyxS
October 23, 2021 8:21 am

No : Allister Heath is NOT popular with TPTB.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  SxyxS
October 23, 2021 8:31 am

You may well be right….

Bill Powers
Reply to  SxyxS
October 23, 2021 8:47 am

Speaking of Biden and Dead Voters Joe did vote for himself and now with the help of his ventriloquist he appears in public and delivers incoherent ramblings while sniffing our children.

Thanks to a major assist from the Ministry of Truth that we laughingly refer to as the news media, “Weekend at Bernie’s” transformed from a humorous bit of Dark Comedy to a prophesy, where here in the 21st Century Life is imitating Art and Bernie is played by our Commander in Chief.

And they worried about Trump’s finger on the Nuclear Button. I’m worried about who has their finger up Joe’s bum with the power to enforce Marshal Law.

Reply to  Bill Powers
October 23, 2021 9:13 am

I think the correct movie name is
“Weekend at Brandons”

Dave Fair
Reply to  SxyxS
October 23, 2021 10:14 am

Great meme! Let’s push it, hard.

High Treason
Reply to  SxyxS
October 23, 2021 1:09 pm

Perhaps the next chant could be “TRAITOR JOE.” Since they didn’t like f…, the shorter message will be less offensive (to delicate woke ears that have no hesitation to deny first amendment rights of free speech) and might get the message across better. Maximum of 3 words, same as placards-a neat eyeful. Ideally with alliteration. Eg Brain-dead Biden as the chant. Not sure how Demented Douchebag would go- tongues would start getting twisted. Demented Doofus is another possibility.
Something to contemplate on a walk-3 word alliteration without tongue twisting with repeated chanting. If the weather clears up in Sydney, I am going down to the beach to do my usual Mocking Mask Madness. I wear a yellow mask with TYRANNY written in fabric paint or laundry marker. They can be made with a rag. For added impact, my T shirt has big yellow stars with VACCINE MACHT FREI. Note, only a Jew can get away with this stunt, as we have found out. Love watching the wokerati change their tune when they find out that I an entitled to do this stunt. Hoping to get this on to mainstream media, create a kerfuffle, then make fools of them when it emerges that it is kosher for me to do this stunt.

Reply to  High Treason
October 23, 2021 1:18 pm

First amendment doesnt apply to private organisations , never did in the days of newspapers either.
You are a complete fool if you think a social media platform has to allow memebers , who have already agreed to its terms of service, then breach them. Its called of choice , you are free to take your online activities to whomever you chose.
Even at WUWT its a privilege to comment , not a right

Richard Page
Reply to  Bill Powers
October 23, 2021 1:12 pm

Martial Law. Marshal Law was a comic book.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
October 23, 2021 6:51 am

So, Brits have no way to force a referendum by means of filing whatever number of signatures- as is the case in America?

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
October 23, 2021 7:47 am

Few countries do, most have elections for that.

Juan Slayton
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
October 23, 2021 7:52 am

Regrettably, we have no federal referendum. Referendums exist only as implemented by 52 states, each with their own standards.

Reply to  Juan Slayton
October 23, 2021 8:37 am

52 states?

Richard Page
Reply to  BobM
October 23, 2021 8:53 am

Washington DC and Puerto Rico! Practically states of the USA.

Robert Hanson
Reply to  BobM
October 25, 2021 1:31 pm

Obama went to all 57 states…

Rich Davis
Reply to  Juan Slayton
October 23, 2021 10:00 am

52? Already counting Puerto Rico and “Columbia”?

Besides, I thought 0bummer told us it’s 57?

Rainer Bensch
Reply to  Rich Davis
October 24, 2021 2:17 am

Wasn’t that Kerry?

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
October 23, 2021 8:13 am

The best we have is a petition on the Parliament website which if if reaches 100K signatures will be considered for debate by parliament.

Not as good as it sounds, the top 10 petitions signed by 235,979. for No10 and 4,150,262. for No1 have not resulted in any change in government policy. In fact two were not debated all, Stop all immigration and close the UK borders until ISIS is defeated. signed by 463,501 and Consider a vote of No Confidence in Jeremy Hunt, Health Secretary signed by 339,925.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
October 23, 2021 8:33 am

In a word, no.
As each day goes by, recent times have demonstrated to me how powerless us little people are.

Peta of Newark
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
October 23, 2021 8:36 am

Yes they have..

Al they need is do these things 17:00hrs and 19:00Hrs any working day:
Go take a power shower
Switch the cooker on to get ready for cooking tea
Leave a fan heater running to warm the bedroom for when you get out the shower
Suggest that your teenage daughter wash and blow-dry her hair
Leave the toddlers with the remote for the 50″ TV

You never know your/our luck, Boris might find himself in a lawyer’s office accused of Unreasonable Behaviour a lot sooner than he otherwise would/will.

(Nothing else can happen in that relationship, You Do Not ‘Pick A Mate’ while drunk yet here’s a cnut-struck Boris on Number 4. How Dumb Can You Get?)

Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
October 23, 2021 8:28 am

You can petition the government to hold a referendum

But it will be a waste of time

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Redge
October 23, 2021 8:33 am

You’re right: it’ll be a complete waste of time.

John Garrett
October 23, 2021 6:05 am


What a great idea !!

October 23, 2021 6:16 am

Given how nanny state some greens are, the odds of them actually empowering the hoi polloi is negligible. The green blob knows best!

October 23, 2021 6:26 am

Fun fact: international law is above national law. So the government will argue Britain obligated itself with the Paris accord, not allowing for any direct democratic policy change.

Reply to  E. Schaffer
October 23, 2021 6:39 am

But the Paris Accord is merely voluntary. The nations decide what they want. The Paris Accord is not law. Or as Paul Keating, once Australian PM, his a cuts were L-A-W – law. Except when it came to the doing.

Reply to  lee
October 23, 2021 1:39 pm

Not voluntary at all once it was signed- as Trump said ‘hell no its not voluntary” and he had to go through the agreed withdrawal process which took a year.

As well the detailed legal obligations in Britain are made by the changes made in 2019 to the Climate Change Act which ‘mirror’ the Paris Accord obligations

Thomas Gasloli
Reply to  E. Schaffer
October 23, 2021 6:41 am

That is not true. Unlike national laws there is no mechanism of enforcement for international law. That is why most countries are in routine violation of the UN charter, why China is in violation of maritime law in the South China Sea.

Any country at any time can tell the climate hysterics to go pound sand without consequences. Trump proved that when he withdrew from the climate accord.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Thomas Gasloli
October 23, 2021 7:25 am

Any country at any time can tell the climate hysterics to go pound sand without consequences.”

Not true. They will be harangued by all sorts of mean tweets.

Robert Hanson
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
October 25, 2021 1:45 pm

Is that mean tweets, or mean twits?

Reply to  Thomas Gasloli
October 23, 2021 1:42 pm

Trump withdrew using the legal mechanism in the Paris Accord , which took more than a year to do. Just like for the Iran nuclear accord, all withdrawn from legally. The INF didnt have restrictions like that so could just ‘call it a day’

The Climate Change Act in UK was amended in 2019 to give the legal frame work to the policy from the Paris Accord/Treaty

Reply to  E. Schaffer
October 23, 2021 7:50 am

Who is going to enforce your international law by force in need be?

Reply to  LdB
October 23, 2021 1:43 pm

Each Country changes its own Climate laws to match the policy of the signed Paris Treaty.
UK did this in 2019

Reply to  Duker
October 23, 2021 6:08 pm

And if we don’t .. what are you going to do about it 🙂

International law requires someone willing to enforce it. For example you have Russian citizens accused of taking down MH17 yet they will never face any court.

Reply to  LdB
October 24, 2021 12:23 am

The climate activists will take court action, and a terrible outcome, could win in US courts

A war zone is a different situation, they were shooting down Ukrainian planes for months and then a civilian airliner was hit.
Same goes for USS Vincennes shoot down in Gulf waters, it happened during hostilities. Did that ships Captain face any sanctions ?

Reply to  E. Schaffer
October 23, 2021 9:08 am

Poland does not agree.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  E. Schaffer
October 23, 2021 11:02 am

False. International law is unenforceable, therefore it has no authority at all. It’s just a wish list from unelected busybodies. There is no such entity as “international”.

Reply to  Rory Forbes
October 23, 2021 1:46 pm

US Supreme court has previously let ‘International Laws’ have authority. You are utterly wrong
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay lack “the power to proceed because its structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949.”[1] Specifically, the ruling says that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions was violated.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Duker
October 23, 2021 6:14 pm

There was nothing “international” about the ruling. The outcome is all that’s important. Citing a precedent is not giving authority.

Reply to  Rory Forbes
October 24, 2021 12:26 am

I knew you would dig the hole deeper.
The Supreme Court decides what the law is within the US, surely you know this. There are other decisions regrading treaties and conventions that are also evidence that international law is enforceable within US

Eric Vieira
Reply to  Duker
October 24, 2021 2:17 am

Are you sure. The Legislative decides what the law is. The SCOTUS decides whether the law is in accord with the Constitution or not, or how the law is to be interpreted taking the Constitution into account. It doesn’t (or at least shouldn’t) have law-making competencies. Unfortunately, the judiciary in many countries is starting to do such things.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Duker
October 24, 2021 9:47 am

I’m a Canadian and I know that’s not the purpose of the SCOTUS. You must be a Democrat who believes the courts are where they get to have their failed legislation enforced. I suggest you need to learn some civics. It’s the House of Representatives that makes federal law in the US.

“As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.” Nowhere in The Constitution does it discuss the guarding and interpretation of foreign laws.

Reply to  Duker
October 23, 2021 6:15 pm

You keep skirting the issue you need a military to step up to enforce it. There are plenty of international criminals around who will never face the inside of a court.

Reply to  LdB
October 24, 2021 12:33 am

Criminal case arent the same, Im no lawyer but you are clutching at straws to raise this

This a climate treaty ( which I dont agree with) so the policy and actions of the US government flow from that. The US will enforce what parts are included into US law as what happened with Geneva Conventions.

The US and other western nations are following international order and rules, so it doesnt matter what happens under dictatorships.
You are a fool to dismiss this.
Rumsfeld had his ass hauled over the coals on his military commissions by the Courts.

Eric Vieira
Reply to  E. Schaffer
October 24, 2021 2:12 am

That is exactly what a judge in Switzerland has pronounced. A decision of the Swiss people was overturned, precisely for that reason. International treaties are to be considered above the national Constitution.

Ron Long
October 23, 2021 6:58 am

If there is any hope of rational conduct by voters in democracies, both Britain and Canada would reject net zero, both because of the horrendous cost and the benefit from actually warming up if the theory of CAGW was correct, which it is not.

Reply to  Ron Long
October 23, 2021 1:54 pm

Its really only a discussion amoung elites, the every day people treat it as a religion to which they dont pray to.
Thats the way ahead I think, treat it as a theology. The facts dont get any headway against a religious faith

William Astley
Reply to  Ron Long
October 23, 2021 3:49 pm

The cost of net zero is not calculable because the green scams stop reducing CO2 emissions at the point when the magic battery is required.

The UK, Germany, US …. and so on are lying to their citizens. The politicians are making impossible promises to make electricity very expensive. The green scams will not get a country to zero emissions.

Changing to EV vehicles for example would require a doubling of the electrical grid output to power the EVs.

Promising to make electricity super expensive and kill all local industries and the scheme will not work…

Grown-up are waking up. The CAGW ‘madness’ a not so sneaky attack on our country and our people. Not a stupid idea.

This is going to lead to hyper inflation and massive unemployment,… not zero CO2 emissions.

One of the key issues, which the public is not aware of, is the Green Scam Legislation is trying, to force heating, manufacturing, transportation, and so on ….
Which are currently powered by burning hydrocarbons while be forced to be powered by electricity. That will force the electrical grid to be expanded by a factor of three.
“The UK electrical grid power supply output would be required to INCREASE by a factor of THREE (with zero emissions) as all heating, manufacturing, and transportation, is going to be powered from electricity”

Cement cannot be made with zero emissions and there is no solution. Same for how to power ships or airplanes. There is no solution as to how to construct buildings or what is going to replace plastics.

There is no solution for how to mine with zero emissions or how to smelt steel. The solution is more recycling.

Reply to  William Astley
October 24, 2021 12:44 am

Add the fact that wind and solar will need at least double the present grid capacity to make up for weather variation, and we need a grid 6X as big as now. That’s an awful lot of landfill for old turbines and panels that are using up the rest of the space!

Chris Wright
October 23, 2021 7:10 am

It’s quite remarkable.
Probably more than 97% of the comments on the Telegraph piece are sceptical.
One commenter mentioned the fraudulent 97% thing and was immediately corrected by several others who pointed out that it was fraudulent.
Actually the commenter who used the 97% claim really needs to keep up. It’s now 99.9%.

If we could win a referendum it would be fantastic. But I think it would be much harder than the EU referendum. That’s because the vast majority of people know virtually nothing about the science or the data and that makes them very vulnerable to the lies emanating from the MSM, government and global alphabet organisations.

The sad thing is that the sceptical argument (e.g. the data) is pretty well unanswerable. But being right doesn’t help if no one is listening.

Reply to  Chris Wright
October 23, 2021 7:53 am

You’re painting people as being thick. Most can see through the media’s agenda. Don’t forget that the voting intention of those voting in the UK’s EU referendum was set BEFORE there was even a decision to have referendum. Tony Blair was going to have a referendum and actually promised one in 2004. In 2018 he admitted that he wasn’t sure that he was going to win it so there wasn’t one.

There was no facebook etc in 2004 and the closest thing to social media was friends reunited.

Reply to  Tedz
October 23, 2021 1:51 pm

Many countries inside EU have ‘lost’ referendums over the increase in EU powers.

Norway rejected the entry into EU by referendum so the government went around it to make EU laws and rules apply without being a ‘full voting member’ which is where they still are now. Still use own currency and some other things but the vast majority of things are aligned with EU rules.

Richard Page
Reply to  Chris Wright
October 23, 2021 8:58 am

True, but the campaign run up to the referendum would give more of a platform for airing sceptical views on MSM than we’ve had so far. The interesting thing is that, if they try to block sceptics, then they would be interfering in the political process – the BBC alone would go nuts trying to sort that one out!

October 23, 2021 7:29 am

And when the vote goes massively against them? They will call for armed force to compel people to starve and freeze to death. It is the only way the leftards can get what they want, just look at their actions regarding the Chinese Disease.

Reply to  2hotel9
October 23, 2021 10:25 am

Leftists become tyrannical, like Stalin and Mao, have killed many millions of people to impose their philosophy ….just something to keep in mind when climate change leftists give their speeches….

October 23, 2021 7:37 am

A referendum?

They were bitten once, they won’t make that mistake again

Boris the clown was supposed to lose

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  fretslider
October 23, 2021 8:17 am

Boris, despite being a clown and not the brightest knife in the box is lucky. That is why he is to be feared by any person with a modicum of sense.

Ben Vorlich
October 23, 2021 7:58 am

This man, John Humphreys, was the chief reporter and interviewer on BBC Radio’s “Today” programme from 1987 until 2019. This is/was the BBC’s flagship radio morning news and current affairs programme. Prior to that, 1981 to 1987, he was the main presenter of The Nine O’clock News the main BBC TV news programme at the time. In both roles he had the opportunity to give greens and politicians a grilling about Net Zero impracticalities.

JOHN HUMPHRYS: My heat pump has me left in the cold… but I’m VERY hot and bothered about the PM’s eco-jollity

Reply to  Ben Vorlich
October 23, 2021 8:25 am

Note, however, that even though he acknowledges that the UK, with its 1% contribution to AGW (based on CO2 production), cannot have any significant effect by killing its own economy, nevertheless, he says, we should do so because it is a MORAL issue. i.e. Virtue-signal to show what great (albeit freezing and starving) people we are!

October 23, 2021 8:00 am

The Swedish approach to climate change

Reply to  JohnC
October 23, 2021 2:29 pm

Australia has spent 20 years and AUD50bn at least to get 0.6% of its energy production from intermittent sources. At that rate it will take more than 3000 years to eliminate fossil fuel. In fact, intermittent energy is a fantasy because what is built now will not be working in 25 years and it is incredibly resource hungry form of power generation that does not produce more energy that that needed to make it..

Reality is that the is nothing to be gained from using intermittent energy and it is unlikely that there is enough coal to be still doing the same thing in 3000 years.

China’s issue is a tad more demanding. China has 150bn tonne of coal reserves and are using 4bn tonne a year. That gives them 37 years to find more coal but I doubt they will be still finding more coal at the end of the current century because it will be just hard to get.

China is on an inevitable path to net-zero fossil fuel before the end of this century unless it commandeers the vast coal reserves in Australia and the USA.

October 23, 2021 8:19 am

Another referendum? Ha ha ha ha ha! Cold day in Hell stuff (which is, literally, but ineffectively in this sense, what we are now all heading for in the UK).

October 23, 2021 8:25 am

Telegraph and A Heath
There is no point going to referendum, just take them head on as the WUWT does and very few but very honorable scientists do, the people who know the truth and doing the right thing in telling it to anyone keen to know it or wanting to learn, despite personal and professional risk they take by doing so.

Mark BLR
October 23, 2021 8:26 am

… and the question tightly defined

I don’t see how you can reduce the whole “net-zero” issue to a single “Yes / No” question.

Anybody else have a suggested wording suitable for a “legally binding” referendum that cannot be repudiated afterwards by the losing side ?

Richard Page
Reply to  Mark BLR
October 23, 2021 9:06 am

“Here is the government’s net zero planned agenda. Do you agree with it’s implementation (yes) or do you think that a different approach is required (no).” If no, then further means of mitigation and development must be considered by the government.
If they could boil the Brexit question down into a single binary choice, given the various issues involved, then they can do the same with the net zero question as well.

Mark BLR
Reply to  Richard Page
October 23, 2021 9:46 am

Here is the government’s net zero planned agenda. Do you agree with it’s implementation

The Tories, like governments and politicians all around the world, don’t have specific “plans” or “implementation details” to publish (/ be critically analysed / be laughed at).

They “wing it” instead.

Everything published to date on Net-Zero has been vague platitudes and promises, e.g. “1000s of good, secure, well-paid green jobs” or “People won’t have to pay more to go green”. That isn’t going to change in the run-up to any putative future referendum.

NB : The Brexit result was “repudiated” afterwards precisely because of the lack of detail on its “implementation”, resulting in “people not knowing what they were actually voting for”.

Richard Page
Reply to  Mark BLR
October 23, 2021 11:16 am

Firstly, it would force the government into a set position either way – they’d have to stop the lurching from one knee-jerk reaction to another and actually put it in writing. Secondly the Brexit referendum was never successfully repudiated on those grounds – people knew exactly what they were voting for (despite some remainers trying, in vain, to prove otherwise) even though the EU and UK government did everything it could to hold things up, water down the agreement and generally try to make leaving as difficult as possible – something that was not lost on a great number of EU citizens. I have few expectations that a desirable outcome could be achieved but the process may force something – defining the net zero agenda, maybe giving more scope for Tory rebels or other parties to change things or table alternatives. What I do know is that this headlong rush to a medieval lifestyle is dangerous and someone has to start putting the brakes on somewhere.

Mark BLR
Reply to  Richard Page
October 25, 2021 5:27 am

What I do know is that this headlong rush to a medieval lifestyle is dangerous and someone has to start putting the brakes on somewhere.


Unfortunately I am not in a position of power (I am not even on the “right” side of the Channel …), and so am unable to be that “someone”.

Steve Case
October 23, 2021 8:41 am

“We need a referendum on net zero to save Britain from the green blob”

Blob? 21st century Bolsheviks is more like it.

From the article, a short list of future regulations:

  Banning gas and diesel cars.
  Banning Gas boilers [methane].
  Banning everything carbon-positive.
  Taxing meat and “high-carbon” food.
  Demonizing business travel.
  Reducing international tourism.
  Striking down “high-carbon” housebuilding and farming.

So far, euthanization of useless eaters over 65, wasn’t on the list.

October 23, 2021 9:33 am

am supporting the IPCC AR6 hockey stick temperature graph so beloved of Greta et al who scream the planet is overheating.

This shows that we do not have to change gas boilers for heat pumps, as in a few months from now the UK will be bathed in sub tropical heat, so we don’t need heating any more, so I won’t need to turn on my gas boiler

John Garrett
October 23, 2021 9:39 am

Will somebody please tell the Clown Prince Charlie Saxe-Coburg und Gotha to stick his head up his arse?

Reply to  John Garrett
October 23, 2021 10:18 am

Too late: happened years ago.

Richard Page
Reply to  IanE
October 23, 2021 11:17 am

Thought he just stuck it up Camilla’s?

October 23, 2021 9:50 am

Why now? Well the urgency that preempted Brexit – and turned it green. Normally the Telegraph is the voice of the City of London’s banks. That is the epicenter of the imploding financial system that even Reuters headlined :

Welcome to Britain, the bank scam capital of the world

after the Pandora Paper caper.

So what exactly is Telegraph proposing?
We know what happened to Trump’s Red-Blue Team – Dr. Happer obviously saw it was impossible and Green-Team Biden jumped in…

Since the entire Davos Great Reset, Green New Deal and $150 Trillion bill all originate in the City of London with ex-Bank of England Chief Mark Carney now as UN Climate Finance advisor, what’s the game here?
Note the Fakebook whistleblower Haugen caper – more Gov’t censorship control is the objective.

The financial City of London’s very survival depends on this Net-Zero mad lurch – it’s the biggest scam ever invented in the known history of civilization – Reuters let some of this out, while hiding $150 TRILLION. Dodgy as usual!
Seems Telegraph and Reuters have a tango going….

Reply to  bonbon
October 23, 2021 1:56 pm

Financial Times is choice of the City Financiers. The Telegraph is more the Tory establishment , landed gentry and retired middle class

Ed Fox
October 23, 2021 10:14 am

Look at how the UK government fought and fought to implement Brexit in name only.

Having never met an emissions target, Canada has now raised its targets. To be paid for with money the country doesnt have.

And with inflation and interest rate hikes inevitable never will have. You cant pay the light bill when interest on the mortgage is more than you earn.

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  Ed Fox
October 23, 2021 10:15 pm

Ed Fox,

Mob rule is NOT desirable.
We elect governments to avoid problems and to solve the problems they cannot avoid.

We get the government we elect and, sadly, we deserve the Johnson government because a majority of us voted for it.

Nobody knew what form ‘Brexit’ would take and its form has still not been resolved.

Trade changes agreed by Boris Johnson in attempt to achieve Brexit threaten
(a) to restart the Irish ‘troubles’ by destroying the Good Friday Agreement,
(b) to close what little remains of the British fishing industry,
(c) to close the British sheep farming industry, and
(d) etc..

Referenda empower the ignorant to overrule the considerations of the government. They are mob rule enabled by governments which are too incompetent to govern for the people who elect them.

And, I repeat, mob rule is NOT desirable.


Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
October 24, 2021 3:56 am

The question is not if it is desirable or not, but if it is inevitable or not. There may come a day when Joe Bloggs realises that the climate lunacy has robbed him of his living standard and thrown him back into poverty but that thrte are many idle lampposts around.

Ed Fox
October 23, 2021 10:28 am

The beauty of going green is that engineering beats science. Pack a room full of pointy headed lab coats and they would be hard pressed to open a window if someone pharted.

There are only two solutions to reducing emissions.
1. Increase efficienc
2. Shutdown the economy

Governments are well able to implement #2, but to date no government has ever been able to achieve #1 without decreasing efficience somewhere else by an even greater amount.

Net Zero can only be achieved when the technology arrives. Not a day before. The most primitive of humans sitting around a fire to keep warm knew this to be true.

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  Ed Fox
October 23, 2021 10:32 pm

Ed Fox,

Energy efficiency does not reduce emissions: the end effect of increased energy efficiency is to increase total energy use and thus emissions from energy production.

This is the Jevons Paradox which applies to all commodities – not only fuels – and was discovered centuries ago. If you don’t understand the paradox then read e.g. this


October 23, 2021 12:11 pm

The Guardian remains comatose as does the rest of the media – especially the BBC

michael hart
October 23, 2021 12:36 pm

The thought is late coming to them at The Telegraph.

I also see no sign that the boy Boris is encouraging nuclear power as fast as he is enforcing abandonment of fossil fuels.

Of course, their plans for 2030 are completely unworkable. If I was being ultra cynical, I would say that it is a plan to destabilise the German and Japanese car manufacturing industries. But that would not work out well for the UK either.

It’s a hard life when a voter is presented with a choice between idiots or morons.

Jim Veenbaas
October 23, 2021 12:45 pm

Which political party would argue against and would there be an honest accounting for costs.

glen ferrier
October 23, 2021 12:50 pm

Voters need to force their respective governments to conduct due diligence on the global warming meme; complete with an examination of data collection methods, manipulation methods and analysis; a full economic analysis of the costs and benefits of each and every existing and proposed programs to ameliorate harmful effects. The never ending blather about the sky is falling is not due diligence, rather it is tax-payer funded propaganda of the worst kind.

Lets go Brandon,


October 23, 2021 1:14 pm

2047 comments so far. Comments not paywlled as far as I can tell
(read only)

October 23, 2021 1:30 pm

They will learn hard way
Several German cities halt use of e-buses following series of unresolved cases of fire

Richard Page
Reply to  Vuk
October 23, 2021 2:55 pm

Unresolved? That’s a bit of a weaselling out right there! Or do I mean COP-out?

Ed Fox
Reply to  Vuk
October 23, 2021 6:13 pm

Unresoled? No way. The e-bus took out 24 ICE buses. It was a suicide mission.

Cubbie Roo
October 23, 2021 3:10 pm

I live in the Orkney Islands (Scotland) and we have been lab rats in this green ‘revolution’. Mass wind energy development up here has seen massive hikes in the cost of electricity to the consumer, and a huge spike in energy poverty amongst folk not lucky enough to have the funds or land to plant turbines on. Whilst my electricity costs have spiralled, weirdly the cost to heat my oil-fueled Rayburn (which does the cooking and heating) are virtually the same as they were in 2005! What the folk of Orkney (and other rural communities will do) will do when they can no longer buy a petrol or diesel vehicle I have no idea, but it won’t be nice. Coupled to that, the famed bird population of Orkeny has suffered catastrophic reductions in population in the same period of all this expansion, and not a peep from the RSPB (or anyone else) because guess what, many of these turbine farms are on RSPB land. The whole thing is a disgrace, but no-one seems to care as the well moneyed (who either have influence or actually own the local media) are all filling their boots. Sad times indeed.

Vincent Causey
October 24, 2021 1:27 am

The first step is to have public discussion and that must involve public broadcasters allowing everyone from both sides of the divide. Documentaries of all persuasions must be broadcast. Discussions involving knowledgeable and capable skeptics must be allowed. Unless this happens, any referendum will be preceded by a “softening up campaign”, a barrage of climate propaganda of the most extreme form.

This won’t happen of course. So we are left with the inevitable consequences of what happens when people experience the hard, brutal reality of net zero for themselves, rather than the unicorn and fairy versions fed to them at bed time.

Rod Evans
October 24, 2021 1:39 am

Allister, is being a brave boy stepping out of the Daily Telegraph closet on this one.
The orthodoxy of journalism in the UK demands everyone stays on message. That message is, Climate Alarm is good and must be supported.
The number of high profile and in fact any profile journalists that are prepared to step out 0f line is pitifully small. They are in the same mental state of conformity as scientists across the world. They know what is being presented by climate alarmists as fact, is complete lies.
Unfortunately the scientists livelihoods are locked into maintaining the orthodoxy so they just stay quiet and get on with the fraud providing it pays them and feeds their family and pays the mortgage.
There will never be a referendum on the Net Zero policy, because the authorities know it would be won by the anti Net Zero side of the argument.
We live in very dangerous times, as Allister has said.
Sadly the people will not rise to and stop the nonsense. Well not until millions of us are so impacted by the blocking of energy supply people are literally dying in the cold and dark.

Eric Vieira
October 24, 2021 1:54 am

The Swiss have effectively refused the “Revised CO2 law” by a 51.5% majority in June this year. Unfortunately, the Socialist energy minister decided to prolong the existing law (which should have ended this fall) to 2025, set the CO2 taxes to the maximum allowed under the existing law, and is acting as if nothing at all had been voted upon. Our “direct democracy” is becoming more or less an “opinion poll” which the Government accepts or ignores at their discretion..

Old Goat
October 24, 2021 2:38 am

What do the public know about Net Zero? Diddly squat, that’s what. Just about as much as they know about the alleged Covid pandemic.

October 24, 2021 7:50 am

I fear that the only vote Boris cares about is Princess Nut Nut’s.

John Culhane
October 24, 2021 8:39 am

Net Zero: principles for successful behaviour change initiatives

This was produced by the British government.

Verified by MonsterInsights