Ipsos Mori Poll: UK People Reject Expensive Climate Action

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t JoNova; According to Ipsos Mori, 83% of the British people want drastic climate action, but support “drops off rapidly” when people are asked to make personal sacrifices.

Climate change: UK public more worried than ever about global warming, but still doesn’t want to pay to fix it

Ipso Mori survey finds that people have become noticeably more concerned in the past year after a string of extreme weather events

By Tom Bawden
Science & Environment CorrespondentJanuary 2, 2022 3:06 pm(Updated 3:22 pm)

The UK public is considerably more concerned by climate change than it was even a year ago, following a string of wildfires, storms and other extreme events around the world this year, a new survey shows.

The survey also finds that while people are in favour of drastic measures to help the country become net zero by 2050 in theory – when they realise the cost and potential inconvenience it could give them personally support drops off rapidly.

But a followup question asking them to consider making personal sacrifices, such as not being able to take a flight or missing out on a favourite food because it was wrapped in single-use plastic, found only one measure had majority support – charging more for environmentally-damaging products and services.

Professor Lorraine Whitmarsh, of Bath University and a director of CAST, added: “This provides further evidence that the UK public want urgent action on climate change, but may not yet be fully aware of the implications for individuals of doing so.”

Read more: https://inews.co.uk/news/environment/climate-change-uk-public-more-worried-global-warming-pay-fix-1361102

The survey was conducted by Ipsos Mori & C.A.S.T. last October.

I believe the core reason why support drops off when personal sacrifices are demand is not lack of awareness. The problem is people in Britain have been bombarded with falsehoods about the cost of climate action.

How many dodgy claims have you seen or heard, about how cheap wind and solar energy is, compared to fossil fuel? About how embracing 100% renewables will reduce your energy bill?

In addition, meaningless coercive rituals like sorting trash into different bins may have created an impression in people’s minds that they are already doing their bit.

When the true cost of renewables begins to bite, and Britain has only had a taste of this so far, British politicians are going to have a lot of explaining to do.

5 17 votes
Article Rating
88 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Brad-DXT
January 2, 2022 10:11 pm

Of course people want clean energy at no cost. Who doesn’t? The problem is that they are told a myriad of stories about how it can be done that have no basis in reality.

Matthew Sykes
Reply to  Brad-DXT
January 4, 2022 12:51 am

CO2 isnt dirt.

Pat from kerbob
January 2, 2022 10:32 pm

Everybody reacts badly to being lied to

TonyL
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
January 3, 2022 1:52 am

All you have to do is convince them that they were lied to.
Very difficult in practice.

Climate believer
January 2, 2022 11:06 pm

These polls are about as useful as a chocolat teapot.

Brian Andrews
Reply to  Climate believer
January 2, 2022 11:17 pm

Why? Maybe because they didn’t give the result you wanted?

Climate believer
Reply to  Brian Andrews
January 3, 2022 12:27 am

No, because it’s meaningless, much like polls that predicted No Brexit and Clinton to win by a landslide.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Climate believer
January 3, 2022 2:12 am

This one reflects the situation fairly well, there’s a huge majority who think that man is creating global warming. Based on clever marketing calling CO2 carbon pollution and conflating it with visible real pollution and natural warming.

It’s difficult to convince them that they’ve been lied to on the warming part, nobody admits they’ve beenconned, but where money is concerned the situation is different especially when they’ve already had a taste of the costs involved and read about the cost of EVs and Heat pumps.

Many will think know I can’t afford that. So the percentages may be off the mark but the change in opinion is right

Bill Everett
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
January 3, 2022 11:10 am

The per year human contribution to the atmospheric CO2 level from 1960 through 2020 was less than one-tenth of one PPM. Humans are not causing global warming. Why isn’t there more publication of this minute human CO2 contribution?

Reply to  Bill Everett
January 3, 2022 12:22 pm

Why isn’t there more publication of this minute human CO2 contribution?”
Because that discussion would destroy the green Blob’s plans.
And most of the media hope they’ll be ‘fine’ in the Brave New World.

Auto

Robert Hanson
Reply to  Bill Everett
January 3, 2022 2:28 pm

But why start at 1960? Start in the middle of one of the warming periods, say the Roman Warm Period, and you’ll find that it’s actually cooler now. Which is to say there is no Global Warming. Hence no need to discuss who/what is causing it…

Bill Everett
Reply to  Robert Hanson
January 3, 2022 7:39 pm

I started in 1960 because data for computation was available from that date. There is a need to discuss why so much money is being spent and significant displacement is proposed to counter a problem that doesn’t exist.

huls
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
January 3, 2022 12:33 pm

Just 100 companies have been the source of more than 70% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions since 1988, according to a new report.
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change

So if you are convinced that climate change is totally or partly influenced by GHG emissions AND you are convinced that The Guardian is actually a news organization instead of an extreme-left propaganda outlet, then you need to knock on the doors of those companies and let individual citizens alone.

Observer
Reply to  huls
January 3, 2022 7:46 pm

Yeah, they blame fossil fuel companies for emissions, rather than the people who actual use the fossil fuels – ie, the public who would otherwise be freezing/starving to death without them..

The “journalists” at The Graun are beyond stupid.

Beagle
Reply to  Brian Andrews
January 3, 2022 1:51 am

Brian, the difficulty is the questions. I was contacted about doing a telephone survey on a wide range of subjects including the environment. The interviewer offered 2 or 3 answers to each question and often I had to say that none of the answers were in accord with my views. Not answering was not an option and I imagine the survey didn’t reflect my views at all. Maybe I should have terminated the survey as soon as I was asked to give an answer that was misleading.

Alba
Reply to  Beagle
January 3, 2022 4:22 am

I had a similar experience with somebody who wanted to poll me about something. I told her that none of her possible answers reflected what I thought on the subject.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Beagle
January 3, 2022 11:40 am

Survey results are useless unless the surveyors provide:
(a) the demographic population of those who participated in the survey; and (b) the questions asked, plus the answers proposed by the surveyors. It would also be valuable to know if any questioin was preceded by “background information”, and the exact text of that information.
It should be obvious that I have a fairly low opinion of surveys.

MarkW2
Reply to  Climate believer
January 3, 2022 4:54 am

This is, indeed, nonsense, as is a great deal of market research. For starters people respond to surveys cognitively while the decisions they make are taken by the emotional side of the brain, which is why what people actually do is nearly always very different from what they say they will do.

Second, people often respond with what they believe they “should” say rather than what they truly believe. This is one reason why election polls are now so unreliable — many people who actually voted for Donald Trump would never admit doing so, just as many people who vote Tory in the UK won’t admit to it.

A far more reliable measure is to look at Google search data. Over the past 12 months the number of people searching for ‘holidays’ in the UK is around 25 times greater than the number searching for ‘climate change’, despite the huge publicity around COP. This puts into perspective what people’s real priorities are.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  MarkW2
January 3, 2022 8:52 am

Personally, I answer telephone polls with whatever is “opposite”.

John V. Wright
January 2, 2022 11:12 pm

Eric, I live in Britain and fly the flag for WUWT and true climate science. The sad fact is that the poll reflects the level of information, propaganda and awareness of climate science among the population.
The reason is simple – the BBC. It is still the main source of news and current affairs for most people and it saturates the airwaves with a constant diet of lies and scaremongering about human-caused climate change.
As readers of this excellent website know, the BBC held a ‘secret seminar’ in 2006 inviting a list of Marxist, eco-loony organisations to advise it on what was then called Global Warming. At that seminar, the BBC decided that it would not report on the issue in a balanced manner – an astonishing decision for a major broadcasting organisation that once prided itself on its impartiality.
As a result, the British public has never heard of Richard Lindzen, Willie Soon, Roy Happer etc.. When I explain that some of the world’s leading physicists say that AGW is at best a misreading of the science and at worst a globalist hoax they blink uncomprehendingly. They are told every day that science has proved without doubt that CO2 is the control knob for climate change. Even in its fictional output, its dramas, and its documentaries this line is pushed – relentlessly.
The simple fact is: the BBC is an institutionally socialist organisation which controls the news agenda in Britain. Its output is virtually data-free, of course – it is all about BELIEF and its views are imparted solemnly by its charlatan stars who are listened to and respected by viewers and listeners. Even my (intelligent) friends buy into and will not enter into conversation with me, particularly those where actual data is concerned. One of them actually said to me “It’s not worth debating this issue with you John because you know too much”.
The BBC has corruptly presented false information about what it now calls climate change (we all know why) and deliberately prevented balancing scientific discussion from being aired. It is a globalist, left-wing, controlling organisation and it uses its dominant ‘trusted’ position as the nation’s broadcaster to spread lies and misinformation about global warming into every age group and social strata in British society. That is what this poll reflects.

MarkW
Reply to  Eric Worrall
January 3, 2022 11:26 am

Here in the US, Facebook has permanently blocked the account of a conservative publisher for being “disruptive”.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/facebook-permanently-locks-conservative-childrens-book-publisher-heroes-liberty

Reply to  John V. Wright
January 2, 2022 11:25 pm

Whenever a BBC “climate change” reporter (liar) retires (for example Harrabin, who initiated the ‘secret seminar’), several more are recruited to carry on with the lies and propaganda. Rowlatt is the latest liar to join the likes of Shukman and MacGrath. Fortunately the number of people who listen to, or watch the BBC is dwindling, but it still has a lot of influence over the politicians and bureaucrats.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
January 3, 2022 2:19 am

Rowlatt has a long history of green propagander at the BBC. He was their “Ethical Man”.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ethicalman/justin_rowlatt

He is another Oxford University educated PP|E (Philosophy, Politics and Economics) graduate and ideal person for a BBC Science/Environment correspondent who will parrot green nonsense without question.

Rod Evans
Reply to  John V. Wright
January 3, 2022 12:36 am

“It’s not worth debating this issue with you John because you know too much”.
John, I have had exactly that same sentence said to me, by a fully trained chemist who was responsible for school teaching standards. That was her public sector role and she refused to get into any detailed discussion.
It is an indication of just how determined the authorities are, to brainwash our children into accepting man made climate change is a real thing.
Science simply does not get a look in.

mark leigh
Reply to  John V. Wright
January 3, 2022 12:43 am

I agree with most of this John – and experience the same kind of conversation with some of my friends and family…but take heart…

all the engineers I know (and I am an engineer so I know many) are of pretty much one mind in their views on AGW. People who understand data tend to disagree with the BBC slant (on Covid as well of course)

The recent storm Arwen knocked out power for hundreds of thousands – with tens of thousands without power for several days. That is one community of people that will be questioning energy supply and reliability.

I loved the interview with one young woman who declared she was ripping out her electric heating system in her new home and installing wood burners.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  mark leigh
January 3, 2022 11:46 am

I, too, am an engineer. In a recent discussion with a candidate for a Ph.D in Chemistry, she told me she would no longer talk with me because she believed in the settled science. Amazing. Yet when it comes to trying to implement renewable energy on a grid, do they turn to engineers?

Teddy Lee
Reply to  John V. Wright
January 3, 2022 12:59 am

A good reason for not paying a tv licence fee.The BBC fail to uphold their charter obligations.They are beholden to broadcast a balanced news output.
When the Fran Unsworth and 28 gate e-mail was uncovered,it revealed the BBC was as duplicitous as suspected.

Redge
Reply to  John V. Wright
January 3, 2022 1:03 am

I’m in the UK too, John, and it’s not just the BBC. Sky News, ITV and Channel 4 News all tout the sky is falling line without investigating the claims. Newspapers are the same.

The Misleadia.

I have a complaint lodged with the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) against the WWF at the moment.

The WWF have a campaign to adopt a polar bear claiming “By 2050, polar bear numbers may decline by 30% due to the rapid loss of sea ice.”. This is clearly a lie, although the “may” is the get out of jail free card.

In my complaint, I have referenced Crockford’s website and papers

I’ve not had a response yet (it is Xmas, I suppose), although I’m expecting the ASA to ignore or dismiss my complaint.

saveenergy
Reply to  Redge
January 3, 2022 3:27 am

Done several complaints to …
ASA = all answered & dismissed. (apparently a lie is not a lie, if the writer ‘believed’ it to be true !!!)
BBC = most ignored, the others dismissed.
so I’ve given up … & their work is done.!

Redge
Reply to  saveenergy
January 3, 2022 3:37 am

Don’t give up until the day you die

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

“Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. He is not a good man who, without a protest, allows wrong to be committed in his name, and with the means which he helps to supply, because he will not trouble himself to use his mind on the subject.”

~John Stewart Mill

And of course, the quote at the very top of WUWT pages:

“Walk toward the fire. Don’t worry about what they call you. All those things are said against you because they want to stop you in your tracks. But if you keep going, you’re sending a message to people who are rooting for you, who are agreeing with you. The message is that they can do it, too.”

~Andrew Breitbart

PS, I recently had a comment on climate change deleted by the BBC and managed to have it reinstated when I appealed.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Redge
January 3, 2022 11:49 am

The WWF ius advertising here in the states that the polar bear habitat is getting smaller every year. No “may be”. Then they launch into the “fact” that the polar bear “may” go extinct.
But to whom does one complain? And what good would it do? A slap on the wrist for the WWF, and no coverage in the Misleadia (great name, I shall use it).

Observer
Reply to  Redge
January 3, 2022 7:53 pm

I propose we ship a polar bear to the home of every WWF “adopt a polar bear” contributor.

That’ll learn ’em.

Cheshire Red
Reply to  John V. Wright
January 3, 2022 2:42 am

Spot on, John.

Now please report to your BBC climate re-education class immediately.

Last edited 16 days ago by Cheshire Red
Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  John V. Wright
January 3, 2022 2:59 am

Isn’t it a government owned channel? If so they should sell it off and let free enterprise media develop – then you might see more balance.

saveenergy
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 3, 2022 3:30 am

Don’t be daft !!

Redge
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 3, 2022 3:31 am

Unfortunately not

Most mainstream news outlets toe the party line, even the free enterprise media

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Redge
January 3, 2022 3:39 am

so, we have to give up on Britain- it’s been castrated- how the once great have fallen- the once Great Britain will soon be “little England”

Redge
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 3, 2022 3:49 am

It’s been a long time since we were Great Britain and it looks likely we will no longer be a United Kingdom within 10 years

As long as there is breath in my body, I won’t give up

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Redge
January 3, 2022 4:23 am

I just started reading “Churchill- Walking with Destiny” by Andrew Roberts.

Observer
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 3, 2022 8:05 pm

Churchill probably did more to wreck Great Britain than any other Briton.

When he first got involved in politics, Britain had the greatest empire the world had ever seen; by the time he retired, Bolshevism had taken over half of Europe (including Poland) and the average Brit had only just finished eight years of queuing up for their powdered egg rations.

It is testimony to the British Establishments’ ability to brainwash their populace that people think the man was a Jolly Good Thing.

Just as they’re persuading them now there’s a Climate Crisis, and that the “vaccines” are “safe and effective”.

Observer
Reply to  Redge
January 3, 2022 7:57 pm

Nations coalesce, then fall apart.

The more of them there are, the more experiments in governance there can be.

Some hstorians consider the Renaissance and Enlightenment to be the by-product of city-states competing for talent.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 3, 2022 10:31 am

It is “Great” in the sense of size to distinguish the island of Britain from Little Britain ie Brittany/Bretagne both home to speakers of Brythonic/Brittonic languages, in Engand until the arrival of Angles, Saxons and Jutes

Robert Buczma
Reply to  John V. Wright
January 5, 2022 3:28 pm

I left England in 1980 because I was sick of the crap weather.i live in Oz now and love it.dies anyone in Britain really believe that the UK is too hot.i checked the average yearly temp in Glasgow after COP26.CAN YOU BELIEVE it is 8c

pigs_in_space
January 3, 2022 12:08 am

UK People surveyed after decades of conditioning by the fake news factory.
What could go wrong?

They pretend to listen, the fake news factory pretend to tell the truth, fact check and be impartial.
Straight out of the DDR Mielke – Honecker – Krenz copy book.

Rainer Bensch
Reply to  pigs_in_space
January 3, 2022 5:48 am

It started 30 years ago. Well, a bit earlier but then they had a lot of spys everywhere.

M Courtney
Reply to  pigs_in_space
January 3, 2022 11:48 am

The people of the UK have been trained to give the right answer. And that’s very pacific.
But we aren’t so stupid as to be willing to pay for it.
Words are cheap.

Independent
January 3, 2022 12:40 am

Polling questions that ask “X is a problem; should we do something about it?” are always going to return higher “yes” responses than when any other factors are mentioned. These sorts of push polls are used often in the U.S. too. Everyone should be aware of that when our media propagandists tout a poll saying the public favors spending $X trillion for whatever “progressive” mania they are pushing today.

Imagine if the question was phrased this way: “Reducing human carbon dioxide emissions can be done by trebling your electric bill. According to some scientists, this will reduce expected atmospheric warming by 0.01 degrees over the next 80 years. Should this policy be pursued?” (obviously those numbers are made up but something similar)

commieBob
Reply to  Independent
January 3, 2022 1:23 am

A push poll is just deceptive marketing.

My favorite poll is “Country’s Most Important Problem“.

Right now, 4% of the population thinks ‘Environment/Pollution/Climate’ is the country’s most important problem. Unsurprisingly, 21% think ‘The government/Poor leadership’ is the biggest problem.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  commieBob
January 3, 2022 11:56 am

Maybe that poll is right. Let’s use it.

Climate believer
Reply to  Independent
January 3, 2022 1:27 am

Yes exactly.

I mean what do these questions even mean?

“In the economic recovery after Covid19, it’s important that government actions prioritize climate change.”

21% strongly agree, but they have no idea what they are agreeing to! the sort of idiots who send money to a beleaguered Nigerian prince probably.

“In the long term, climate change is as serious a crisis as Covid 19 is.”

31% strongly agree. Really? UK covid deaths 140,000, climate change deaths ……. NONE.

Guess some people don’t have the same idea of serious.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Climate believer
January 3, 2022 5:00 am

“21% strongly agree, but they have no idea what they are agreeing to!”

Yes, I think there is a whole lot of that involved in these answers.

Dean
Reply to  Independent
January 5, 2022 12:17 am

Pollies keep lying to us about the low cost of renewables, and we keep lying to them about how desperately we want them……..

fretslider
January 3, 2022 1:19 am

Nobody I know or have encountered says anything about climate action

Polling firms are part of the nudge operation

Last edited 16 days ago by fretslider
Tom Abbott
Reply to  fretslider
January 3, 2022 5:00 am

Another good point.

Joe Gordon
January 3, 2022 1:29 am

Sadly, the only way to interpret this is they expect Big Brother to provide the heat pumps, electric cars, charging stations, and whatever else the BBC tells them will save the planet.

Of course, they won’t give up the hamburgers, but they will consider themselves so virtuous for living off of a government that provides all these other things that they’ll figure the planet owes them a nice, juicy burger or two, or three, or a hundred.

Nothing but bad news these days. The indoctrination has taken and it will take generations to undo the damage. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Joe Gordon
January 3, 2022 11:57 am

Stop that. I’d really like a bacon double cheeseburger right now. My cardiologist thinks its a bad idea.

January 3, 2022 2:14 am

Polling in Australia shows that hardly anyone is prepared to pay more than small change to save the planet.

The escalating cost of power in a couple of months should or could be a game-changer for public perceptions, especially if we have a clear message about the prevalence and duration of wind droughts and why building more and more RE capacity does not help – like building the high parts of a flood levee that has gaps in it.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rafe Champion
January 3, 2022 5:04 am

“Polling in Australia shows that hardly anyone is prepared to pay more than small change to save the planet.”

I think we have a consensus on that, all over the world. The average person is not eager to pay to try to change the climate. Probably because they don’t see much reason to do so, because their local weather hasn’t changed.

Last edited 16 days ago by Tom Abbott
Dave Fair
Reply to  Rafe Champion
January 3, 2022 10:13 am

I’m afraid that governmental and climate campaigners’ efforts to blame FFs for price and availability problems might be successful.

DiggerUK
January 3, 2022 2:26 am

When money doesn’t appear in peoples pockets as easily as it once did, or more importantly seems to disappear rather easily, they begin to ask why.

Nudge theorists from government then come up against the age old problem of being unable to fool everyone all of the time.

Please give this parliamentary petition on NetZero your support and help with circulation if you are a UK reader. I’m not spamming, just nudging…_

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/599602

saveenergy
Reply to  DiggerUK
January 3, 2022 4:57 am

Signed, but sadly only 20,747 signatures (they need 100,000)

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  DiggerUK
January 3, 2022 10:39 am

On the basis of the survey the target would remain in place. It would need wide spread publicity of the costs and just what all the effort and money would achieve. In the achievement column it would be 10% of bugger all.

Vuk
January 3, 2022 3:07 am

One positive thing about all this is that any talk of ‘clean-caca-green’ energy is not going to wash with anyone who pays the bill, which is about 30%-40% of population, the rest relies on someone else paying the bills so they can have luxury of saying ‘yes’ to any ripoff of poor bill payers.
Here is a reality check for the UK as I know it:
My annual energy (gas & electricity) bill was just over £900 which was fixed term that expired at the end of November.
I went for BG 18 month fix estimated to be £1200 annually (+33% on the old deal from a year earlier).
Over the holiday I did look what is currently on offer:
BG- 2 year fix estimated £1700 (+88%)
EON -2 year fix estimated £2100 (+130%)
Is the government going to step in and help? For time being it is unknown.

Jo Ho
Reply to  Vuk
January 3, 2022 4:11 am

‘CHEAP’ clean energy was the cry! Hopefully the partially blind will now be able to distinguish the wood from the trees.

Vuk
Reply to  Vuk
January 3, 2022 4:44 am

EDF- one year fix estimated £2400 (most expensive so far), 2 year fix (surprisingly it is a bit cheaper) estimated £2050.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Vuk
January 3, 2022 10:45 am

I’m now on a variable rate, working on the, possibly erroneous, theory that the wholesale price will fall during the summer. But also that by the end of 2022 gas supplies from alternative suppliers to Russia and Qatar will have come on stream.

I’m discounting fracking and increased North Sea production in the UK.

Vuk
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
January 3, 2022 12:30 pm

Possibly, it all depends on Ukraine-Russia factor. I looked at variable rate and was quoted (no exit fee of course) about £250 less than the 18 month fix. Knowing that energy cap might go up in April, I calculated it’s worth having a plunge, for piece of mind until the end of May 2023.
I did recently go on BG chat line enquiring what would happen if VAT or green levy are reduced or removed, the answer was if one can believe to what they say “these are fixed percentage ad ons and in such case all tariffs (£/kWh and daily standing charge) would be readjusted by relevant amount”, but I don’t take it for granted.

fretslider
January 3, 2022 3:21 am

I can see where IPSOS Mori get their ideas

“ Thanks to Covid, climate anxiety and conviction, people are shifting diets away from meat and dairy, cutting back on flying and pledging to change carbon-polluting habits. ”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/03/great-green-reset-10-things-britain-save-planet-cop26

Nobody in their right mind thinks like that

pigs_in_space
Reply to  fretslider
January 3, 2022 3:35 am

Grauniada parrots the ministry of truth.

Kurt
January 3, 2022 3:21 am

I’m pretty sure over 90% of the British don’t care about climate change.They are used to big swings in weather and any type of change in climate they can easily adapt to.But since nothing has changed about the weather and climate in the UK,that 83% wanting action is another big pile of wishful thinking by pollsters who have an agenda..

DiggerUK
January 3, 2022 4:10 am

I have been under the mistaken impression for a while that UK green energy subsidies were north of 7%. I say north of 7% because official figures do admit to 7%….Has anyone got a more realistic truth on this?

Today a Daily Mail article claims that…. “In 2015 the subsidies made up just seven per cent of an average dual fuel bill, but by 2020 that had doubled to 15 per cent. On electricity bills it’s now nudging 25 per cent” ….
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10363649/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-Green-taxes-driving-families-red.html

If anything comes of plans to raise VAT on utility bills from 5% to 20%, then it would be no surprise if public support for alarmist lunacy taxes goes south rapidly…_
https://www.netzerowatch.com/rishi-sunak-should-reject-proposal-to-quadruple-tax-on-heating-homes/

Last edited 16 days ago by DiggerUK
Ack
January 3, 2022 4:38 am

Everyone must make sacrifices…except the rich and powerful

Rusty
January 3, 2022 4:47 am

Wait till their bills for this winter have to be paid. People are going to be in for a shock. It’s not just their gas bills for heating their homes, it will be electricity too, because natural gas provides the largest component for the national grid.

Value Added Tax (VAT) is set at 5% for electricity and gas. Then there’s the new “green gas levy”, etc which all raise prices.

It’s going to hit the poorest hardest.

Tom Abbott
January 3, 2022 4:48 am

From the article: “The UK public is considerably more concerned by climate change than it was even a year ago, following a string of wildfires, storms and other extreme events around the world this year, a new survey shows.”

Well, wildfires, storms and other extreme events occur every year. So why would people be “considerably more concerned” about the events of this year? The answer is the Leftwing/Alarmist Media is hyping every weather event as being evidence of catastrophic, human-caused climate change. Without evidence, I should add, of any connection between CO2 and any weather event on the planet.

Last edited 16 days ago by Tom Abbott
FrankH
January 3, 2022 4:53 am

Professor Lorraine Whitmarsh, of Bath University and a director of CAST, added: “This provides further evidence that the UK public want urgent action on climate change, but may not yet be fully aware of the implications for individuals of doing so.”

Professor Whitmarsh drawing the wrong conclusion. The UK public want urgent action on climate change, but want somebody else to pay for it is the conclusion a sensible person would have drawn.

Bruce Cobb
January 3, 2022 5:05 am

The cognitive dissonance is palpable.

very old white guy
January 3, 2022 5:28 am

Everybody everywhere should be rejecting any and all “climate action” as we have zero control over it.

D. J. Hawkins
January 3, 2022 5:51 am

I see they only managed to salvage the poll by taking a Parthian shot:

charging more for environmentally-damaging products and services.

I’ve no doubt the question was couched in such a manner as to give the impression that only “evil corporations” would bear the cost, totally skipping over the fact that no business intending to stay in business fails to pass on the costs to its customers.

John the Econ
January 3, 2022 6:11 am

In modern Progressivism, it’s always up to someone else to make the real sacrifices and to pay for them.

Rudi
January 3, 2022 6:44 am

They have also been bombarded with falsehoods about the climate and its sensitivity to CO2.

It doesn't add up...
January 3, 2022 6:47 am

The survey was conducted just before COP26 when the supportive propaganda was at a maximum. It’s an advertising measure which reveals high awareness of the campaign, but no willingness to purchase on the back of it. It’s hard to see why people would voluntarily choose to be colder, poorer and hungrier with dismissed life expectancy. Which is why we are seeing attempts to legitimise authoritarian government.

Martin Pinder
January 3, 2022 8:26 am

As a UK citizen, I do NOT want urgent action on climate change. The British people are being fed misinformation about extreme weather events becoming more frequent. These are blamed on climate change & are never put into historical perspective.

Bill Zkipperer
January 3, 2022 5:05 pm

This poll is no different than many done on society’s issues.
Scrolling through the results of the CAST poll was enlightening. As with most polls, people want something done, but only a few really want to pay for it.
The % of those who are willing to APPROVE of the following
limit personal flying 34%
limit / increase cost of oil/gas for cars 34%
limit meat & dairy products 41 %
agree to purchase a new boiler 32%
agree to force pension plans to invwest in ESG companies and get a lower return 16%
And finally where the rubber meets the road:
agrees to increase their own taxes to pay tp pay for the policy 26%

So yes, the scared public says “do something, but make sure someone else pays for it”!
Of course this ignores the fact that doing the New Green Deal / Build Back Better won’t
really have a significant effect on the climate.

Matthew Sykes
January 4, 2022 12:51 am

Wrong, 83% want the eco morons to go away.

DonS
January 4, 2022 1:26 am

Apart from the need to virtue signal to the person asking the poll question, the other reason that 83% of Brits say they love green energy is because they do not pay for it. The government has a price cap on residential power prices that stops retailers passing on the real wholesale cost of electricity. This is the reason 20+ retail power companies have gone bust in the last 12 months. They are not allowed to pass on the real cost to the public so people can continue to indulge in their global warming fantasies.

No government in a democratic system will ever change a system like that due to the fear of voter backlash. The British public need to understand that while they might not be paying massively higher power bills, they do pay in other ways i.e. higher taxes and fees and higher inflation. Until mad Boris and the rest of the climate kooks are brought to account the green carpetbaggers will continue shoveling government (public) money into their Swiss bank accounts.

Vincent Causey
January 4, 2022 2:31 am

It has to get worse before it gets better – much, much, much, much worse.

Dean
January 5, 2022 12:14 am

I agree, its a massive political issue for the technically illiterate politicians who spent decades selling the switch to renewables as being driven because of lower cost.

When the reality hits that renewables are a much more expensive way of delivering energy to consumers, voters react poorly.

Unfortunately the honest way of selling renewables, “that they are much more expensive but it is needed to combat the negatives we forecast as going to occur” invites all sorts of awkward questions.

%d bloggers like this: