From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
There’s a new poll out from YouGov on Net Zero:
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/53366-how-far-does-the-public-support-net-zero
No doubt the Net Zero promoting lobby will run with the headline poll:
It’s like asking if you support Xmas or saving fluffy seals. It is a meaningless question, especially given the propaganda surrounding Net Zero and the lack of understanding about how it will be achieved (or not),
But when we get to some of the implications, the answers reverse themselves drastically:
There are large majorities against banning gas boilers, banning petrol cars, new taxes on meat and taxing gas bills. All these are either already government policy or are being actively considered.
Even banning gas power stations is disapproved of, Only new nuclear and taxes on frequent flyers get net approval. The former interestingly gets most support from those opposed to Net Zero. The latter gets approval for the simple reason that it does not affect the vast majority of people.
We get similar results from another question:
Pain free solutions are popular – planting more trees, subsidies for insulation, single use plastic bans. Increasing fuel duty, blanket flight taxes and rationing meat are extremely unpopular.
I don’t think we need to be psychics to guess what the answer would have been to the question – “Would you be prepared to pay £1000 a year for Net Zero”? Given that this is pretty much what every household pays, without realising it, it is a shame it was not.
As I have often commented, Net Zero has long ben sold on the basis of easy, painless solutions – nice, clean renewable energy, planting trees and so on.
Attention is being diverted away from costs already being incurred by, for instance, blaming high electricity prices on “sky high gas prices”.
The truth has been deliberately kept from the public. If they knew the harsh reality, most would not support Net Zero at all.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
YouGov surveys ring alarm bells for people used to more sophisticated and impartial research…
How to get the right result:
Im afraid the current lot is nowhere near the intelligence of Sir Humphrey..
Same for the BBC. The produced some good content long ago.
Not surprising it is only 60% with women most affected.. 40 years of brainwashing, propaganda, indoctrination, cancel culture and 24/7 drama ensure people mumble support for “saving the planet”, but driving them into poverty and unemployment with a ridiculously high cost of living as punishment, for being more successful than other cultures, is causing people to be red pilled against this utter nonsense….
Even the so-called “painless solutions” to a non-problem are government run, meaning they will, ultimately be paying for them through taxes. But, sheeple don’t seem to be able or willing to think that far ahead.
Hard times – Story tip:
Hundreds of thousands to lose heat pump subsidies in Reeves’s budget plan
Hundreds of thousands of homeowners will lose their right to subsidies for eco-friendly heat pumps as a result of government plans to bring down energy bills at the budget.
Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, is planning to announce a series of measures to bring down energy bills amid concerns the country’s stubbornly high cost of living is driving millions of voters to Reform UK.
Reeves and the prime minister, Keir Starmer, have been looking for ways to bring energy bills down by an average of £170 a year, having promised before the election to cut them by £300. One element of that plan is to remove the 5% VAT charge on domestic energy bills, costing the government an estimated £2.5bn a year and saving consumers an average of £86. – The Grauniad
Of course, taking the 5% VAT off of domestic electricity can be seen as a sop to EV owners and the transition.
“eco-friendly heat pumps”?
“money-guzzling heat pumps” is more accurate..
Subsidy pumps
There’s an elephant in the room. Direct opposition. Can you guess who?
Hint: The man who refused to be sacked at the last reshuffle.
Who doesn’t like black mould in the bedroom?
Other questions for the general public (and Ed Miliband)
How much power will 40GW of wind power produce?
Should we use solar power during periods of peak winter demand?
Answers to your questions:-
Not enough.
Wrong question; first word should be “Can”. Answer, no.
From the article: “The truth has been deliberately kept from the public. If they knew the harsh reality, most would not support Net Zero at all.”
I believe that’s true.
Somebody ought to tell the Public a world-wide Net Zero is impossible to achieve, seeing as how the biggest producers of CO2, China and India, are increasing their production of CO2, not reducing it, and their increases offset any reductions other nations make. See how the Public poll then.
For an update on UK temperatures, I went to:
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/countries/united-kingdom/average-temperature-by-year. The Tmax and Tmin data from 1901 to 2024 are displayed in a long table. Here are presented selected temperature data:
Year—–Tmax—–Tmim—–Tavg Temperatures are ° C
2024—-12.9——–6.9———9.9
1901—-11.8——–4.7———8.2
Incr.——-1.1———2.2——–1.7
After 123 years the temperature in the UK has increased by only a small amount. The reason for the small increase in temperature is due to the UK being surrounded by the Atlantic ocean and the North Sea. The trend for Tavg is 0.14° C per decade.
Thus there is no really no need to reduce the emission of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels, and the objective of “Net Zero by 2050” should be abandoned.
NB: Be sure to go to: https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com. On the home page, the links in light blue allow acquisition of weather and climate data from many sites around the world.
The temperature of central England is measured for much longer than 123 years. The attached plot covers 361 years. That is one advantage of being a formerly advanced nation – lengthy temperature archives. The net rise in central England was < 0.4C over the 361 years or 0.01C per decade. Since Britain represents only 200,000 km2 of the 150,000,000 km2 of land on the Earth, a measurement in central England is as useful a measure as the entirety of GB. The point is, small undulations aside, Britain’s temperature has not budged although its population has increased from no more than 5 million to more than 70 million in that time.
All the rest is just propaganda aided by invulnerable ignorance.
Rules for thee and not for me
Related, and possible story tip?
From The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management:
Ocean Wind Offshore Wind Farm Construction and Operations Plan Volume 1:
https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/documents/renewable-energy/state-activities/OCW01_COP%20Volume%20I_20220614.pdf
Table 8.1-1 shows the maximum requirements for oils and fluids in a single offshore wind turbine. The spill containment strategy for each WTG is comprised of preventive, detective and containment measures. These measures include 100 percent leakage-free joints to prevent leaks at the connectors; high pressure and oil level sensors that can detect both water and oil leakage; and appropriate integrated retention reservoirs capable of containing 110 percent of the volume of potential leakages at each WTG.
Tables 8.1-2 through 8.1-3 show the maximum anticipated requirements for a single offshore substation and
onshore substation.
Table 8.1-1. Summary of maximum potential volumes oils, fuels, and lubricants per WTG.
WTG Bearings and yaw pinions Grease 187 gallons
Hydraulic Pumping Unit, Hydraulic Pitch Actuators, Hydraulic Pitch Accumulators Hydraulic Oil 40 gallons
Drive Train Gearbox (if applicable), Yaw Drives Gearbox Gear Oil 106 gallons
Transformer Dielectric Fluid 1,585 gallons
Emergency Generator Diesel Fuel 793 gallons
Switchgear Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) 243 lbs
Transformer and Converter Cooling System Propylene Glycol 357 gallons
Converter Primary Cooling Ethylene Glycol 48 gallons
Approximately 26 gal to 40 gal (100 L to 150 L) per large bearing.
Table 8.1-2. Summary of maximum volumes oils, fuels, and lubricants per offshore substation.
Transformers and Reactors Transformer oil 79,252 gallons
Generators Diesel Fuel 52,834 gallons
High-Voltage & Medium-Voltage
Gas- insulated Switchgear
Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) 4,950 lbs
Crane Hydraulic Oil 317 gallons
Table 8.1-3. Summary of maximum volumes oils, fuels, and lubricants per onshore substation.
Parameter Oil/Fuel Volume
Transformer oil substation 38,170 gallons
Fixed shunt reactor 1 oil 15,500 gallons
Fixed shunt reactor 2 oil 7,350 gallons
Variable shunt reactor oil 18,300 gallons
SF6 substation 6,603 lbs
Batteries (lead acid gel) 4,034 lbs
All so we can, erm, stop.. using.. fossil fuels?
Well, nobody said virtue signalling came without a cost.
And the cost of manufacturing and transportation of those turbines should be added. Or are they incorporated already?
I’d love to see an AI picture of an offshore windmill with a number of tankers surrounding it as they piped oils & lubricants into the various components of the windmill.
All tankers would be appropriately labeled with their cargo, and the makers / suppliers, e.g. –
Chevron, Shell, BP, ExxonMobil, Aramco, PetroChina, ConocoPhillips, etc.
Maybe even meters showing how much product is being pumped?
This image could be posted in comments & social media every time a story about windmills is published.
Let the UK chose: cutting the fuel allowance ( cost 2.05 billion) or cutting the carbon capture (cost 22 billion).
Starmer clearly chose for cutting the fuel allowance. A very ‘laboury’ thing to do, right? He had to be pulled back, though.
It seems that cutting anything of the Net Zero funds is a non starter, neither of the Fight the Russians fund.
They seem to have a separate status.
We will sacrifice the wellbeing of our citizens in order to get an uncertain result in the future. It is…madness.
Starmer always chooses the path of greatest decline for GB. Get rid of the carrot.
It’s quite interesting how little people understand about simple economics. Notice how high support is when people believe the government is paying for things (more subsidies and higher regulations), compared to they themselves being expected to pay for things directly (banning and taxing). I believe the word “sheeple” was used in a post.
In the U.S. the people supporting things like banning single use plastics, limiting beef and dairy, banning internal combustion engine automobiles, are supposedly among the best educated. It certainly makes one ponder the value of college education.
I’m pretty long now retired, but my old mechanical engineering department has eroded to the point that half of it are now ardent supporters of wind power, but can’t really articulate the disadvantages of “renewable” power. Why, for example, a data center would not want to be supplied with wind and would prefer natural gas thermal power instead (or in addition to).
Looks to me that most British are content to freeze in the dark, for nothing. I’d say let them do it.
Having the government control other people’s lives is quite popular.
Not so much on controlling the affluent air travellers. A sacred cow there.
So, 6 in 10 Brits are brainwashed. Got it.
Pretty much all people on the LEFT are.
Not just people on the LEFT, but across the political board in the UK,
No pain in banning single use plastics?
Go right ahead and ban them then. I give it 30 days max to cancellation.
“strativarius” has already linked to the relevant episode from the 1980s
documentarycomedy series “Yes Prime Minister” regarding how the “patter” between questions can shape survey results.Regarding the people who answered “Yes” to that question the phrase “and they shall be known as idiots” immediately springs to mind … closely followed by “misinformed and/or indoctrinated” …
.
Even assuming “Renewables = Wind + Solar + Batteries + Biomass + Hydro + Nuclear“, looking at what happened with the Great Britain electricity grid in the middle of last month the question posed should be reworded to something more like :
“Only allowing renewable energy to be produced, even if that means frequent rolling blackouts ?”
The YouGov numbers for that question might just shift a smidgeon in that case …
Then, six in ten Britons are fully indoctrinated carrots, acting against their own interests.
Not to worry, Net Zero 2050 is imploding due to its own stupidity.
Only a blithering idiot would support a pathway that has already failed.
The standout feature in that graph is the question on nuclear energy.
It is a graphic demonstration that propaganda works.
The vast majority of polled Brits reject nuclear electricity.
Most have never seen a nuclear reactor.
Chances are that none of those polled Brits were competent to answer the question.
In contrast, as a scientist I have been hands on with the nuclear fuel cycle since 1970. I even owned a tiny lab reactor to produce fast neutrons.
It is my experienced conclusion that those who continue to issue anti-nuclear propaganda should be charged with a crime against humanity and if found guilty, put in jail.
Modern society demands cheap and reliable energy, especially electricity.
Nuclear is about the most reliable large way to make bulk electricity. Commercial reactors have been run for 80 years. Nuclear could be the least expensive way, if the jungle of costly bureaucratic hurdles was disappeared and experienced operators were allowed to build reactors to service society in much the boring, same way as they go about buying a new car. There are 400 or so nukes operating around the world, plenty enough to have worked out the problems and their fixes.
There is no need to over-regulate nuclear electricity any longer. A nuke is a quite simple engineered device that has been demonised beyond recognition. If you disagree with this, go take a tour through one. See for yourself if the propaganda is true. Then have a think about some by-products like those for detecting and treating medical conditions.
The propagandists are criminally trying to deprive society of a benefit that frankly they know little about. Scrap the advice from these sad control freaks.
Geoff S
Sorry to be the one to point this out, but you appear to have mixed up things in your head … been there, done that, got multiple T-shirts for variations on that particular theme !
The question in this YouGov poll was “(Do you support or oppose) Building more nuclear reactors”, not “Banning nuclear reactors” !
Clicking through the link to the YouGov webpage, and then the “See the full results here” link near the bottom of the page, gives you the “raw data” from their polling.
A screenshot of the relevant tables for nuclear and gas (CCGT) power plants, on “Page 6 of 8” of the PDF file, is attached below.
34% opposed to “Building more nuclear reactors” is not a “vast majority”.
NB : 34% support for “Banning gas power stations”, on the other hand, is extremely disquieting (see the graph at the end of my post from yesterday — two before yours, timestamped “November 15, 2025 9:54 am” — for more details).
It seems to me that these findings mirror what most of the rest of the world feels about climate action in general. The UN’s polls consistently have shown over at least the past decade that concern about climate change and the Net Zero target are less and less a priority when citizens of numerous countries are surveyed. In addition, when various costs , laws and mandates are added to the mix, what little existing support for climate action dwindles even further.
There are only two questions that need to be asked.
Would you support Net Zero if you knew that none of the actions taken would lower global CO2 concentrations and that none of the actions could lower average global temperature?
Knowing that none of these actions lower CO2 or temperature how much would you pay to implement the actions?
Would you be prepared to pay £1000 a year for Net Zero?
The question they know better than to ask because they already know the answer.
Under modern Progressivism, it’s always assumed that it will be someone else who will be made to make the real sacrifices.