No one voted for Net Zero

Politicians have nodded through a disastrous climate policy with zero scrutiny and zero mandate.

Darren Grimes


Many in the House of Commons are determined to stop Brexit because of predictions that it will make us all poorer. And yet, in the past few weeks, these same politicians have been falling over themselves to embrace a ‘Net Zero’ emissions target that is almost certain to impose huge costs on the poorest households and have a detrimental impact on our living standards. The Committee on Climate Change, which drew up the proposals, estimates it will cost between one and two per cent of GDP per annum. Those who are quick to blame Brexit each time a factory closes are now ushering in targets that will inevitably close many more.

The Net Zero pledge commits the UK to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions to as close to zero as possible by 2050. Britain is the first major economy to sign up to this (largely in an attempt to cement Theresa May’s legacy). The 2050 target was part of an amendment put down as a statutory instrument – and so it was waved through without even a vote.

Although the pledge is one of the most ambitious of any major nation, it was still dismissed by climate-change group Extinction Rebellion, which argues that the new target does not go far enough and should instead be met by 2025. Reducing emissions by 2025 would mean not driving cars, eating meat or taking flights.

There is certainly a need to take action against climate change. There is a heatwave currently sweeping across the continent. According to most experts, phenomena of this kind will become more frequent if we do not address climate change. But Britain is responsible for just one per cent of global emissions – the Net Zero target won’t do anything to reduce emissions from the US, China and India. We must be realistic about how much impact we can have on our own. Such a straitjacket of a target could lead to Britain’s few remaining manufacturing plants and steelworks shutting up shop for good, while other countries continue to burn fossil fuels at a rate of knots

We should learn from the mistakes made by other countries. Denmark, for instance, at the Kyoto summit in 1997, adopted an emissions-reduction target which was among the most ambitious in the world at the time. It then went further in 2011, setting a goal of phasing out the use of fossil fuels by 2050. But according to a 2015 study in Ecological Economics, the decarbonisation of the Danish economy has actually led to a substantial increase in the carbon intensity – that is, the amount of CO2 produced relative to the value of a product – of its imports. Danish heavy industry was simply off-shored, wiping out any benefits on the global level.

France’s gilets jaunes also demonstrate the potential political pitfalls of pushing through costly green policies. An eco-tax on diesel was introduced which made daily life unaffordable for many French people who rely on their cars to commute to work. This caused them to protest en masse and, eventually, the diesel tax had to be scrapped. Middle-class greens are often able to take the financial hit of these taxes. Those at the bottom, less so.

None of this should discourage us from tackling climate change. But the damaging approach favoured by the government – waved through without proper parliamentary debate or without any democratic mandate – will be the surest way to lose public support for climate policy.

Proper scrutiny is essential if we are going to tackle climate change properly. So many green policies in the past have got things wrong and have actually made things worse for the environment. For example, diesel cars were once promoted through the tax system and lots of people snapped them up. Diesel fuel may emit less CO2, but we now know that it produces considerably more toxic gases than petrol. And so London mayor Sadiq Khan has introduced new taxes and charges on diesel vehicles. As a result, drivers of diesel cars and vans are now being punished for doing what the government once told them was environmentally friendly. We also used to burn wood pellets in the belief that they were ‘renewable’, but we now know that wood pellets are significantly more carbon-emitting than coal. Harvesting palm oil for biofuel was also once hailed as a potential substitute for fossil fuels. But having hacked down vast swathes of tropical forest, we have now realised this is unsustainable. If we rush to embrace the Net Zero target, without any real scrutiny, mistakes will be made again.

I recently met with Natascha Engel, former Labour MP and shale-gas commissioner. She resigned earlier this year over the government’s eagerness to pander to the green lobby, particularly over government rules that mean fracking must be suspended every time a 0.5 magnitude tremor is detected – a de facto ban on fracking. Engel suggests a more sensible approach to climate change would be to look at ways of reducing our emissions by extracting gas in the UK (rather than importing it from abroad) or by building nuclear plants. Both would create jobs and investment at home and, crucially, benefit the environment as well.

Those MPs who constantly argue that nobody voted to be poorer by voting for Brexit need to recognise that quite literally nobody voted for the drastic Net Zero pledge. I hope our next prime minister drops the green virtue-signalling and is honest with voters about the trade-offs of such an asphyxiating target. We need a more sensible approach to climate change.

Darren Grimes is digital manager at the Institute for Economic Affairs.

Picture by: Getty.

Let’s cancel cancel culture

Free speech is under attack from all sides – from illiberal laws, from a stifling climate of conformity, and from a powerful, prevailing fear of being outed as a heretic online, in the workplace, or even among friends, for uttering a dissenting thought. This is why we at spiked are stepping up our fight for speech, expanding our output and remaking the case for this most foundational liberty. But to do that we need your help. spiked – unlike so many things these days – is free. We rely on our loyal readers to fund our journalism. So if you want to support us, please do consider becoming a regular donor. Even £5 per month can be a huge help. You can find out more and sign up here. Thank you! And keep speaking freely.

Donate now

To enquire about republishing spiked’s content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.


Mark Pawelek

9th July 2019 at 5:30 pm

Darren is wrong. We should be doing nothing about climate. Because climate change is not caused by people. Earth’s climate depends on changes in the Sun, and Sun’s relationship to earth. Mediated by oceans. Human carbon emissions have no effect on climate. No scientific evidence ever showed carbon dioxide affecting climate. All the so-called “scientific evidence” for man-made climate change is speculation and untested, non-validated modeling.

There’s not a single published scientific paper of an experiment or quantitative observation showing CO2 causes climate change.
There are thousands of modeling papers blaming climate change on humans.

Supporting the climate scam makes Spiked yet another pseudoscience website – pushing models written by an anti-human post elite. Sad to read this.

Marvin Jones

8th July 2019 at 1:44 pm

These Eco Terrorists and Fanatics are quite happily enjoying a swim in the pool, but have not yet notice the sign in one corner. “Toilets”.

David Carter

4th July 2019 at 4:11 am

This article is brought to you courtesy of the Koch brothers.

A bit of transparency on the part of Spiked/Revolutionary Communist Party seems in order.

James Knight

3rd July 2019 at 5:42 pm

Ironic isn’t it? The two phrases we hear so often on Brexit are that it is disruptive and that “nobody voted to be poorer” and there most be a “meaningful vote” on it, meaning another referendum.

Net zero is far more disruptive to the economy and lifestyles than anything in Brexit. But there is little chance of a “meaningful vote” on any of it and it is certain to make many people poorer. Like the anti-Brexit hysteria, net zero relies heavily on apocalyptic fear-mongering.

Remoaners, like eco-cultists, have mostly succeeded in scaring only themselves. To the rest of us they are like the Wizard of Oz screaming “PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!”

Quentin Vole

3rd July 2019 at 5:07 pm

“Making voters poorer” is pretty much the job description of most politicians. They take our money in the form of taxes and then spaff it up the wall on vanity projects, like HS2, and virtue signalling, like the above (always easier when done with other people’s money).

David Carter

4th July 2019 at 4:15 am

Oh and on schools, hospitals, roads, care and such like.

Hana Jinks

3rd July 2019 at 3:27 pm

Climate change? Isn’t it global warming?

There’s no such thing in either case, and l don’t want to have to pay tithes at the altar of the diabolical green-nazi’s.

Jerry Owen

3rd July 2019 at 3:04 pm

Further the tiny increase in CO2 which is virtually immeasurable has greened the planet.. the CO2 munchers love it. They then produce the air we breathe . We need more CO2 not less.

Jerry Owen

3rd July 2019 at 3:02 pm

Unfortunately Darren is mistaken in AGW, it doesn’t exist . CO2 is the perceived enemy by the uneducated, it is less than 1% of the atmosphere. How much of that humans produce is unknown. How much does one spew of a volcano produce. The heat waves are a sign of … ‘Summer’ ie weather. I remember the long exceedingly hot dry summers of the sixties just, we rarely have those now. Midwest America is snow bound in parts .. global warming ?
We are coming out of an ice age, it gets warmer in some parts, but some parts are getting colder Antartica, Alaska, Midwest America.. go figure !
The IPCC no friend of the ‘denier’ acknowledges there are no more hurricanes etcetera than usual , infact there were more volatile patterns in the 30’s. .. unless you know better Darren !
The sun is going into a solar minimum it will get colder in a couple of decades probably before.
There is no evidence that CO2 causes global warming .. because it doesn’t.
The reason the BBC et al tell us the science is settled is because they don’t have the science. The vast majority of scientists agree that CO2 does NOT cause climate change.
Think about it.. if you had the science to destroy someones argument you would use it wouldn’t you.. why does the MSM refuse to use the science to brow beat the ‘deniers’? Obvious isn’t it !
This is about power and taxation and the lefts perversity of destroying western civilization.
Try watching Dr Patrick Moore on YT and learn about the subject of climate change.
Apart form your mistaking weather for AGW it’s not a bad article, but it is severely damaged by your erronous belief in the cause that the politicians have the answer to is flawed.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register now.