|
Please feel free to use and share the content of this page. To write a story, send a comment about this page "http://abxn.org/ccge/defend.net.zero.html" |
CCGE Main Page Xn Main Page About This Page Contact. |
Net Zero is under attack from the newly resurgent right-wing politicians. So is climate and environmental responsibility generally. Donald Trump calls climate change a hoax, and ReformUK's Richard Tice calls the UK Net Zero policy "Net Stupid Zero". Though in the UK at least 80% of people are still concerned about climate change, such snide remarks will sap confidence and support, even if gradually, so that suddenly we will find people in general less concerned and even less willing for responsible action to be taken.
Net Zero as a policy and strategic goal might have flaws, but it is the best we have. So Net Zero needs robustly defending. But neither the British Government nor BBC Radio 4's news and current affairs teams invite anyone onto their programmes who will stoutly defend Net Zero. So the British people receive a one-sided message.
Therefore this page begins to collect together arguments for a robust defence of Net Zero.
It starts with a transcript of on BBC Radio 4 programme in which some robust defences were actually given - not by invited interviewees but by members of the Any Questions panel. Then I plan to assemble from this a set of responses to various anti-Net-Zero statements or claims.
The following is my manual transcript from the Any Questions discussion on BBC Radio 4 on 3 October 2025 from Chester Zoo. After transcribing once, I then went back and checked against the audio on BBC Sounds. I have indicated words I could not decipher by "???" question marks. Italics indicate stressed words, and I have added headings to indicate the topic spoken, and I have added occasional comments in [[double square brackets]]. I also indicate the time in the recording, in case anyone wishes to listen.
[29:50]
# Alex Forsyth (Any Questions chair) (AF): I want to move on because we've got a lot of questions from our audience here at Chester Zoo along the lines of this next.
# This comes from Asha Paymaster. Hello.
# Asha Paymaster (AP): Thank you. Is the UK destined to miss its 2050 Net Zero targets.
# AF: Asha, thank you for your question. As I say, a lot of people here very interestsed in this subject.
# Um. Kemi Badenoch the leader of the Conservaties, has suggested that the UK is destined to meet that 2050 target to reach Net Zero, in fact, the Conservatives have said they are going to scrap the UK's climate change legislation and replace it with a strategy for cheap and reliable energy. Because Kemi Badenoch said that target is impossible for the UK to meet.
[[It seems that AF both suggests that the UK is destined to meet the target and that is it impossible to do so. This seems contradictory. Have I misheard? I checked, and AF does indeed say that. However, because it is part of the facilitation rather than the substance of Any Questions, I ignore it.]]
# Aphra Brandreth (AB), is that the right approach?
# AB: Well, I'm sure all of us on this panel care passionately about our environment. I know we / I know I do, and obviously care about what world there will be for our children and future generations. But we also have a responsibility for our society and economy today.
# And what Kemi Badenoch has said is that actually currently that commitment is unaffordable, and we are seeing hugely rising energy costs, [shout from audience] which are / We now have in the UK some of the highest energy costs of the OECD.
[[Why is it important to compare with the OECD rather than the world?]]
# We're not saying that we don't want to move towards addressing climate change.
[[But if the Conservatives still want to address climate change, do they not need to formulate policy for doing so, rather than just scrapping Net Zero. With what would they replace it?]]
# In fact, I'm very proud that the Conservative Government, during its time in office since 2010 actually reduced greenhouse gas emissions by something like 25%.
[[by exporting our emissions? Yet she recognises that only internal emissions are measured below, so how can she be proud of this, if she is to be consistent?]]
# AB: But the fact is, we have to do it in a way that is realistic and achievable. And what the Conservatives are setting out is a way that we can actually have a policy that reduces energy costs, which means that what you will see is more money in people's pockets - people are really struggling at the moment - and it also means you will be able to see businesses able to produce things more efficiently, and then, when we've got that growing economy, we will have the money to be able to invest in the things that we need like nuclear energy.
[32:11]
[[My gut response: No! No! No!. Piece by piece:
- Reducing energy costs will encourage wasteful use of energy.
- "People are really struggling" is only relative and because we have been told we are struggling.
- Producing things more efficiently means more things produced and thus more environmental harm, in that all production does environmental harm.
- "When we have growing economy we will have the money to invest"- but when we did, we did not invest in the right things.
- Nuclear energy takes too long to take effect.
]]
# AF: Can I just be really clear, because how scrapping the Climate Change Act is going to reduce energy costs? Because a large percentage of energy costs is to do with gas prices, for which we are dependent on volatile international markets. [Clapping] So how would getting rid of that target reducing energy costs?
[Voice off: This is just political opportunism.]
# AF: Hang on. Two seconds. I will come to you, Lord Carlile, but just on that point, Aphra Brandreth.
# AB: Em, What we are saying is, we are going to focus our energies into trying to reduce energy prices. We've said that we will do things like make sure that we are taking advantage of the oil and gas reserves that we have here in the UK. [A little applause and some shouting] And we will do that in a way that means we can reduce energy prices.
[[Not true. If oil companies produce oil and gas from North Sea, then they will want to sell them to us at prices they can get in the world, not lower prices. So local oil and gas will not lower prices.]]
# The reality is at the moment that we are often using oil and gas anyway, that we are buying in at higher prices. And we are also doing things where we are / because our climate change target only looks at emissions we produce here in the UK, it means we can increase our energy costs and em essentially make manufacturing in the UK not competitive, and just end up buying things in cheaply from China, where to be honest they don't care about reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. [Some clapping]
[[Only within-UK emissions? We need to take account of emissions produced elsewhere because of our demands. Not sure she want that. ]]
[[?How does counting only emissions here increase our energy costs and make manufacturing less competitive? ]]
[[In fact, China *does* care]] OK.
[33:34]
# AF: OK. George / This is a radio programme, so those of you who have been listening at home may not be able to see that George Monbiot quite literally had his head in his hands, I think it fair to say, at one point. [Loud clapping]
# But George, there is a point here, isn't there? [Loud clapping continued]
# There is a point here that the political consensus seemed to exist around Net Zero for some time. In fact, this legislation was introduced by the previous Labour Government, strengthened by the previous Conservative Government. It seems to be breaking down. And I wonder if you acknowledge that there is a reason for that. And people do think that the price personally is one that is too high for them to pay.
[24:08]
# George Monbiot (GM): OK. Well, it's been one [the consensus] that is not breaking down, it's /being/ broken down, deliberately. [Some clapping]
# And what we see Kemi Badenoch doing [clapping continues]. What we see Kemi Badenoch doing is the only thing she seems capable of doing, which is culture-warring the issue. That's the only contribution she's made to the politics to this country has been culture wars [thinking like:]
"So let's culture-war climate and see if that scores us a few headlines. So, for the sake of maybe half a dozen nice headlines in the billionaire press, let's just sacrifice the lives of people in this country, people all round the world, their children, and the rest of the living world. Surely that's a good deal, isn't it!"
# GM: As for this cost issue, as you rightly pointed out, the cost of electricity in this country is so phenomenally gob-smackingly high because it is pegged to the price of wholesale gas. [Loud clapping] Now, this is a ridiculous state of affairs.
# In 2024, renewables provided over 50% of our electricity, and gas provided 32% of our electricity. [[Useful fact ---]]
# And yet it is gas that sets the price. And the reason the price is so high is that gas prices have been climbing and climbing, particularly since Putin's invasion of Ukraine, whereas renewables prices have been falling and falling.
# And not only have they been falling spectacularly but they have also stimulated a fantastically successful aspect of British industry. The Green economy grew by 10% last year, that was faster than any other sector. [Clapping] Over a million people [loud clapping continued] Over a million people now owe their employment.
# Do the Conservatives want to take us back to the fossil economy, where far fewer people are going to be employed? And where we lag behind the rest of the world!
# And, as for Aphra's disgraceful comment about China, are you really unaware of what China has been doing? The most spectacular green transition of any country on earth! [Loud clapping] Do you not read the news? Did you not do any research before this programme?
# This is the / an absolute stand-out example of environmental transition and yet "Let's blame the Chinese"! Blame them for everything. Blame them ??? /
[36:30]
# AF: George, let Aphra come back on that point. Aphra Brandreth.
# AB: The UK contributes only about 1% of em greenhouse gas emissions.
[Voice, probably GM: Oh, not this old chestnut again!]
[[Not relevant; misleading. (a) Even purely numerically: We are only 0.8% of the world's population, so if we contribute 1% of emissions then we are already contributing more than we should. (b) In policy terms and our responsibility: In any case, what is important is not the raw figures but our behaviour and expectations and what percentage of emissions we are responsible for. The answer is the UK contributes 2% of the world's emissions because added to the 1% of home-emitted greenhouse gases, is another 1% emitted elsewhere because of the goods and services we demand. That is two-and-a-half times what we should be emitting, at 0.8% of the world's emissions. ]]
# AB: It is the reality, though. And the fact that is, is that other countries are not following our in our path, and all we are doing is creating challenges for people here in terms of the cost in their pockets and in terms of the competitiveness of our manufacturing industries.
# GM: Well, first of all. first of all, other countries are indeed following in our path.
# Our Climate Change Act is global pioneering legislation, which at least fifty other countries have adopted. We should be proud of that. That is [Loud clapping] a point of national pride, which the Tories are prepared to rip down and diss! It's a disgrace!
[37:22]
# AF: Emma Reynolds
# Emma Reynolds (ER): Well, I think this latest policy from the Conservatives is not only illogical and bonkers but it smacks of desperation, frankly.
# The wholesale gas prices have gone up 75% since Russia invaded Ukraine. We know that our energy costs are largely determined by international markets.
# The idea that if you scrap the Climate Change Act suddenly all the energy prices will come tumbling down: I mean it's just ridiculous. I mean it's kindof laughable.
# I doubt very much that Aphra really believes in this policy, after spending ten years at Defra earlier on in her career.
[67:55]
# ER: Teresa May doesn't agree. Alok Sharma doesn't agree. Zak Goldsmith doesn't agree. John Gummer doesn't agree. And neither do any of the Conservative leaders that have come from 2008 until now agree with this bonkers policy.
# ER: What we need to do is get ourselves off the fossil fuel rollercoaster by investing in renewables, which is what this Government is doing, and catalyse investment investment into new renewables and investing in nuclear for the long term That's what we need to do. That's what this Labour Government is doing.
# It is also creating jobs.
# And, by the way, to talk about British business, Aphra, British businesses are befuddled also by your policy. The CBI has said that the clean energy economy grows three times faster than the rest of the economy. And they want the certainty in order to do the long-term investment that they need, in clean home-grown energy. That's what this government is getting on with doing. [Loud clapping]
# AF: Can you be really [clapping continued]
[38:50]
# AF: Can you be really clear with me on one point, Emma Reynolds? Is the government / # ER: I was clear. # AF: You were clear on that, but is the Government still absolutely committed to what was a Manifesto pledge, not to issue new licenses to explore new oil and gas fields in the North Sea?
# ER: Yes we are.
# AF: Absolutely committed to that.
# ER: Absolutely committed.
# AF?: Because it seems to me that there has been some confusion about whether or not that might mean there could be an expansion next to existing fields.
# Clear? No new oil and gas?
# We are making sure that we have more of our energy derived from renewables and from nuclear. And that we are less dependent on international energy imports, coming from some pretty volatile places around the world. And the volatility and price that that brings too for people at home.
# AF: OK.
[[Interesting. She did NOT rule out expansion next to existing oil and gas fields. ]]
[Clapping]
[39.40]
# AF: Er. A very patient Alex Carlile.
# Alex (Lord) Carlile (AC): Can I start by doing something very unusual and answering the question we were asked. [Laughter]
# Em, I think the answer to the question is that it is going to be very difficult to achieve Net Zero by 2050, but in my view we should continue to try.
# Um. [Loud applause]
# Aphra Brandreth made a brave attempt, I thought, to justify a piece of shameful political opportunism by the leader of the Conservative Party, who has moved away from consistent Conservative policy. Which was not part of their manifesto at the last election.
# Tories, the Liberal Democrats, the Green Party and Labour have all got a long and creditable record of fighting to fight climate change and to be the leaders in climate change technology, as George has said.
# AC: Um, if like me you are in your seventies, and you've been around a bit, we have felt and we have seen climate change coming along. We have different winters, we have different summers. If you are lucky enough to go to Spain, as I was this year, it's 40 degrees where it used to be 35 degrees some years ago.
# We have to deal with this problem.
# And simply saying "Drill, drill, drill" is completely irresponsible, and not worthy of any political party.
[41:15]
[Loud applause]
# AF: OK, Share your thoughts. 03 700 100 444. The number you need for Any Answers.
This page, "http://abxn.org/ccge/defend.net.zero.html", is an expression of part of a project to understand the links between climate change, global economy and other matters including society's beliefs and aspirations. It is designed to stimulate thinking and discourse. Comments, queries welcome.
This page is written on behalf of the CCGE Group by Andrew Basden, but the views expressed herein are his and not necessarily those of the other members of the Group. Written on the Amiga with Protext in the style of classic HTML. Copyright (c) Andrew Basden 2008 - present, but you may use this material subject to certain conditions.
Created: 11 October 2025. Last updated: 31 October 2025 politer intro (was Despot T) and rw, and See Also list.