It is no great stretch to think that it is a sign of growing unease in Britain over the direction of the country’s climate policy that more and more voters want (according to one poll, at least) to be directly consulted over the continued rush to net-zero greenhouse-gas emissions. It is a rush, those nostalgic for the U.K.’s (penultimate) deposed prime minister should not forget, that was accelerated by Boris Johnson, a trickster authoritarian in (vaguely) libertarian clothing.
A poll by YouGov found that 44 per cent of adults in Britain supported “holding a national referendum to decide whether or not the UK pursues a net zero carbon policy”, with 27 per cent opposed, while 29 per cent said they did not know. . . . The survey was commissioned by Car26, which is campaigning for a referendum on net zero and a pause in carbon-related regulations until such a ballot is held.
However, any referendum may well not give Car26 the result it is hoping for. British voters still seem to be broadly in favor of net zero, thanks to a constant propaganda barrage, consensus among the major parties, and, perhaps above all, because the harm that net zero will inflict has yet to become fully visible. Unhappy the government in charge when that moment occurs.
All that said, there are constitutional reasons why net zero should not be put to a referendum. Under British practice, referenda are meant to be rare and confined to constitutional matters. Net zero may be a pathway to economic disaster, but it is not a constitutional issue.
That said, here is one argument for not holding a referendum (complete with a pause in new regulations in the interim) that should be ignored.
The Daily Telegraph:
Speaking to The Telegraph, the Conservative MP carrying out a review of net zero delivery for the Government, Chris Skidmore, said there could be no delay to measures such as banning petrol cars because it would damage public trust.
Okay.
The Daily Telegraph (my emphasis added):
Mr Skidmore was commissioned by Liz Truss in September to carry out a review of net zero focusing on “maximising economic growth”.
The review was retained when Rishi Sunak replaced Ms Truss as prime minister last month.
As energy minister, Mr Skidmore was responsible for signing into law the Government’s policy to achieve net zero by 2050 — a target which his review is not questioning.
He revealed that his review would not recommend delaying the ban on new petrol and diesel cars from 2030, nor plans to ban gas boilers in newly built homes from 2025 and ban the installation of new boilers in all homes from 2035.
Instead, it will look at what needs to be done to make sure the targets are achieved.
“The review is going to look at those mandates, but it won’t make the case for delaying them,” he said.
Just another reminder of just how net zero, like all exercises in central planning, is intrinsically coercive.
And as for this “review,” let’s just say that it doesn’t seem altogether open-minded.
Meanwhile:
[Skidmore] insisted that net zero provided an “opportunity” as an “investment rather than a cost”. “If we head into recessionary times, this is where the private investment is heading — there is money out there to be had,” he said.
“The key for me is that for those people who are concerned about the transition, this review has got to be able to demonstrate to them that net zero is going to make them warmer and richer. It isn’t going to make them colder and poorer.”
Spoiler: Yes it is. Indeed, it may already be doing just that.
Skidmore will not be standing for reelection at the next general election, which is, I suppose, a small mercy.