The silence from Yes voters was as striking as the result: no one offered a recorded defence of strengthening the mandate, while No carried the vote decisively. The room did not sound of one mind, but it was united in refusing to accelerate a policy many saw as premature, costly or imposed from above.
The floor’s most-respected No case made the economic objection bluntly: “the Net Zero drive is ecenomical suicide”. A second highly rated voice focused less on climate policy than the grid, warning that “you can't keep plugging extension leads into extension leads” until the infrastructure gives way.
Other No voters widened the charge. One called the ambition “pointless” if China, the US and India did not follow, while another argued that “Poorly thought out localised laws” would produce box-ticking rather than lasting environmental gains. Their common thread was not a single alternative, but a demand to slow the state down before asking households and industry to move faster.
That leaves a specific reading of this chamber: opposition to a stronger mandate drew together economic anxiety, doubts about global effectiveness, concern over electricity capacity and suspicion of the technology’s supply chain. Even the more market-oriented voice said, “Let the market decide”, suggesting that the argument against compulsion was more coherent here than the argument for acceleration.
The verdict was not a debate about how best to strengthen the mandate; it was a refusal to strengthen it before the case for cost, capacity and consequence had been made.
7 Opinions
Scrap the net zero ambition. Let the market decide, if electric everything ends up better and cheaper ,then that is the direction the country will go.
NO Simply because our infstructure is all ready struggling to cope with the extra demands made of it today. As one pylon engineer explained it to me, you can't keep plugging extension leads into extension leads & running more & more items of the same wall socket. Sooner or later that wall socket will blow! Until we upgrade the electricity distribution infrastructure (install more wall sockets) anything else is pointless & will eventual fail..
AGE is a hoax, a complete scam. There is no Global catastrophe or Global Burning CO2 is a trace gas. The scientific evidence is very clear but the media only cherry picks conclusions they like & which tend to exaggerate risk. This is the UN & other Global bodies trying to get tax raising powers on way to a one world government. Agenda 2030 - which is being implemented - is part of this scam & our government is not being honest what they have in store for us. Hint: slavery.
Poorly thought out localised laws will not impact climate change but encourage 'box ticking' behaviour that has no long term benefit. Batteries are huge polluters & exploiters of labour in other countries. What we actually need are stronger protections for nature from pollution, data centres, plastic, excess packaging & building, & better infrastructure to support green energy. Globally the super rich are eating resources & polluting whatever we do - tax them hard for this
As the UK produce less than 0.3% the Net Zero drive is ecenomical suicide. Most of the EVs are produced in China and their pollution during the construction phase is way above anything we produce. So much for Milliband's claim to "lead the world" to Net Zero. More like economic and industrial suicide
A hard NO! I'm tiered of being scammed and fleeced by the 2nd biggest Psyop after Convid !
The UK should stop net zero suicide. Main world polluters (China, USA, India) will not follow, our efforts are pointless. Destroying UK economy instead saving planet will bring crisis and misery upon all UK.