Voters Reject Net-Zero Madness: Wind & Solar Transition Faces Serious Opposition

Given the choice, power consumers would have rejected the wind and solar transition and the net-zero CO2 madness that underpins it, from the outset. At the heart of their new-found and growing hostility is the question of who benefits? And who pays? Having been repeatedly pounded with off-the-charts electricity bills, the great unwashed are starting to work out the answers to those questions. It’s households and businesses that are being forced to pay for the incessant demands of rent-seeking crony capitalists through their taxes and power bills. A model representing the greatest wealth transfer in modern history.

So, it comes as little surprise that, when asked, the proles are less than enthusiastic about continuing that model at their expense, ad infinitum.

The Australian’s Graham Lloyd reports on a poll that shows how badly politicos have misread the public mood.

Costing the earth: support for ‘climate action’ and renewable falls
The Australian
Graham Lloyd
9 November 2023

It might be tempting to look down from on high in the renewable energy transition on the protests of ordinary people worried about the cost and discomfort of change, but evidence is growing that this would be a mistake. Cost overruns and delays are making the federal government’s target of achieving 82 per cent renewables by 2030 appear increasingly unlikely. Together with engineering and financial concerns, there is a public revolt by those who feel they can neither afford it nor understand the need to destroy their piece of nature to save the planet.

This is a phenomenon not confined to Australia. It has been a feature of renewable energy deployment from the start. What has changed is the scale of the ambition and the pushback. It is important that government and industry understand what is happening and where it might lead. Early signs of unravelling are snowballing through Europe where governments in Britain, Germany and France are walking back their ambitions on net-zero, which peaked in the lead up to the 2021 Glasgow climate conference.

Cambridge University academic and social commentator Rob Henderson has explored the concept of “luxury beliefs”, which he says are ideas and opinions that confer status on the upper class while often inflicting costs on those less well off. Henderson is controversial for his views on a range of issues but it is possible to see the public swell of support both for renewable energy and climate-change action in terms of them being a luxury belief. Pro-climate action helped propel the Albanese government, together with a raft of climate-focused independents, most notably the Teals, into office. The danger for the political class is that once a specific luxury belief loses social value, people are eager to discard it.

Public protests at the rollout of large-scale renewable-energy projects and the transmission lines needed to support them is a reflection of social licence under strain. Rising energy costs and less-certain supplies of electricity are now firmly a mainstream concern. Henderson argues that a core feature of a luxury belief is that once a believer is no longer insulated from the consequences of his or her belief, it dissipates. So, does greater public awareness of the size and cost of the challenge involving action on climate change signal the souring of a luxury belief?

For evidence, despite publicity about extreme weather events and negative impacts of climate change, research by global analytics firm Dynata holds some uncomfortable truths. It finds that Australia has one of the largest proportions of people globally who report not being worried about global warming. More than half of Australian consumers (58 per cent) are also unwilling or slightly unwilling to adopt a more climate-friendly lifestyle if it costs more money.

Compared with 12 months ago, about the time of the election of the Albanese government, 41 per cent of those surveyed said they were less interested in buying a hybrid or electric car and 36 per cent were less interested in renewable energy. Rising cost-of-living pressures can help explain the change in sentiment. Older generations said they were less likely to make financial sacrifices to adopt a more climate-friendly lifestyle: 65 per cent of Gen X and 69 per cent of Baby Boomers were unwilling or slightly willing. When it comes to adopting climate-friendly behaviours, people said they were more willing to sacrifice time and convenience than money. This was especially the case for younger generations.

Dynata’s research report draws on responses from 11,000 consumers across 11 countries including the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, The Netherlands, China, Japan and Australia. The results show that waning interest is not confined to Australia. In the US, 44 per cent of respondents strongly or slightly agree that they are less interested in buying a hybrid or electric car than a year ago because of inflation and rising costs. Forty two per cent strongly or slightly agree that they were less interested in renewable energy than a year ago.

In the United Kingdom, 43 per cent of respondents were less interested in buying a hybrid or electric car and just below one third (28 per cent) were less interested in renewable energy than a year ago. And if it cost more money, 57 per cent were slightly willing or not at all willing to make lifestyle changes.

The trend is also true in China where 37 per cent were less interested in buying a hybrid or electric car and 35 per cent were less interested in renewables. If it costs more money, 35 per cent of Chinese respondents were slightly willing or not at all willing to make lifestyle changes. The fall in support explains why Chinese president Xi Jinping puts energy security and coal-fired power ahead of environmental posturing and British Prime Minister Riki Sunak has applied the brakes to the UK’s net-zero transition. Political leaders in Germany and France have been quick to follow Sunak’s lead.

Implicit in Sunak’s retreat was a recognition that elite opinion had lost touch with the average person. “What I have concluded during my time so far as prime minister is that those decisions can be so caveated, so influenced by special interests, so lacking in debate and fundamental scrutiny that we’ve stumbled into a consensus about the future of our country, that no one seems to be happy with,” he said.

Sunak said Westminster’s politicians did not have the courage to look people in the eye and explain what was really involved. Plans included a ban on gas heating, mandatory home upgrades for property owners, taxes on eating meat and compulsory car sharing if you drive to work. “Now I believe deeply that when you ask most people about climate change, they want to do the right thing, they’re even prepared to make sacrifices,” Sunak said. “But it cannot be right to impose such significant costs on working people, especially those who are already struggling to make ends meet, and to interfere so much in people’s way of life without a properly informed national debate.”

Australian politicians must closely watch what is happening abroad. Many of the imposts, including gas prohibitions and mandatory building regulations, are being introduced by state governments. New building regulations in NSW that mandate higher levels of insulation and double glazing that took effect on October 1 increase the cost of building a home by up to $50,000 at a time of rising political concern about a housing shortage.

Those pushing net-zero can expect the same sort of political disruption evident in Europe. Already there are signs the issue of nuclear power has become more pressing. Public sentiment is changing. And there is reason for government to take notice. In the 2023 update to its Net Zero by 2050 Roadmap, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said much of the momentum was in small, modular clean-energy technologies such as solar PV and batteries, but these alone were not sufficient to deliver net-zero emissions. “It will also require large new, smarter and repurposed infrastructure networks; large quantities of low-emissions fuels; technologies to capture CO2 from smokestacks and the atmosphere; more nuclear power; and large land areas for renewables,” the IEA said.

Globally, electricity transmission and distribution grids will need to expand by approximately two million kilometres each year to 2030. Investment will need to climb to about $US4.5 trillion a year by the early 2030s from the current $US1.8 trillion. Despite the level of investment, carbon emissions from the energy sector reached a record high of 37 billion tonnes in 2022, one per cent above their pre-pandemic level.

For Australia, a sobering statistic is that China is building enough new coal-fired electricity capacity every six months to equal Australia’s total coal-fired capacity. Australia is only at the beginning of its journey to net-zero. Minister for Climate Change and Energy Chris Bowen is developing plans for decarbonisation across the economy. Areas include electricity and energy, industry, the built environment, agriculture and land, and transport and resources.

Bowen says the “level and quality of dialogue and collaboration with industries, experts and citizens will set these plans apart from anything that’s been done before”.

“This is a shared endeavour: we must work together to do what’s both possible and practical to stop dangerous climate change and realise the economic opportunities of net zero,” he says. “The end result will be six net-zero sectoral plans that are robust, ambitious but achievable, and accepted by the broader community.”

Evidence abounds that maintaining public support is becoming the priority challenge.
The Australian

2 thoughts on “Voters Reject Net-Zero Madness: Wind & Solar Transition Faces Serious Opposition

  1. Bowen…“The end result will be six net-zero sectoral plans that are robust, ambitious but achievable, and accepted by the broader community.”

    What a load of bulldust!
    Bowen has been an utter failure at every portfolio he has held.
    This time is no different.

  2. If across the globe countries have been moving toward ‘net-zero’ why is it catastrophic weather events continue unabated and in many cases are even greater than before any move toward ‘net-zero’ began?
    Yes we all want a clean environment but surely there is something better ( than covering the land with turbines which only disturb natural weather movements with those planted along coastal oceans potentially interfering with movement of oceans which environmentally have historically made their own contribution to weather patterns.
    Then add the environmental damage being done to our land based environments. From creatures living underground on the surface or in the air all of which are being driven toward eventual extinction or diminished in such numbers that they are no longer able to influence the wider environment we all live in. All living things rely in each other in some way, yet advocates of acres and acres turbines, fields of solar panels and massive batteries ignore this saying that leaving a minimal margin between each of these atrocities is sufficient to maintain a balance. What a load of old ‘codswallop’, how could anyone believe such drivel.
    We are a generation watching money hungry developers assisted by blatantly stupid politicians destroy our environments and in doing so not only our way of life, but leaving nothing but a dead/vacant landscape/environment for future generations.
    Each of the 3 energy sources currently in favour are in themselves rushing us toward environmental disaster.
    None of them is benign each one leaves a huge environmentally damaging footprint, yet Governments continue to push them onto us as if they are the answer to reversing the worlds environmental problems!!!!
    Yet there is one form of energy production that does not rely on this daily combined collaboration of destruction from wind, solar and batteries, which each require a great deal of maintenance as well as having short ‘life’ spans. It is clean and if well handled a great deal more benign on the environment and in the end the ‘pockets’ of people and Governments, it needs a great deal less land and will continue to operate if well maintained for many years – this of course is Nuclear energy.
    Evidence shows from existing older style plants this form of energy production is a far better method than each of the methods now being forced onto us by easily influenced politicians. They appear to believe the glib, smarmy rot being fed to them by those who are only interested in their bank balance and have NO desire to stop their false utterances.

Leave a comment