In a recent monologue on climate change, LBC radio host James O’Brien hit out at politicians opposing Net Zero, framing them as in denial of objective reality. To many on that side of the debate, a simple opposition to EV mandates, dietary changes, ULEZ, accelerated deindustrialisation or any other harmful policies associated with Net Zero is a rallying cry of climate denial. They tell us how many jobs the Government is creating and how good for everyone the Climate Change Committee’s advice will be.
Anyone suffering high energy costs and industry layoffs can see that promises of Net Zero bringing prosperity are plainly untrue.
While niche Left-wing blogs might accuse us all of climate vandalism, the reality is far removed from this. I am not a climate denier, nor have I ever been one. Millions of Net Zero sceptics aren’t either; many realise that what was once an aspirational target has now hardened into a stifling reality. Some of us didn’t grasp it in 2019, when the Climate Change Act amendment was passed, but the blatant statism that goes along with a statutory target of Net Zero by 2050 is now hard to deny.
Opposing a policy instrument has traditionally cultivated debate between sides, not name-calling. If I were to oppose a certain crime-fighting measure, such as mass surveillance, would that make me pro-crime?
