From Climate Scepticism

By JIT

Trying to understand what other people are thinking is hard

Some sceptics (including YT) see Net Zero as a colossal folly, tantamount to national suicide for the UK. Its premise (the “climate crisis”) is without foundation, and worse, UK Net Zero would not answer any crisis without substantial buy-in from a large proportion of the world’s countries, which only the naïve believe will transpire. Whether the buy-in happens or not, the project will drive down living standards, freedom, trash the environment, etc. So much so obvious.

Sceptics have been taking a licking for years. Few seem to publicly agree with the above diagnosis; support for Net Zero is vocal and allegedly widespread – even if a few cracks have appeared in the last two weeks thanks to the catalyst of the unpopular extension to London’s ULEZ. We in the UK are nominally still on track for Net Zero, even if, as I believe, it will never happen: each incremental step towards Net Zero will be harder than the previous, ensuring its eventual abandonment. It would be preferable if the project was abandoned sooner rather than later; before the lights go out, and before we slide down the greasy pole of civilisation too far.

I got to wondering how supporters of Net Zero could be persuaded to change their minds. And so I fell down a rabbit hole. What induces people to support Net Zero? Do people who support Net Zero all believe that it will solve the “climate crisis”? They can’t be that naïve, surely? Perhaps they support it for other reasons – seeing the UK as bearing a standard that other countries will rally behind? Maybe there are people who claim to support Net Zero, because they don’t dare to openly oppose it?

In the table that follows, I have tried to tabulate the categories of people who support (and oppose) Net Zero. After a lot of head scratching I came up with 6 groups differing in their reasons for supporting Net Zero, together with 5 groups with differing reasons for opposing it. Where I have been able to think of data that might change the thinking within the supportive groups, I’ve added it. Some groups are probably null sets, i.e. no-one believes the combination of propositions as set out, but they are included for completeness.

Please alert me in comments if the sets are logically incoherent.

There are a number of obvious flaws in the classification. The first and most obvious is that the large rump of humanity are in a category we might describe as “shrug.” The second is that the classification largely supposes that people derive their opinions by rational means (cf. Andy’s analysis of cultural forces).

With that preamble, here it is:

Support	Believe there is a climate crisis	Believe that UKNZ will solve the climate crisis		Hopelessly naïve optimist, you are unaware of UK’s tiny role in CO2 emissions [Group A]
		Do not believe that UKNZ will solve the climate crisis	Believe that UK leadership on NZ -> global action -> solve climate crisis	Aware that UKNZ will not by itself solve the climate crisis, you believe that the UK showing moral leadership will result in sufficient other countries joining us that the problem will be solved [Group B]
			Believe UKNZ offers substantial co-benefits	A realist about the prospect of many other countries joining us on the NZ path, you believe there are sufficient co-benefits (green jobs, reduced air pollution, cheap electricity, etc) to make NZ a worthwhile policy [Group C]
	Do not believe there is a climate crisis	Believe UKNZ offers substantial co-benefits		You believe the cost of UKNZ is more than offset by green jobs, reduced air pollution, cheap electricity, etc [Group D]
		Afraid of being “othered”		You recognise that UKNZ will be damaging to the country, but knowing which way the wind is blowing, you are understandably afraid to admit it publicly. [Group E]
		Stand to gain from UKNZ policies / lose out if it is cancelled		You may be particularly selfish and hold shares in renewable companies, or work for an environmental charity, or depend on climate alarm for renewal of research grants, etc [Group F]
Oppose	Believe there is a climate crisis	Believe that UKNZ will solve the climate crisis	Believe that the costs of UKNZ will outweigh the benefits {Null set?}	An individual in this set would have to simultaneously believe that UKNZ would by itself solve the climate crisis, and that it would be so destructive as to not make it worthwhile [Group G]
			Stand to gain from laissez-faire situation {Null set?}	An individual in this set would have to be particularly selfish, e.g. holding large investments in fossil fuel industries, and willing to oppose UKNZ for that reason even though believing it would work [Group H]
		Do not believe that UKNZ will solve the climate crisis	By implication, do not believe that UK leadership on NZ -> global action -> solve climate crisis	You believe that there is a climate crisis, but that committing the UK to NZ without substantial numbers of countries joining us would be irrational, and do not believe that our example will be widely followed; UKNZ on its own would have no effect [Group I]
	Do not believe there is a climate crisis	Believe that the costs of UKNZ will outweigh the benefits		Believe that UKNZ will reduce standards of living in the UK, and / or damage the environment [Group J]
		Stand to gain from laissez-faire situation		Believe that UKNZ offers substantial co-benefits that outweigh its cost, but own fossil-fuel related investments [Group K]

Supporters of UK Net Zero

GROUP A

This group comprises what we may call naïve optimists. They believe there is a climate crisis, and that UK Net Zero alone will solve, or at least substantially address, the climate crisis. In my view, most of this group have not thought deeply about the topic, so that their beliefs are shallow, formed by propaganda/indoctrination; their role models support the project, and they agree with people they like/idolise. Their support for Net Zero may be purely instinctive, and they consider the question to be a moral one; they know which side the angels are on.

This group have a limited understanding of the matter, but the coupling of the climate crisis as a moral question with black and white thinking in terms of solutions probably makes their support for UK Net Zero strong. They are likely to react to challenges emotionally, so it will be difficult to change their minds.

There is the potential to persuade this group that unilateral action by the UK is pointless, moving them into Group B. (For example, by pointing out the UK’s tiny contribution to CO₂ emissions.)

GROUP B

Catastrophists about climate change/rational optimists about Net Zero. Believe in the climate crisis, and are sufficiently sensible to realise that UK Net Zero will not on its own make the difference. But this group reasons that where the UK leads, other countries will follow, and that the pain of going first will ultimately be worth it. Sufficient countries will follow our lead that the crisis will be averted; we may gain first mover’s advantage.

This group may be persuaded that other countries (in particular, China) will not join hands with us on this. If so their support for UK Net Zero may become conditional on a more hard-nosed approach by our negotiators, thus moving them into Group I.

GROUP C

Believers in the climate crisis, this group does not believe that UK Net Zero will solve the problem, nor that enough countries will join us to overcome the freeloader problem, but think that it will offer sufficient co-benefits to make it worthwhile. These might be cleaner air, cheaper energy, or green jobs.

Because jobs in “clean” energy are a net cost absent substantial exports, this seems a naïve position. Group C is also vulnerable to data showing that renewable energy is not cheaper than fossil fuelled energy, that there are significant pollution issues for EVs, etc. (Thus moving them into Group I.)

GROUP D

This group does not think there is a climate crisis, but believes that UK Net Zero offers sufficient co-benefits to make it worthwhile (cf. Group C). Data showing that, e.g., renewable energy is expensive could see members of this group moving into Group J.

GROUP E

This group does not think there is a climate crisis, and believes that UK Net Zero will cause net harm. They are unwilling to state this position for fear of being “othered”.

Members of this group are probably willing to shift from support of, to opposition to, UK net zero, if the wind starts to blow that way (moving to Group J). As long as it is principally a moral question, and that supporting UK net zero = good, they will continue to pretend support.

GROUP F

Like Group E, this group does not think there is a climate crisis, and believes that UK Net Zero will cause net harm. Their support for UK net zero is selfish, because the climate crisis/Net Zero project offers benefits to them personally (via investments, employment, research opportunities, etc).

As long as inferior products are subsidised/mandated because of UK Net Zero policies, as long as research will only be funded if it has “climate” in the grant proposal title, as long as environmental charities maintain their focus in this direction in preference to addressing the problems they were created to answer, this group will thrive. But their support for Net Zero is shallow.

Opposers

GROUP G

A null set included for completeness. The logic here seems incoherent (to believe in a climate crisis and that UK Net Zero will defeat it, but to oppose the solution because of excessive costs).

GROUP H

Likewise probably a null set; believe in the climate crisis, and that UK Net Zero can fix it, but oppose Net Zero for selfish reasons (e.g. a family fortune tied up in fossil fuels).

GROUP I

This group believe in the climate crisis, but are realists about the ability of UK Net Zero to do anything about it, and sceptical that enough countries will join us to make our sacrifice worthwhile.

GROUP J

This group are what you could call rational sceptics. They do not believe there is a climate crisis – there may be climate change, and it may be human-caused – and they think that the medicine is worse than the disease, i.e. that the benefits of UK Net Zero will be outweighed by the damage it causes, to freedom, wealth and/or the environment.

GROUP K

This group do not believe there is a climate crisis. They think that UK Net Zero will have substantial co-benefits to outweigh or at least balance its costs, but oppose for selfish reasons (fossil-fuel investments, a love of V8s, etc). Presumably a small group.

MPs

MPs have a more complex classification, because in addition to all of the above, their support or opposition to Net Zero may be influenced by (a) what they believe their constituents want and (b) what their party’s policy is.

Conclusion

I set out this classification in an attempt to clarify my own understanding, but I have been left as confused as I began, I think. I place it here in case it provokes a thought or two in Cliscep readers.