Net zero referendum?

Following victory in 2016 EU referendum the directors of political acts in favour of extreme exploitation and wealth concentration are keen to continue to persuade and inure governments and the public to make high-consequence decisions that suit wealthiest and most assiduous exploiters.

Net zero
Action by many governments to tackle effects of climate change and to restrict its causes includes stated aim of “net zero.”  According to Oxford Net Zero “‘net zero’ refers to a state in which greenhouse gases going into the [earth’s] atmosphere are balanced by removal out of the atmosphere.”  With considerably more rhetoric than progress governments have regular meetings about achieving net zero and proclaim assurances of some woolly route toward net-zero by an arbitrarily chosen year, usually 2030 but, as time passes, the choice of year recedes further into the future.

(The net zero target is a target for the entire planet; it doesn’t mean every country must be individually net zero.)

As net zero is a measurable figure it is impossible for governments, collectively or unilaterally, to declare it has been attained if it has not.  For every act that occurs, in favour of net zero or against it, there can be a measurement of the effect of that act on the balance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.  Results of any proposals for action can also be measured to a reasonable degree of accuracy. 

How to achieve net zero
The most effective methods of restoring atmospheric balance include

  1. Generating all electricity via solar power, dams, waves and wind
  2. Removal of all fossil fuel powered transportation
  3. Termination of oil and gas extraction
  4. Ceasing deforestation and planting billions of trees

All are achievable if will exists to do so.

But, all are direct threats to profit-gathering ideology of the most extreme exploiters in the world.

Opponents of net zero
Oil, gas, agribusiness and meat production are four of the largest industries in the world.  Each has international ownership.  All are focussed on wealth generation with complete disregard for consequences.

Owners of the four industries are also owners of media outlets, think-tanks, lobby groups, education establishments and charities. 

Owners of the four industries are regular large donors to political parties throughout the world.

For each of the four industries, and for each of their financial backers/creditors, there exists a revolving door between senior executive positions and elected politicians: Corporate executives are planted in parliaments, and ex-politicians are assured of lucrative roles, often in roles that work with the same government department where the politicians worked.  In the latter case a politician starts work for his future employer while an MP.

Stopping net zero
Despite clarity that net zero is a help to slowing down climate change, despite demonstrable effects of climate change on weather patterns, despite demonstrable effects of changing weather patterns on quality of life, particularly food sources, despite availability and continuing refinements of non-fossil fuel technologies, and despite additional benefits of cleaner air and cleaner seas, the aforementioned four industries do not see beyond their wealth gathering and they know actions taken to attain net zero harm their enormous profits.  It is impossible for them to perceive anything else.  For them, net zero must not be a target for governments.

If governments try to avoid net zero by lying about their intent then they will be spotted quickly due to the measurability of the effects on the atmosphere by their actions; thus, if governments claim they are aiming for net zero then they have to execute genuine and visible action.

Without the possibility of reliance on government dishonesty a new strategy to stop net zero is needed: Persuade the public to make the decision to cancel net zero as a desired target, preceded by promotion of the necessity of a plebiscite on net zero.

Net zero referendum
The EU referendum was planned for over a decade.  A weak Tory party led by hapless Etonian David Cameron felt compelled to call a referendum. 

The machine to promote departure from the EU was operated by people who had prepared well: They knew how to fund their campaign via dark money [1], how to bypass electoral rules on funding and how to use combination of data and social media networks regardless of legality.  Their strategy was relentless, repetitive lying, misdirection and conmanship.

Their reason for supporting Brexit was enablement of a bonfire of rights – workers’ rights, legal rights, human rights, food standards, etc. – alongside enhancement of opportunities for disaster capitalism [2].  Their ultimate aim is creation of charter cities [3], playgrounds for exploiters where all basic rights are removed, including democracy: Corporate fascism.

Cancellation of commitment to net zero has a smaller intent than Brexit.  The former aims for continued huge wealth generation for the four industries. 

In a net zero referendum funding (dark money) for the anti-net zero option and tactics used (data manipulation, relentless lies and bypassing electoral regulations) will be the same as they were for Brexit.

Libertarian nudging has begun on net zero referendum
On 26th October (2021) Telegraph newspaper published an alleged survey that claimed majority public support for a net zero referendum.  

In an article for Open Democracy, The Brexit dark money lobby has a new target – climate change action, Peter Geoghegan showed connections between promoters of net zero referendum and listed its backers.  He noted that the aforesaid survey was produced by Car26 (Climate Analysis reason), a campaign group

registered at Companies House only last month.  Its public face and director – Lois Perry – is a representative for Reclaim, the culture war party fronted by Laurence Fox, and bankrolled by Brexit donor Jeremy Hosking

and that Car26’s comms are handled by Blue Sky Strategy

a tiny communications company run by a small group of Brexit veterans, including Rebecca Ryan, who is director of the astroturf Defund the BBC campaign and who used to work alongside Vote Leave’s former chief technology officer, Thomas Borwick.”

Car26’s rhetoric uses the usual presentation of fraudulent far-right manipulation and misdirection including 

free speech and debate are being replaced by a woke humourless consensus controlled by a remote elite abetted by a cowed media and bought-off ‘experts’ and institutions.” – Lois Perry, October 2021

Lois Perry (right) and friends

Libertarian broadcasters LBC and GB News gave platforms to Car26 and backed its referendum proposal.  Veteran far-right grifter Nigel Farage suggested on his GB News TV show he would be keen to be part of the anti net zero campaign.

Consequences of public vote against trying to achieve net zero
If a referendum took place and if the public voted against a net zero target then what ensues would depend entirely on the objectives of the government at the time. 

A libertarian government like the current Tory government would use such a referendum result as permission to continue to wreck the country and the environment to favour wealth concentration. 

However, an intelligent government could retain its plans but simply remove “net zero” as a stated aim.  That is, it could still proceed with replacement of fossil fuels, it could still proceed with a switch to electric vehicles, and it could still halt deforestation and plant more trees but present its actions in terms other than specifically aiming at net zero.

Similar to Brexit, a referendum result’s consequences are wholly dependent on what type of government is in power afterward.  If Labour won either of 2017 or 2019 general elections then Brexit would be very different to Tories’ calamity.

Resist the referendum
It is important to resist fraudulent demands for a referendum on net zero.  The resistance must not allow itself to be directed by Het zero [4] manipulators’ arguments.

It is much more important to seek a change of government in UK.  A good government would ensure that a referendum would be pointless.

[1] Dark money: Large anonymous funding of political campaigns
[2] Disaster capitalist: Capitalist who uses countries with collapsing economies as opportunities to steal public infrastructure
[3] Charter cities: Corporate administered states within states where democracy and rights are absent; modern feudalism
[4] Het zero: Extremist libertarian ideology, to assist wealth generation in fossil fuel and agribusiness industries, that opposes governments’ attempts to attain net zero


Net zero referendum?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s