One of the supposed mysteries in contemporary politics, especially in Europe, is the mismatch between what polls show about the “race” to net zero (enthusiasm, the planet must be saved and so on) and the dissatisfaction increasingly evident with its effects (and, yes, voters are beginning to connect the dots) at the ballot box.

In reality, the reason for the mismatch is that pollsters too rarely ask the all-important follow-up question. If you believe in [insert policy here: in this case, net zero], how much of your money are you prepared to pay (or forgo) in order to see it put in place?

I touched on this issue, not for the first time, in connection with climate policy in an article for NR last year:

[T]here have been warning signs that, when net zero begins to bite hard, voters will bite back. Polls show public backing for net zero but limited enthusiasm for paying for it. According to an Ipsos poll taken in 20 countries worldwide and published in April 2023, only about 30 percent of people (25 percent in the U.S.) would be prepared to pay “more” of their income in taxes “to help prevent climate change.” “More” is not the same as “a lot,” and the bill for net zero would be paid not only in steeper taxes but in a higher cost of living. However, 55 percent of respondents to a YouGov poll conducted last year in the U.K. would support policies to reduce carbon emissions only “if they do not result in additional costs for ordinary people,” an impossibility. At around the same time, fewer than half of Americans polled by the AP-NORC Center and the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago said they would support a monthly carbon fee on their energy use, and, of those in favor, nearly a fifth said that the charge should not be more than a dollar.

One of the reasons that Nigel Farage’s Reform party did so well in recent local elections was discontent over net zero policies, a particularly pressing concern in a country where net zero, under the direction of “energy” secretary, Ed Miliband is being pursued with an approach that combines fanaticism, futility and waste in a manner vaguely reminiscent of a Soviet five-year plan.

But, but, net zero is popular!

Michael Deacon, writing for the Daily Telegraph:

It may sound bizarre now, but only a few weeks ago, many political analysts were convinced that Nigel Farage’s opposition to net zero would cost him lots of votes. One polling expert even declared that it could be Reform’s Achilles’ heel.

Frankly, that strikes me as a touch improbable. In reality, I suspect the opposite is true: Mr Farage speaks for voters on net zero. And here’s how we know.

This week, a new polling firm called Merlin Strategy asked voters for their views on tackling climate change. But here’s the crucial thing, it didn’t merely ask them: “Do you support net zero?” Instead, it asked them which was more important: action to achieve net zero, or cutting the cost of living. And guess what they said? Almost 60 per cent chose cutting the cost of living, while a mere 13 per cent chose net zero.

There’s a lesson there.

And it’s something of which net zero’s advocates are fully aware. Thus their enthusiasm for censoring  climate “misinformation” on social media and the efforts that they make to take decision making on climate policy away from the electorate and hand it instead to the courts, transnational organizations, regulators, delegated authorities or (via ESG/stakeholder capitalism), the c-suite.