I have long said that when the costs of fossil fuel suppression policies start to hit home to average consumers, the whole climate alarm movement will become politically toxic, and will fade away.

So far in the U.S. we haven’t seen much movement in this direction. The red states are mostly alert to the issue of the costs of Net Zero, and want no part of fossil fuel suppression. The blue states have inflicted some substantial early costs on themselves (up to about doubling the cost of electricity in the case of California) without the voters having yet gotten too upset. At the federal level, the misnamed “Inflation Reduction Act” passes out hundreds of billions of dollars worth of handouts and subsidies to hide the cost of fossil fuel suppression from the public. It could be several more years before blue state voters figure out how they are getting fleeced.

But in Europe, and particularly in the UK, there are serious signs of shifting political winds. The Global Warming Policy Foundation is the UK’s leading think tank opposing Net Zero energy policies; and as a board member of its U.S. affiliate American Friends of the GWPF, I have a ringside seat to observe the shift.

In Europe, ever since the issue became political, there has been a near-unanimous all-party consensus in favor of fossil fuel suppression as a way to control “climate change.” You might think that some large party of the right or center-right in some country would speak up to say that these policies will impoverish us without having any noticeable effect on global climate. But for many years, that has not occurred.

In the UK, the logical party to be the home of climate realism would be the Conservative party. The Conservatives have been the governing party in the UK since all the way back to 2010. They led the way to the vote for Brexit in 2016, and to concluding the UK’s departure from the EU in 2020. But throughout their now 13 years running the government, the Conservatives have been very much on board with the program of “saving the planet” through fossil fuel suppression. In 2019, during the time Theresa May was Prime Minister, the UK parliament passed into law a binding requirement for “Net Zero” emissions by 2050. May’s successor Boris Johnson, who had made noises of being a climate skeptic before becoming Prime Minister, proved to be even more zealous than May in pursuing the Net Zero goal during his three years in office (2019 - 2022).

Current Prime Minister Rishi Sunak took office last October. Along the way to the top, he had pledged fealty to the Net Zero goal, but without giving many clues as to whether he was a zealous versus half-hearted proponent.

The UK’s road to Net Zero has so far included all the usual elements of the program: closing coal-fired power stations, building large numbers of on-shore and off-shore wind turbines, building large numbers of solar panels (despite the UK being in high north latitudes and being famously cloudy), banning “fracking” for oil and natural gas (despite having a large shale formation under foot), restricting further drilling in the North Sea, and so forth.

A somewhat unique feature of the UK fossil fuel suppression regime appears to have been the catalyst to set off the recent political shift. As far back as 2008 the government of London had initiated what they called a “Low Emissions Zone” in the central areas, with restrictions on the emissions of various sorts of vehicles entering the area, and financial charges for those driving in based on emissions levels. The standards gradually tightened over the years, and in 2020 the Mayor instituted what was now called the “Ultra Low Emissions Zone” in the central areas.

Having gotten away with this so far, the London government announced earlier this year that the ULEZ would be extended beyond the central areas to all London boroughs as of August 29. Most significantly, this would mean that essentially everybody entering this extended area in a gasoline or diesel powered motor vehicle would be charged 12.5 pounds per day — about $15, not an insignificant amount of money.

On July 20 a by-election was held for a seat in Parliament for the district known as Uxbridge and South Ruislip. This was the seat previously held by none other than ex-PM Boris Johnson, who had decided to resign since it wouldn’t be much fun hanging around in Parliament not being PM any more. With the Tories doing poorly in the polls, it was thought that they would be highly unlikely to hold this seat. But the Uxbridge and South Ruislip seat is in the outer ring of London boroughs about to become part of the ULEZ. The Conservative candidate came out against expanding the ULEZ, and the by-election turned into essentially a one-issue referendum on that subject. The Conservative candidate narrowly won.

Suddenly, opposing a policy initiative being sold as “for the climate” had proved to be a political winner. Meanwhile, the UK had also experienced a large spike in household energy costs last fall and spring (although the price of natural gas has eased somewhat since). And thus in the last week we see a flurry of policy initiatives from PM Sunak and his ministers, running counter to the Net Zero program, with enthusiastic support at least among the Tory grassroots. From the Telegraph, August 4, “Rishi Sunak's popularity surges as he toughens Net Zero stance”:

In the aftermath of the vote [in Uxbridge and South Ruislip], Mr Sunak declared that he was on motorists' side as he asked the Department for Transport to carry out a review of low-traffic neighbourhoods across the country. On Monday, he announced the Government was granting hundreds of new licences for North Sea oil and gas exploration.

Other parts of the UK’s Net Zero program include a requirement for 22% of motor vehicle sales to be EVs by next year, and a ban on new gasoline-powered cars by 2030. From the Sun, August 2:

Net Zero Secretary Grant Shapps was yesterday forced to admit the National Grid is hopelessly underpowered for the challenge of charging up millions more electric vehicles. And Business Secretary Kemi Badenoch is warning — along with car manufacturers — that an arbitrary requirement for 22 per cent of all car sales to be electric by NEXT YEAR is risking jobs and investment. . . . [A]s ex-Cabinet minister Jacob Rees-Mogg argues, if the PM were to back The Sun and put the brakes on net zero as part of his 2024 election manifesto, it would be popular with voters. And it could well get him back on the road to victory.

We’ve been waiting a long time for this. Finally, it’s a start.