In Orwell’s 1984, the Ministry of Truth existed not to test reality but to reshape it. What we see here is Parliament behaving in the same way: taking evidence that actually undermines Net Zero’s feasibility and reframing it as fuel for persuasion campaigns.
A select committee is supposed to function as Parliament’s scrutiny arm: independent, cross-party, questioning whether government policy is effective, affordable, and democratic.
But what your files show is something very different:
Pre-determined framing: the inquiry is literally titled “Building support for the energy transition.” Not “Assessing whether Net Zero is deliverable” — but how to persuade people to accept it.
Language control: witnesses stress “carefully chosen language,” “trusted intermediaries,” “co-benefits messaging.” This is not evaluation; it’s communications strategy.
Behavioural engineering: discussion centres on citizens’ assemblies, deliberation, and nudging the public into the “right” frame — classic social conditioning techniques.
Exclusion of dissent: engineers, consumer debt groups, rural communities, or nuclear advocates are absent. Opposition is treated only as a problem of perception.
Outcome predetermined: no matter what evidence is heard — high bills, grid blockages, public scepticism — the “solution” is always more messaging, not policy change.
🔎 Scrutiny of ESNZ Committee Inquiry – “Building support for the energy transition”
1. What the witnesses actually admitted
High costs / affordability crisis
Nesta: Net Zero is “front-loaded” with high costs, worsened by interest rates.
Citizens Advice: Millions of households have <£100 spare per month; many already in arrears.
Fair By Design: Current system regressive; poorest pay most.
Industry voice: 65% of industrial bills are tax and policy costs.
Grid constraints
Community Energy Scotland: Villages locked out of connections; existing projects can’t export; no EV chargers; widespread fuel poverty despite nearby turbines.
Public scepticism
Exeter/Bath: Only ~50% support Net Zero; a “significant minority” opposed.
More in Common: Only 1 in 5 believe 2050 Net Zero target is achievable.
2. How the Committee interpreted it
Costs → “Need new tariffs, fairer pricing, and better communication.”
Grid bottlenecks → “Need more investment to unlock renewables.”
Public scepticism → “Need citizens’ assemblies, new narratives, behaviour-change programmes.”
Overall → “Problems exist, but they are barriers to be overcome, not reasons to reconsider the policy.”
3. If we apply proper scrutiny
A real scrutiny test should ask:
If households can’t pay their bills now, how will they cope with additional Net Zero levies and grid costs?
If the grid is already unable to connect existing projects, how can it realistically integrate hundreds of gigawatts of new intermittent generation?
If only 1 in 5 believe the 2050 target is achievable, doesn’t pushing harder risk eroding democratic consent?
If industry is paying 65% of its bill in policy costs, doesn’t that destroy competitiveness and push jobs abroad?
From those questions, a different conclusion emerges:
Net Zero, as currently designed, is unaffordable, undeliverable, and losing public trust.
The rational response is not “sell it harder” but re-evaluate the entire strategy.
Alternatives like SMRs, domestic gas, rooftop microgeneration, and a grid-first rebuild must be openly compared, not dismissed.
4. Conclusion – Ours vs Theirs
Committee’s conclusion:
“The energy transition is right. The public must be persuaded. Barriers are about communication and fairness.”
Our scrutiny conclusion:
“The evidence shows Net Zero is unaffordable, grid-constrained, and lacks public consent. The policy needs fundamental re-evaluation, not a PR campaign. Without that, trust will collapse further.”
What the Committee set out to do (in their own words)
The Chair opens the inquiry as “our first session on… building support for the energy transition” and frames panels around costs/benefits to households, not re-evaluating Net Zero.
Members steer witnesses to communications questions (how to explain costs/benefits, raise awareness). One MP even prefaced: “I have fully bought into the idea that it would be much more effective than not getting to net zero” before asking how honest Govt has been about costs. That’s not scrutiny — that’s advocacy.
How witnesses are used (messaging, framing, participation)
DESNZ “public participation strategy” is cited approvingly; witnesses asked what to include so Govt can “more effectively engage the public.”
Emphasis on “trusted intermediaries,” local framing, and a “strong national Government-led narrative.”
Welsh Government evidence is about campaign performance, behavioural tracking, and deliberative engagement to “build public knowledge and trust.”
Explicit “build support” tactics
“We need to ramp up communication… prepare the public… everybody will have to play a part.” (Welsh Gov witness)
“Very carefully chosen language and framing… building a strong national Government-led narrative.”
Panels discuss co-benefits messaging (jobs, health) and who should speak (Ofgem, councils, “energy champions”).
Written evidence that treats opposition as a comms problem
Stop Funding Heat / Reliable Media: call for public campaigns to counter anti-Net Zero narratives and align Govt ad spend with climate goals.
Ban the Burn: calls for banning windfarms on peatland not to test policy merit but to “reduce resistance” and “build support.”
When costs/grid do appear, they’re reframed as persuasion issues
Citizens Advice: warns benefits aren’t shared and consent may evaporate, but only recommends social tariffs — not policy review.
Witnesses discuss narratives and framing, not whether Net Zero itself is viable.
Bottom line
Instead of scrutiny, this is a Push Unit: a taxpayer-funded exercise in narrative management, not truth-finding.
SAY NO TO THE DESTRUCTION OF OUR LAND 
Leave a comment