There isn't a consensus on either. The cross-party consensus is not shared by the wider public.
Nobody in Parliament seems to understand it. They're in a bubble.
They admit it, if you listen carefully.
Such shrill language.
He has not argued with sceptics. Zealots and cronies have resisted and closed down debate.
The green leaning IAT's figure is £2trillion -- the same as rebuilding the entire housing stock.
Instead, they smear their critics.
That is how we can know that the #netZero target is deeply regressive, and the likes of Gummer serve themselves.
He admits that people will have to pay the costs of retrofitting. He hasn't said how much that will be.
He wants politicians and parties to close ranks against the public.
It's that simple.
His fortune depends on it.
Where have they published their rebuttals?
Gummer very angrily refuses to answer.
He cannot cope with debate and criticism. He's nasty when confronted with it.
She should try explaining that to all the people who didn't get the chance to vote for her.
She doesn't have to find work. She's got a well-paid job, for life, and a FAT pension.
She wants a blank cheque.
There is nothing moral about a blank cheque, you mad, mad, mad woman.
We haven't done *any* damage.
I hope she's got a big garden.
Says the costs are much higher, even on the CCC's own evidence.
#Netzero is not "soft-power, it's soft-in-the-head".
That way we can have a rational basis for evaluating #netzero.
Turner was the first Chair of the CCC. Attacks sceptics. Says sceptics are always wrong.
He can never respond to sceptics or critics in debate though.
So why have energy prices risen?
Given their positions, this is remarkable. They have to mischaracterise their critics, and cannot respond to them in kind, on the basis of the facts that they claim pertain.
"Can we please have some policies that will make a difference". She has no idea.
She's lying. We know she's lying. She told me a decade ago that "behaviour change" is the biggest part of the CCC's targets...
She is entirely hostile to the public. She is completely indifferent to the hardship that #netzero will inflict on them.
The cost benefit analysis was a fantasy.
It's true. But the whole point of #netzero is a blank cheque.
An engineer apparently. But giving a quite boring lecture on thermal efficiency.
Likens climate change to an establishment religion that is not shared by the public, and #netzero will not enjoy public support.
I'm usually a critic of the Lords, but there was *Far* more debate today than there was in the Commons.
But they plucked figures out of thin air.
This is disingenuous.
This hardly answers Lilley's point.
That's a matter for the CCC.
My experience is that the CCC are not interested in answering questions.
It's quite a shamelessly opportunistic attempt to criticise the government, which has no resonance outside Westminster.
When the issue of costs and consequences are raised, the reaction is to slur the questioner, or to recycle the alarmist litany.
They want to remake UK society and culture in its entirety. They have no idea how. They have no mandate.
This is perhaps the reason why the CCC was created. Today's politicians prefer to defer responsibility, while maintaining their privilege.
You can protest that "climate change is real" as much as you like. The point is that climate change policy is a beano for chancers, spivs and crooks, all the same.
But they will permit unhinged, end-times weirdos like Rupert Read.
But let's not have any debate on TV or outside Parliament about #netzero.