TRIGGERnometry | "How Net Zero Destroyed Britain"
Date: February 10, 2026
Hosts: Konstantin Kisin & Francis Foster
Notable Guests: Experts and commentators on energy, climate policy, and industry, including Matt, Liam, Catherine, Alan, and others
Episode Overview
In this episode, the hosts and guests critically examine the UK's net zero policy, discussing its intended goals, actual outcomes, and broader implications for the country’s economy, energy security, and global climate efforts. The conversation challenges prevailing narratives about climate action, questions the efficacy of unilateral decarbonization, and explores pragmatic alternatives for environmental and economic sustainability.
Key Discussion Points & Insights
1. Public Perception vs. Policy Reality
- Superficial Support: While polls suggest most Britons support climate action, actual willingness to pay for it is extremely limited.
- [01:49] B: "People will say, yes, we want action on climate. But then when you ask them how much they're willing to spend... £10 a year. It's some ludicrously small amount."
- Disconnect on Costs: Many are unaware how green levies and energy policies impact their bills; this disconnect hampers genuine democratic consent.
- [02:06] A: "That connection hasn't been made in many people's minds."
2. UK's Global Emissions & Offshoring
- Limited Impact: UK produces only about 0.8–1% of global carbon emissions.
- [02:33] B: "We could cut to zero ourselves and literally it makes no difference to global climate change."
- Offshoring Manufacturing: Pursuing territorial net zero encourages industry and emissions to relocate to countries like China, increasing global emissions overall.
- [02:33] B: "We then start buying our steel from China... and then you have to ship girders halfway around the world in ships that burn bunker fuel... the result of that is global emissions go up."
- Loss of British Jobs: Domestic industry and employment are sacrificed in pursuit of headline targets.
- [04:02] A: "British blokes are not getting the job because of it."
3. Economic and Social Consequences
- Fuel Poverty & Layoffs: Higher energy costs cause real hardship and unemployment.
- [04:05] B: "We're losing employment, it's bad for the economy, we're having these artificially high energy prices, putting more people in fuel poverty... making emissions higher."
- Inflationary Risks: Carbon border taxes on imports will drive up consumer prices across sectors.
- [04:29] B: "This is going to be unbelievably inflationary... if the economy isn't in the toilet already, it will be when this comes in."
- Trade Union Discontent: Traditional Labour allies see the policy as a direct attack on blue-collar jobs.
- [10:14] F: "A lot of the trade unions in the UK think... pursuing net zero, the way we are, is massively hollowing out our industry."
4. The Limits of Technology & Ideology
- Lack of Viable Alternatives: Fossil fuels still provide over 80% of world energy; reliable, affordable replacements are not ready.
- [06:22] E: "82% of the world's energy comes from fossil fuels... We can't find a replacement that's both reliable and cheap."
- Real-World Harms: Prohibiting fossil fuel programs in developing countries (e.g., bottled gas in Burkina Faso) for ideological reasons can increase pollution and mortality.
- [06:22] E: "The World Bank says you can't have money for a bottled gas program... burning fire is killing your kids. Indoor air pollution kills 4 million people a year."
- Parallels with History: The conversation draws a sharp analogy between ideological climate policy and religious fanaticism of the past.
- [05:18] B: "How is it that you can have this widespread ideological failure? ...Look at the Reformation and the Spanish Inquisition… you can justify going to just about any length..."
5. Alternatives and Suggested Policies
- No Arbitrary Deadlines: Focus should be on innovation rather than rigid targets.
- [08:37] E: "Don't set a deadline... fund research into energy technologies that might solve the problem in the future."
- Hydrogen and Nuclear: Advocating overlooked solutions—clean hydrogen and scaled-up nuclear—as more pragmatic paths, stymied by vested interests and outdated policies.
- [12:42] F: "I believe in hydrogen… it's a wonder fuel that we're deliberately suppressing... vested interests who are making a huge amount of money out of renewables subsidies."
- [22:04] D: "Fourth generation nuclear solves a lot of the problems we were worried about... If you work a technology to scale, you gradually make it better and you solve the problems."
- Domestic Energy Production: Emphasize the importance of UK energy security and employment.
- [17:42] A: "If you want to re industrialize Britain... you just have to say net zero in the bin, day one. We're going to make energy in Britain..."
- [18:04] G: "The aim of British energy policy is energy abundance. Let's go for cheap and reliable energy and we'll do that however we can... as much as we can get from North Sea oil and gas, let's use it."
6. Electric Vehicles and Industrial Policy
- Unpopular, Expensive Mandates: Rapid transition rules on electric vehicles outpace infrastructure and consumer demand, risking the collapse of the domestic car industry.
- [14:07] F: "Carmakers can't actually sell enough vehicles to get to 28%... they're charged a fine of £15,000 per vehicle... they're rationing petrol and diesel vehicles ahead of the 2035 ban... and they're laying off workers."
- [14:07] E: "BMW are now not building the electric Mini at Cowley in Oxford... probably not going to come back."
7. Pragmatism versus Ideology
- Ideological Approach Criticized: The policy is portrayed as driven more by elite ideals and virtue signaling than by practical engineering or public buy-in.
- [23:46] D: "We're doing it in this weird, ideological, knee jerk, technocratic way where we are making decisions based on how difficult they are politically more than we are about what's going to get the job done."
- Concerns Over Authoritarianism: There’s worry that top-down imposition of lifestyle changes (on meat, travel, etc.) will provoke backlash and political instability.
- [24:32] D: "...the technical democrats who are pushing the solutions at the moment are doing a really bad job of pushing their case. They are tending towards the authoritarian, which we don't like, and telling you whether you can or can't eat meat and all those sorts of things."
Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments
-
On Offshoring Emissions:
"Shipping low value heavy bulk items halfway around the world is a very stupid thing to do. And that creates a lot of emissions."
— B at [03:37] -
On Ideological Zealotry:
"You can justify any type of horrible torture to convert them, to save them from eternal damnation... but everybody believed it. Nobody thought that was crazy."
— B drawing historical parallels at [05:18] -
On Setting Deadlines:
"Don't set a deadline... It might come along in 2051 and then you'd look a fool, wouldn't you? You'd spend a fortune trying to get rid of emissions and you could have done it for free."
— E at [08:37] -
On the Car Industry Crisis:
"They can't get a hearing with many other journalists... They are now saying this is going to completely wreck Britain's entire car industry."
— F at [14:07] -
On False Choices:
"We need a strong economy and we need net zero. Those two things are incompatible. You can't have both."
— A (Konstantin Kisin) at [28:20] -
On Leadership and Global Impact:
"If we do that, the Chinese will be inspired to come commit industrial suicide as well. The Chinese clearly not as stupid as our leaders, so they haven't committed industrial suicide. That is what net zero has done."
— A (Konstantin Kisin) at [28:45] -
On Pragmatic Energy Policy:
"The aim of British energy policy is energy abundance. Let's go for cheap and reliable energy and we'll do that however we can."
— G at [18:04]
Important Timestamps
- [01:49] — Discussion on public willingness to pay for climate action.
- [02:33] — Offshoring emissions and virtue signaling.
- [04:29] — Introduction of carbon border adjustment mechanism and its economic risks.
- [06:22] — Global fossil fuel reliance and impacts of anti-fossil policies on the developing world.
- [08:37] — Argument against setting arbitrary net zero deadlines.
- [10:14] — Net zero as code for deindustrialization and trade union alarm.
- [14:07] — The electric vehicle mandate crisis and its impact on jobs.
- [17:42] — Proposal for cheap, abundant domestic energy.
- [22:04] — Nuclear innovation as a solution, critique of ideological decisions.
- [23:46] — Backlash risks and the consequences of top-down lifestyle engineering.
- [28:45] — Critique of UK as a “global climate leader” and harsh economic consequences.
Tone and Language
- The conversation is irreverent, skeptical, and engaged, mixing humor (“Are they mental?” [05:13]) with frustration at perceived policy ineptitude.
- The style is accessible and direct, peppered with analogies (“jump off a cliff like Lemmings”), historical references, and appeals to common sense and practicality.
- Deep concern is expressed for British workers, rural and blue-collar communities, and those affected by rising living costs.
Takeaways
- The panel agrees that the UK’s current net zero approach is economically damaging, not globally effective, and driven more by ideology than pragmatic innovation.
- They call for abandoning rigid targets in favor of abundant, affordable, domestically produced energy and research-driven innovation in alternatives like hydrogen and nuclear.
- The guests predict political backlash and further deindustrialization unless “net zero” policies are fundamentally reformed with genuine public consent and economic realism at their core.