NET ZERO The Government’s control

NET ZERO The Government’s control a group set up to Unite everyone against The destruction of our land and in support of our farmers

🚨 THE FARMER LOSES THE LAND. THE LANDOWNER GETS THE SOLAR DEAL.We keep being told that “farmers are cashing in from sola...
03/09/2026

🚨 THE FARMER LOSES THE LAND. THE LANDOWNER GETS THE SOLAR DEAL.

We keep being told that “farmers are cashing in from solar.”

But what if the farmer DOESN’T own the land?

At Eden Farm in Old Malton, a farming family whose connection with the land stretches back to 1954 faces losing around 110 acres — almost half of its tenanted holding — to a 40-year solar development.

And this isn't simply campaign rhetoric.

The Planning Inspector found the scheme would cause “irreversible detriment” to an existing successful agricultural business.

The farmer opposed the development.

The council rejected it.

Yet the Government ultimately approved it.

And North Yorkshire Council's own planning report acknowledged that the longer-term economic benefits would accrue mainly to the landowner, while farming activity and the agricultural economy would suffer.

That destroys one of the easiest arguments used against those of us fighting industrial-scale solar:

“The farmers want it because they're making a fortune.”

Sometimes they aren't.

Sometimes the person receiving the solar deal and the person actually farming the land are two completely different people.

And there is another extraordinary dimension to this story.

The corporate freeholder identified by the farming family is Fitzwilliam Trust Corporation Ltd. Companies House records show that Helena Rees-Mogg, wife of Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, is an active director of that company.

That does not prove that Sir Jacob owns the land, negotiated the solar agreement or receives income from it — and my article makes that distinction very clearly.

But given Sir Jacob's outspoken opposition to Net Zero, it is a corporate connection that deserves scrutiny and an explanation.

This case should make every MP, councillor and member of the public ask a very simple question the next time somebody says:

“Farmers are cashing in from solar.”

👉 Which farmer?

The person who owns the land?

Or the person whose family has spent generations actually farming it?

Because when tenant farmers lose their land, Britain doesn't simply lose acreage.

We lose farming businesses, food-producing capacity, family succession and another piece of our countryside.

Please read and share this investigation 👇

http://hopetosaveourcountryside.com/2026/09/03/the-farmer-loses-the-land-the-landowner-gets-the-solar-deal/

Once the farmers give in, what is left?For tenant farmers, this is not about “cashing in”.They can lose the land they wo...
02/09/2026

Once the farmers give in, what is left?

For tenant farmers, this is not about “cashing in”.
They can lose the land they work, the farms they depend on and the livelihoods they have spent years building.

When landowners sign over large areas for solar development, the tenant may be the one left with nothing , no land to farm, no business to pass on, and no future on that holding.

And once productive farmland is taken out of agriculture, the loss reaches far beyond one family.

We lose food-producing land. We lose rural livelihoods. We lose farming skills, local businesses and the countryside itself.

Once the tenant farmer loses the land, they can lose their livelihood with it.

And once enough farmers are forced out, we have to ask:

What is left?

Read the full article:
http://hopetosaveourcountryside.com/2026/09/02/the-myth-that-farmers-are-cashing-in-from-solar/

Shane Oxer. Campaigner for fairer and affordable energy

THE GREAT NET ZERO LAND CONTRADICTIONWhy are we industrialising the countryside before we have exhausted the land we hav...
01/09/2026

THE GREAT NET ZERO LAND CONTRADICTION

Why are we industrialising the countryside before we have exhausted the land we have already developed?

Britain has vast areas of warehouse roofs, factories, supermarkets, public buildings and car parks where solar power could be generated without sacrificing another field or transforming another rural community.

Yet enormous countryside developments—complete with fencing, access roads, inverter stations, substations, cables and battery compounds—continue to be presented as a national necessity.

If rooftop and car-park solar costs more, takes longer or is less attractive to investors, the Government should be honest about it. Communities should not be told there is no alternative simply because hundreds of acres of countryside are easier and more profitable to develop than thousands of separate roofs.

The cheapest project for a developer may become one of the costliest decisions Britain makes—for our countryside, food security and the communities left surrounded by industrial infrastructure for decades.

My latest article asks the simple question Ed Miliband and DESNZ must answer:

Why is inconvenience allowed to protect an already-developed car park, while “national necessity” is used to justify sacrificing the countryside?

Please read and share:

http://hopetosaveourcountryside.com/2026/09/01/the-great-net-zero-land-contradiction/

NET ZERO AND THE COSTS THEY DON’T SHOW YOUThe cost of Net Zero does not stop at your electricity bill. Energy, transport...
31/08/2026

NET ZERO AND THE COSTS THEY DON’T SHOW YOU

The cost of Net Zero does not stop at your electricity bill. Energy, transport, refrigeration, fertiliser, packaging and manufacturing costs travel through the entire supply chain—and eventually arrive at the supermarket checkout.

Our independent 2019–2026 price audit found:

Milk up 61%.
A six-item essentials basket up 55%.
Two comparable meat products up 72%.
Heinz Beanz up 71%.
Kellogg’s Corn Flakes up 56% per gram after shrinkflation.

Meanwhile, Heinz’s UK sales volumes appear to have fallen by roughly one-fifth since 2021 as families abandon expensive brands. Its proposed £140 million investment to return sauce manufacturing to Wigan was cancelled, with the investment redirected to Spain and Poland.

Not every food-price increase can be attributed directly to Net Zero. Ingredients, labour, global markets, taxation and corporate pricing all matter. But the Government has never produced an honest, consolidated account showing how its energy and environmental policies flow through farms, factories, transport and food prices.

Families are paying more, receiving less and watching British manufacturing opportunities move abroad.

Read the evidence:

http://hopetosaveourcountryside.com/2026/08/31/pay-more-get-less-watch-british-food-manufacturing-retreat/

Why can Norway and Finland build data centres where waste heat warms thousands of homes, while Britain promotes “green” ...
30/08/2026

Why can Norway and Finland build data centres where waste heat warms thousands of homes, while Britain promotes “green” data centres first and promises to find heat customers later?

Because Britain plans backwards.

The target is announced, the site chosen and the attractive price published before engineers establish whether the grid, water, heat network, transport links and supply chains exist.

Every problem discovered afterwards creates five bills: redesign, delay, financing costs, contractor risk and duplicated infrastructure.

France protects farming through measurable agrivoltaic rules. The Netherlands prioritises rooftops and developed land. Denmark maps heat demand before approving infrastructure. Switzerland designs the railway service before deciding what must be built.

Britain too often does the reverse — and taxpayers and bill-payers pick up the cost.

Costs do not spiral by accident. Uncertainty is carried forward until it becomes contractual.

Read the full article:

http://hopetosaveourcountryside.com/2026/08/30/britain-plans-backwards-then-sends-you-the-bill/

Britain is being replanned before our eyes — but Parliament has never voted on the complete blueprint.Energy zones, pylo...
28/08/2026

Britain is being replanned before our eyes — but Parliament has never voted on the complete blueprint.

Energy zones, pylons, solar farms, wind developments, nature-recovery areas, biodiversity markets, housing targets, new towns, reservoirs and AI Growth Zones are all making competing claims on the same finite land.

Each policy is presented separately. Yet together they could fundamentally reshape our countryside, farming, food production and local communities for generations.

The most important national decisions are increasingly being embedded in targets, models, maps and funding rules long before the public sees a planning application. By the time consultation reaches a community, the argument over whether the development is needed may effectively have been settled elsewhere.

Where is the single national map showing how all these demands fit together?

Where is the honest assessment of the cumulative effects on farmland, food security, household bills and the communities expected to carry multiple developments?

And where was the parliamentary vote approving this combined transformation of Britain?

This is not an argument against nature recovery or sensible infrastructure planning. It is an argument for democratic accountability — and for allowing the British public to see the whole map before the Government makes it real.

Please read and share:

https://hopetosaveourcountryside.com/2026/08/27/britain-is-being-replanned-but-parliament-has-never-voted-on-the-whole-blueprint/

I FORGOT THAT ALL GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS START FROM ONE NARRATIVE REDUCE CARBON EMISSIONS The Climate Change Act fixed t...
27/08/2026

I FORGOT THAT ALL GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS START FROM ONE NARRATIVE

REDUCE CARBON EMISSIONS

The Climate Change Act fixed the carbon destination before the SSEP process even began. The SSEP does not independently ask which energy system would best balance affordability, reliability, security, environmental protection and emissions: every pathway must reach Net Zero and build upon Clean Power 2030. This is not a free comparison of Britain’s energy choices—it is a choice between different ways of delivering a predetermined carbon policy.

Once carbon compliance becomes non-negotiable, everything else becomes conditional. Cost, proven technology, deliverability, public consent, agricultural land, countryside and marine environments may influence where infrastructure is placed, but they cannot cause the underlying strategy to be rejected. Britain’s land and sea consequently become the physical adjustment mechanism for Net Zero—covered, crossed and reorganised by generation, storage, substations, hydrogen infrastructure, cables and transmission corridors required to satisfy centrally imposed targets.

That is the democratic failure at the heart of the SSEP. Households and businesses will carry the resulting costs through bills, charges and taxation, while rural and coastal communities will absorb the physical consequences. Carbon reduction has been determined nationally and behind closed doors; the public will be permitted to argue about where the burden falls, but not whether a cheaper, more reliable and more sustainable energy strategy should have been chosen in the first place.

⚠️ SIX FUTURES. ONE SECRET CHOICE. NO PARLIAMENTARY VOTE.Britain is about to choose the blueprint for its energy system ...
27/08/2026

⚠️ SIX FUTURES. ONE SECRET CHOICE. NO PARLIAMENTARY VOTE.

Britain is about to choose the blueprint for its energy system to 2050—but the public will not see the full comparison before the decision is made.

NESO has developed six alternative pathways. Ministers, Ofgem and the devolved governments will see the evidence, but the Energy Secretary is due to select one preferred pathway before the public consultation begins. The published process includes no dedicated House of Commons vote on that central choice.

This decision could determine where wind, solar, nuclear, hydrogen, storage and new grid infrastructure are built; how much countryside and seabed are placed under pressure; and which costs and risks are ultimately carried by consumers.

Consultation after the choice has been narrowed is not the same as allowing the public to compare all six futures while the decision remains open.

The evidence should be published. Parliament should debate it. MPs should vote before one minister’s preferred pathway becomes the foundation of Britain’s energy future.

Please read and share:

http://hopetosaveourcountryside.com/2026/08/26/six-futures-one-secret-choice-no-parliamentary-vote/

For years we were told the answer was simple: build more wind, build more solar, and Britain would have cheaper, cleaner...
26/08/2026

For years we were told the answer was simple: build more wind, build more solar, and Britain would have cheaper, cleaner and more secure electricity.

But today, something changed.

The Guardian is asking why our electricity bills remain so high.
The Independent is asking what happens if Britain doesn’t have enough electricity to keep everyone connected.

Two very different newspapers. Two very different headlines.

But they are really talking about the same energy crisis.

Because the price of a wind turbine or solar farm is not the price of an electricity system.

Someone still has to pay for the transmission lines, substations, transformers, balancing, backup generation, constraint payments and the enormous network expansion required to make a weather-dependent electricity system function.

And ultimately, that someone is us.

Through our bills.
Through our taxes.
Through network charges.
And through government-backed contracts stretching decades into the future.

This is the conversation Britain should have had before committing hundreds of billions of pounds and reshaping our countryside and electricity network around the assumption that renewables were simply “cheap”.

The argument is changing.

Read this and ask one simple question:

If this energy system is supposed to be cheaper and more secure, why are we now simultaneously discussing stubbornly high bills and emergency power disconnections?

👇 Two Headlines, One Energy Crisis — Britain Is Finally Talking About the Real Cost of Renewables

http://hopetosaveourcountryside.com/2026/08/26/two-headlines-one-energy-crisis-britain-is-finally-talking-about-the-real-cost-of-renewables/

STOP RUNNING BEFORE WE HAVE LEARNT TO CRAWLBritain is being pushed into one of the biggest transformations of our countr...
26/08/2026

STOP RUNNING BEFORE WE HAVE LEARNT TO CRAWL

Britain is being pushed into one of the biggest transformations of our countryside in modern history — solar farms, pylons, substations, batteries, wind developments and vast new infrastructure — all in the race to meet political Net Zero deadlines.

But there is a question we are simply not being allowed to ask:

What if we are destroying the countryside today for technologies that could be outdated tomorrow?

SMRs are advancing. Rooftop and commercial solar could be expanded enormously. Computing and data-centre technology is becoming more efficient. Grid technology will change. Better storage may emerge.

Yet instead of allowing engineering and technology to lead, government policy is forcing Britain to meet rigid dates — 2030, 2040 and 2050 — regardless of whether the grid, technology, infrastructure or public consent are ready.

That is backwards.

We should be protecting productive farmland, food security, peatland, landscapes and rural communities while investing in reliable British energy, nuclear, grid resilience, rooftop solar and emerging technology.

This isn't an argument for doing nothing.

It is an argument for engineering before ideology. Technology before targets. And common sense before irreversible destruction.

The countryside should not become the sacrifice zone for a political timetable.

Please read and share:

http://hopetosaveourcountryside.com/2026/08/26/they-are-moving-the-cost-not-cutting-it/

Address

Stainforth
Doncaster

Opening Hours

Monday 9am - 5pm
Tuesday 9am - 5pm
Wednesday 9am - 5pm
Thursday 9am - 5pm
Friday 9am - 5pm
Saturday 9am - 5pm
Sunday 9am - 5pm

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when NET ZERO The Government’s control posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share

Category