IT was a plan unveiled with the intention of reducing traffic and making the city more friendly for pedestrians and cyclists.
But the proposal by authorities in Oxford soon exploded into claims it would lead to a “dystopian reality” where residents would be unable leave their neighbourhoods in the future without being tracked by a network of cameras.
Thousands even took to the streets to protest earlier this year, with the organisers saying they were planning to take their fight to other places considering adopting the concept, including Edinburgh.
It’s an example of a new front in the culture wars which experts say has opened up – this time it’s about climate change.
Net-zero policies have become the next target for right-wing populism, with narratives emerging that link complaints about climate policies to issues such as the cost of living, Brexit and the idea of being dictated to be a “green elite”, they have warned.
Jennie King is head of climate research and policy at global think-tank the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), which analyses extremist movements and information warfare on and offline.
She said over the past five to 10 years there had been a shift from climate change “denialism” to disputing the need for action on the crisis, as public opinion has shifted to greater recognition of the issue.
“There needed to be more palatable tactics to make the same argument – which ultimately is ‘we don’t want climate action’ – but through a lens which is likely to engage more people considering this new reality,” she said.
But King added that “denialism” appeared to be making a comeback in the past 12 to 18 months, with terms such as “scam” or “hoax” appearing at higher levels than previously and a focus on pushing the idea of “not trusting” scientists, academics and anyone working in the climate field.
When it comes to where the attacks are coming from, she said: “On the one hand, you have the professionalised industry sponsored mis and disinformation that has been honed since the 1970s and fashioned into a very sophisticated messaging playbook and tactical playbook for influencing public opinion.
“Then on the other side you have this incredibly prolific and vocal and high traction set of online influencers.
“So you have a marriage of convenience between this highly online outrage economy, as we often call it, and that traditional industry sponsored PR front and lobby group activity that has billions of dollars behind it.”
The potential impact on politics in the UK can be seen in the fallout from the Uxbridge and South Ruislip by-election – the result of the vote is seen to have been predominantly driven by opposition to the expansion of ultra-low emission zones (Ulez) in London.
It could signal that the next General Election will be fought as a “climate change culture war”, experts say.
The Tories have signalled a rethink on a host of environmental policies in the wake of their victory in Boris Johnson’s seat, with Prime Minister Rishi Sunak saying hitting net zero could not be done by adding “hassle” and costs for people.
Meanwhile, Labour leader Keir Starmer urged London mayor Sadiq Khan to reflect on his Ulez plans, with some in the party raising concerns over the potential of green policies which could be “weaponised” by the Tories in the General Election.
Khan has previously spoken of how the Ulez policy had been subject to a “sustained campaign of opposition”, including from a “relatively small but well-organised group of climate deniers and vested interests”.
Dr Ed Atkins, senior lecturer in the School of Geographical Sciences at the University of Bristol, believes net zero is going to be a big part of the political agenda in the run up to the General Election.
“I feel more and more, particularly as the past two weeks have gone on, that we are seeing climate policy and net zero policy being used as a political wedge and it is a way to separate people’s priorities and concerns,” he said.
“When actually those priorities and concerns are part of the same political fabric. The solutions can be the same.”
He added: “The concern is climate change becomes a highly partisan issue and then it becomes part of a terrain of politics which is divisive and antagonistic. When that is the last thing it should be.”
However, he also cautioned more had to be done to address genuine concerns about green policies.
He added: “I think the public generally are onside with climate policy. There is support of climate policy, but it needs to be done in a way which supports them in making those changes – and shares the benefits.
“That is where the wedge is coming in currently.”
Atkins, who has just published the book A Just Energy Transition: Getting Decarbonisation Right In A Time of Crisis, also said while people often thought of climate change as a distant prospect, recent weeks had shown the need for it to be addressed now.
“We have newspaper front pages with images of fires in Greece at the same time we are talking about whether net zero is necessary,” he said.
“There is a disconnect there. What we are seeing in Greece and in the news in other parts of Europe is a direct consequence of climate breakdown, there is need for action now. It is not for thinking about whether it is necessary or too costly.”
In Scotland, policies such as the deposit return scheme and marine protected areas have also triggered huge controversy.
King emphasised there had to be space for legitimate debate to take place.
But she added: “My question is if you look at what happened in Oxford, how did that enhance the dialogue between the local council and its residents?
“Most people on the streets protesting had been bussed in from elsewhere in the country because they were using it as symbolic of their cause.
“So actually the good-faith debate that should have taken place and needs to take place can’t because it gets completely subsumed into these larger controversies and that is also a deliberate tactic.”
Last month, Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross launched an attack on the SNP’s relationship with the Scottish Greens, labelling Patrick Harvie and Lorna Slater’s party as “extremist”.
KING warned against politicians using such language, saying while it might appear a “pedantic point”, there was a “very clear set of connotations” surrounding extremism and it should not be “bandied about casually”.
“It is difficult for me to see the rationale of using that language if it is not just to denigrate and shut down conversation,” she added.
“In what way are they viewing these colleagues in the chamber as extremists – what do they think are the repercussions of using that word and also the implications of using that word?
“I find this lazy application of the term and also deliberate use of the term a really sad indictment on where we have got to in our political discourse – and a concerning one.”
