AIBU not to buy in about all of this net zero/environmentalism?

It's frustrating that a lot of the initiatives feels like making life more difficult for ordinary people. You can still fly or drive or park or use plastic bags, or even have lids on your bloody yoghurt fgs, as long as you have money. It's like one rule for the rich and one for everyone else. Instead of making things more expensive or inconvenient for people, make it more difficult for corporations to fuck up the planet. That's what the focus should be on.

I want there to be energy security, as much of our energy generated locally, and so we are not at the mercy of nasty regimes.

I also think some of the actions will benefit our health.

The International Energy Agency provides global energy outlooks and analyzes China's energy transition, including fossil fuel consumption and its environmental implications.

China - Countries & Regions - IEA https://share.google/HqDo5NW7u88rMQfYa

Why don't you do an internet search and find out ?

AI got the answer to me in in under 5 seconds.

Extract :

"China began building 94.5 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-power capacity and resumed 3.3GW of suspended projects in 2024, the highest level of construction in the past 10 years, according to the two thinktanks."

Just to give you an idea of the scale of this. 94.5 GW is about 30x the generating capacity of Hinkley Point C, or more than twice the peak electrical power demand of the UK in winter.

Governments and the unscrupulous are always going to look for an advantage or cause to make money and control people. Confusing this with the actual science of environmental destruction and climate change is just as stupid

That's entirely valid, @skymagentatwo, until we remember that vast amounts of research are publicly funded with government ultimately controlling the money, so that only the preferred narrative tends to get heard

Scientific impartiality's a noble aim, but not so easy to maintain where failing to toe the line can have unfortunate financial implications

Edited to add the Net Zero Watch piece is one more excellent example, @swimsong - not government/public money this time, but yet another indicator that the ££££ all too often drives claimed results

Too fast?

we are decades late and people are dying a result , an extra 600 UK deaths from the mini heatwave that was 100 times more likely as a result of climate change.? The crazy price of chocolate? That’s climate driven .. it’s hitting your health, your pocket now and you think we should slow down not speed up?

if yih like the heat a the next 10 or so years may be unpleasant in the uk if the Gulf Stream stops

of course that’s the palatable scenarios - mass starvation and drought and billions of people migrating is getting more likely by the minute

We can all play the watch/read this game.

DeBunked: Matt Ridley on Nature and Climate Change - DeSmog https://share.google/fbzoT9KIcNAUx6GgQ

Ridley, btw, is an extreme libertarian ideologue and a member of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which is funded by various fossil fuel fanatics, including the Koch Brothers - know anything about them?

Net Zero Watch: How dark oil money is funding influential UK climate sceptics | openDemocracy share.google/mVHa3mKOwxXJV3hTU

Why would they continue to build coal power plants when it's so much cheaper to build renewable? It would be stupid.

No they won't. That's very outdated.

Carbon emissions have now decoupled from GDP. Previously, the two were linked - this is no longer true.

The rest of the world,does give a shit. All countries in the world aside from the US have signed up to the Paris agreement. Environmental issues are driving more and more election results around the world.

Completely pointless given the rest of the world doesn’t give a shit. The UK alone can’t make any difference whatsoever, we’re just punishing ourselves while heading for the same result.

Not RTFT yet, but I agree exactly with this.

I did a related masters degree, and environment was one of the modules. They were absolutely saying all of this years ago.
none of it is new, but people are now seeing with increasing regularity the impacts of CC.

44% of "experts" "believe" China will reach peak emissions this year so it must be true and we will definitely be able to rely on any information China publish about how they are achieving their net zero goals.

The Chinese government and the "experts" told us Covid came from pangolins at a wet market so we have proof of their expertise and honesty. (sarcasm obviously)

The idea with paper bags is that you're supposed to use as few as possible. Carry your own bag, which will have used more resources than a plastic bag, but can be used hundreds of times and therefore avoids the production and transportation of hundreds of plastic bags.
A cotton bag doesn't need washing often and can be washed with other things, you're hardly going to put on an extra wash just because of a few bags that need washing. And at the end of its life, a cotton bag is biodegradable instead of ending up somewhere in the environment (if you think most plastics are recycled, you're wrong).
The issue really isn't as complex as you're trying to make it.

Who says that their emissions will peak this year? If you believe that, you will believe anything

I don't think EVs are the answer, they just create a huge alternative problem.

Better public transport, powered by cleaner energy sources with less cars on the road is a much better outcome.

Making businesses, not individuals responsible for CER (carbon emissions reduction opposed to carbon offset) with tax implications for not adhering to regulations is a much more sustainable approach.

As individuals we must also take responsibility. Mostly to be properly informed and educated.

There is so much mistruth and mistrust on the subject. So much waffling on about the aviation industry when no consideration is given to the impact of tech use for example. The tech industry will soon over take the airline industry in emissions. Few people know or care about this.

We must engage our critical thoughts processes and not believe everything we read on Facebook or see on YouTube.

Mining for metals associated with renewable energies (such as lithium and rare earths) doesn't impact biodiversity much.

Most of the mines are out in the desert in the middle of nowhere or near salt lakes. Not in the middle of the Amazon.

The process of rare earth metal production is pretty polluting and unpleasant from what I know of it, but again, it goes on in the middle of the desert, not in a rainforest.

The thing is that technology changes all the time, so the demand for different metals varies quite a lot on a decade to decade basis. For example I think colbalt is in demand but technology is progressing beyond it. Palladium/Platinum used to be used in exhaust catalysts but now not so much because we are using electric cars. The amount of lithium needed will be reduced as we move to solid state batteries. And maybe we will move to sodium (there is a lot of that around) instead of lithium electrolytes. The list goes on.

Governments and the unscrupulous are always going to look for an advantage or cause to make money and control people. Confusing this with the actual science of environmental destruction and climate change is just as stupid.

By all means fight the government and fight big business trying to control you, but you only have to look outside and take an actual notice of our biodiversity and see the change. Its like boiling a frog slowly and it not noticing the water getting hotter.

Simple things you can test how many people on here remember wiping hundreds of bugs of their windscreen and cars whilst driving through the countryside in summer, now take a second to look how clean your windscreen is today?

I remember a fact and still have photos of the massive snow drifts and snow fall when a child in the 70s/80s, compare it to what we get now?

How many butterflies do you see, how many bird populations have declined in recent years, the facts are there if you choose to see them.

My big concern about net zero is that it is focused on one issue at the expense of all others. Carbon dioxide is a huge problem. Fossil fuels are a big part of that. But electric cars/solar power rely on metals like lithium that countries are now tearing the earth apart to get. The impact on biodiversity is beyond awful. And in some cases, the carbon this is generating is much higher than projected. Some countries are looking at deep sea mining to get more of the metals without knowing enough about what happens in the deep sea to be able to assess the impact it will have on either the life there or the oceans, which are themselves very important to climate. I find it incredibly alarming that nobody in a position to communicate this to the masses seems to be worried by this. Net zero reminds me very much of what happened during COVID, when governments didn’t do risk assessments to determine what all the likely impacts of lockdowns were, they just pushed them through and anyone with concerns was shouted down or ignored.

In the UK specifically, it makes me really angry that people like Sadiq Khan can force through things like LTNs without consultation, then keep them in place despite the fact the evidence shows they don’t improve pollution levels, they just concentrate it in certain (usually poorer) areas. We all know that’s really about making money by fining people, not the environment. It has an outsized effect on the elderly and disabled, who can’t walk or cycle. Initiatives like ULEZ have forced many people to replace perfectly good vehicles before they needed to, which either just moves the problem, as those vehicles are taken elsewhere to be used in places where there are fewer restrictions, or if the vehicles are scrapped reduces their running emissions but unnecessarily uses more energy to make new vehicles ahead of time.

And as other posters have said, all of it is just a drop in the ocean compared with the emissions of countries like India and China. Of course, a lot of us are buying products from those countries (including, ironically, electric cars) and thus effectively outsourcing our emissions. So we’re not blameless. And from what I’ve read, although the net zero brigade is aware of this, they don’t seem to be totting up all those emissions and including them in the sums that define their ‘success’.

Governments around the world need to look at the big picture. But they won’t, because these days government is only about the current election cycle. I don’t know what the answer is to that. But it’s not the current net zero push.

@UpsideDownChairs indeed, about filtering the truth from the lies. I just can’t take anything on the news at face value any more.

I like the idea of net zero for a number of reasons.

First polluting your immediate environment is bad. So things like electric cars help with that. Second energy is a strategic resource and net zero diversifies it, making us less susceptible to the failure of one component, and less dependent on the supply of it from places that may not always have our best interests at heart.

I don't think it's contribution to climate change will be that much. Because climate change will be dominated by emissions from other places who do not care or are unable to make the changes we are. It's baked in and going to happen regardless.

There are two issues will net zero for me. One is the cost, which disproportionately falls on the poor. The way to deal with this is to tax the rich harder. Luxuries that are pollutiing, air travel, SUVs etc should be taxed harder. Essentials should be taxed less and more money should be available to ensure essential energy use is minimised.

The other is the implementation we have in terms of energy production. For example we have a lot of wind power. Too much wind power. We should have rebalanced in terms of solar and tidal but didn't. This is going to lead to issues at some point. If we would have continued adding solar at the rate we were in 2015 we would have added a Hinkley Point C in terms of power generation by now. Instead we have fallen well behind. To make it worse, we are slated to spend billions on really stupid things like carbon capture (hopefully this is a future Labour promise and will get axed by future governments) and failing to keep up with the necessary grid infrastructure.

The problem with policies like net zero is they require a long term outlook and long term planning. Our current electorate cycle of 5 years is totally unsuited to this.

My Dad sent this to me. It started off reasonably and rational enough - for me it went downhill after the first 10 minutes.

I recycle where I can, but not as religiously as most.

I don't think most people recycle religiously at all.

I watched this yesterday. It's difficult to know what is the truth anymore. I do wonder what's going on in the background. Whatever efforts we make regarding cutting carbon, it'll have absolutely no effect whatsoever due to what China and India are doing.

It also explains the media hysteria over weather reporting now. Everything has a warning, everything is extreme, everything is reported as being 'the worst since records began' etc.

Ah the old, the rich are worse than me trope.

Don't blame the low bar, just admit you can't be fucked to make an effort. You will probably be pushing up the daisies before life becomes really untenable, so kicking the can down the road is just easier.

Hope your grandchildren have fun with that.

Clean renewable energy does not equal economic ruin. Natural disasters, flood, fire, famine - they will definitely put a dent in the FTSE.

The climate has changed, the horse has bolted. It's au fait complet. We are in damage limitation measures now at best. With some effort we could give ourselves a reprieve from the worst. Shame the dollar lobby has spread such a lot of shite that is believed by so many (like you OP).