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

To some degree I agree with you OP.

I've always seen myself as really focused on environmental issues, but I think in recent years things have become very odd.

For example the way that instead of finding what would be pretty low hanging fruit like reducing consumption, or changing building patterns to create less need for transportation, we are just trying to find ways to produce the same amount with fewer emissions. Like half the crap we buy could not be eliminated with no loss of quality of life.

Also the pursuit of tech where it's really not at all clear that it will be better, electric cars for example. There may be fewer emissions, but they are still a huge drain on resources. That really doesn't solve the problem.

I also think there is too much focus on emissions and it eclipses things like habitat preservation, for example.

As for climate change itself, I think it's pretty clear it's happening, but a lot less clear how it will behave long term, but that discussion is seemingly not allowed. It needs to be allowed, though. I think there must be some vested interests in not having it.

Their fossil fuel reserves are only limited in the sense that everyone's are.

They have pretty large reserves of coal (4th in the world) oil (14) and gas (7).

They keep building coal power stations (in 2023 they built them at the rate of about 2 per week) because ...drumroll... they've got lots of coal.

Quite right, except I've yet to see a sensible answer as to why the current change is so very different to all the others over the millennia - some of them much more extreme

I believe the fashionable, model-driven theory is that this one is "happening faster", but we all saw what was predicated on model's during covid and came to appreciate that they're little more than guesses, heavily driven by what those I'm charge choose to fund

I'll go right on doing my bit with recycling, etc, and don't drive anyway - though I fly a lot - buy beyond that I'm not about to worry over something I can do nothing to change

Actually China will reach peak emissions this year and will trend downwards on emissions.

China installed more solar panels in May this year than the rest of the world combined.

China is taking it seriously.

Global CO2 levels continue to rise and will carry on rising. India and China will continue to grow their economies using fossil fuels. We will pursue an economically devastating net zero policy whilst carbon emissions from our consumerism will be accumulated elsewhere, mostly China.

I think cleaner air, being less wasteful of the earth's resources and protecting the environment are worthwhile endeavours but I don't think our current renewables strategy is the right way forward.

I’m very keen on real old fashioned conservation projects: natural habitat rejuvenation, litter picking, reducing the amount of single use plastic, buying local produce, supporting local organic farmers etc.

I’m far less convinced by net zero government policies. I think that having the highest energy costs in the world, importing oil and gas instead of using our own and exporting manufacturing so that we have fewer job opportunities at home is disastrous for the U.K. economy and makes no difference to global carbon emissions.

Or here, we have a deposit return scheme on (most) plastic bottles, and drinks cans now.

Net effect on recycling rates? 0.

Net effect on me? I can't crush the bottles/cans and put them in my recycling bin any more, now I need to keep them whole, and feed them one by one into a machine outside the shop, and take my printed token (and I understand those thermal printers are less than environmentally friendly) to reclaim the deposit.

Those machines need to be maintained and emptied by a new big vehicle, meanwhile my normal recycling pickup still exists for the rest of my recycling/bottles that aren't under the deposit/return scheme.

So the impact of implementing it has actually been detrimental to both the environment (extra vehicles) and to me (significant jump in effort required to recycle)

It's too little too late but also something that can only be solved if the whole world was committed to solving it. Everyone in every country needs to commit to only using clean energy. At the moment some countries are aggressively pursuing clean energy as soon as possible, others adopt a slower view in that fossil fuels should be used whilst other people develop cheap clean energy.

It would be easier to persuade people that net zero was a good thing if it didn't mean people suffering today in the hope that future generations may benefit in future. As a species we are not inclined to think like this. Life is short.

The M4 in Port Talbot with the 50mph speed limit signs to ‘improve air quality’ has always made me laugh given that the steel works is right there throwing out god knows what. I think a lot of it is definitely a money making exercise but recycling is good for the planet because we were sending far too much to landfill.

I just wish people would be up front, rather than manipulative about it.

For instance the one that gets me is shopping bags.

The paperbags weigh more, so every step of their manufacture and transportation takes more resource than the old carrier bags. They also aren't as robust (particularly in the rain) so I often can't re-use them unlike the old carrier bags. Bags for life (the plastic ones) similarly use 10x (or more) the plastic of an old sized carrier, and the fabric ones even more (and are often still plastic-lined).

plus, now I buy small bags for the bathroom bins/cat litter tray where previously I re-used old carrier bags, and my fabric bags (made of cotton, which is hugely water-intensive to grow) need to be washed - so I'm actually not saving plastic usage, and adding on water and soap usage by switching to bags for life.

This makes the formula much more complicated than is made out - and I wish they'd been up-front about that, rather than just forcing it through.

I feel the same way about a lot of other things. Solar, Wind, Electric cars, the pros and cons of washing at low temperature etc.

Getting the actual full story is damn near impossible, because no-one's honest, and so filtering out truth from intentional lies and conspiracy theories is extremely difficult.

Clean Air Zones happened because councils didn’t manage to keep air pollution within legal limits, so the government forced councils to take action. Possibly there were better ways to tackle air pollution had councils taken action earlier - but we can’t know this because they didn’t. High levels of air pollution (specifically nitrogen dioxide) is linked to a number of illnesses - some long term (eg cancer) but some with immediate effect (eg asthma). So YABVU because asthma is horrible & frightening & can be fatal.

If you are against climate change action, you need to say which particular type of action that you disagree with as climate change action could mean lots of different things. One thing my council is doing is flood defence. Again, I think YABVU very unreasonable to oppose this as flooding causes a lot of misery for people.

I do agree that leadership is lacking - but then locally to me one reason why my council doesn’t always take the action it needs is that it isn’t always brave enough to face down anti-climate change etc views. As I said earlier, that can lead to letting problems slide until they have no option but to put in a drastic solution (like the clean air zones that you dislike).

Remember when skeptica said the same about the ozone layer? It's now almost repaired itself after the global cooperation

No it's not.

Renewables are more Expensive than Gas - by David Turver

But that's simply not true. The worst contributors are things like fossil-fuelled power stations, deforestation and many manufacturing processes. A private jet or a super yacht isn't going to cause anywhere near as much harm as a coal-fired cement factory.

It is important. But. The worst contributors are the wealthy, politicians etc all flying by private jets and owning super yachts. Even the likes of Attenborough are hypocrites, flying all over the world for documentaries. We need politicians etc to stop flying by helicopter, but these things will never happen.

But I’ll still do my bit because that’s responsible.

Oh, Matt Riley! Now that's name I haven't heard since he breached the parliamentary code of conduct by not disclosing his financial interests in a company that supplies fracking equipment in a debate where he espoused the virtues of fracking.

And this man, who also owns land where there's an active coal mine, is against environmental regulations you say? Well fancy that.

Yeah, they make them and charge them with cheap electricity from gas and coal fired power stations.

Poducing millions and millions of cars like that is in no way environmentally friendly.

I must be imagining all the electric cars and buses. When was the last time you visited a Chinese city?

It definitely is needed but there isn't one size or one solution. Its multilayered and carbon reduction has been going on for years it just wasn't known about by Joe public and wasn't a popular political platform.
Renewables for the grid has ramped up significantly in the last 5 years which is good. The problem comes with trying to store it without football fields of batteries.

I don't believe it's pointless as climate can recover to a slightly different baseline as seen with the ozone layer which has had some recovery after CFCs were banned.
I take holidays abroad (the worst aviation from a pollution perspective is actually internal hour flights), drive a car etc. But I also recycle, clothes don't go to landfill, buy secondhand clothes where possible etc.

Also CO2 reduction would be futile unless also getting methane levels down as well which is far more harmful to atmosphere.

Net zero is the only way forward, anyone worth half a brain has realised this by now. I presume you've started this thread because you're bored OP.

There's no need to worry about the effects of net zero on the economy. There is loads of money to be made in a climate neutral economy (as the Chinese have already realised). And it's climate disaster that will have the worst possible effects on our economy, not net zero!

People are overwhelmingly pro action on tackling climate change. A whopping 69% even say they would be willing to contribute 1% of their income to addressing climate change! (Which frankly would be a bargain compared to food price rises alone, never mind the other impacts of warming and extreme weather, which is killing our crops in the field even as I type)

But they underestimate how much other people agree with them, because of media misinformation.

www.carbonbrief.org/interview-why-global-support-for-climate-action-is-systematically-underestimated/

We (humans) have only been here (Earth) for a blink of the eye in terms of the time line of the planet, and when we're gone the Sun will still be there and so will the Earth. So will all the other infinite numbers of galaxy's and universes.

We evolved here. We do our thing. We die out. Other things will evolve after us. We think we're very important, but we're not.

Net zero targets are not too hard and fast - they are too soft and too slow.

However, I've also become very disillusioned with the climate crisis response and I think we are fucked. When I was younger I recycled everything, bought food carefully and refused to take planes. Now I don't see the point, because I genuinely believe that humans are programmed NOT to resolve this. I think we'd rather go to war over scarce resources that suffer the inconveniences required to address the problem.

We are moving from climate activism to climate exploitation - that's why Trump wants Greenland - because humans are ultimately selfish pillagers and that's why we've been successful.

I've also told my children not to have children. Their lives will be much worse than ours. We've passed Peak Human. I snort when I see people fretting about immigration now - we are going to have the world banging at the doors of Northern Europe once entire countries become uninhabitable. Life's gonna get shit and we don't actually care.

Charts

Firstly climate change is a fact and not a theory.

Secondly we can argue whether this climate change is just a historical cyclical phenomenon or whether it is linked to CO2 levels, but there is a very strong correlation between CO2 and average global temperatures.

Lastly if you want to reduce CO2 pollution (and all other forms of pollution) then by far the cheapest and most cost effective method is birth control and reducing the world population. There is an even stronger correlation between global population and global population.