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

[ShanCran]

Okay, so I understand the need to look after the planet and all that but just feel that the whole “net zero” agenda is being pushed too hard and too fast. Things like “clean air zones” in cities. Surely that’s just a money making exercise?

I recycle where I can, but not as religiously as most. I also travel about 20,000 miles per year in my (small) petrol car and in my 28 years on the planet have travelled approximately 175,000 air miles. Some will say that I am awful and totally unreasonable - but I suspect that many will agree that the whole concept of net zero is being pushed too hard and too fast.

After all, for all the environmentalist rhetoric that is preached by many politicians, the King, numerous celebrities and the likes - I don’t see any of them being principled enough to reduce their airmiles (often travelling by air for trivial things) or travel less generally. I doubt that the personal carbon emissions of many of such “celebrities” is far from net zero themselves.

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.

No they won't. That's very outdated.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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

What I find is that the proportion of electricity sourced from coal ( compared to renewables) is dropping in China, and this trend is expected to continue.

I mean, look what is happening in lower income countries.

It's quite the achievement to be this misinformed on so many different issues in a single post.

Sadly the planet and the greenhouse effect doesn't really care one jot about that or any other political spin people like to put on it.

The only relevant factor that is important is whether or not total emissions are increasing or decreasing.

Building more coal plants increases total emissions.

Climate Action Tracker, Carbon Brief, Centre for Research for Energy and Clean Air (CREA)

All reputable research orgs.

What’s your reliable source of information?

All the people saying that Net Zero is too little too late, are you prepared to accept lower benefits, lower pensions, scaled back or privatised NHS, much lower SEN provision in schools, virtually no PIP/DLA, etc, when the economy is wrecked by these disastrous policies?

Let me guess, you think it can all be solved by 'taxing the rich'.

Could you possibly explain with some detail how this will “wreck the economy”? How much GDP growth do you estimate that we will forgo?

And to all the people that are espousing global doom, how do you explain this chart that shows the owner has experienced warmer interglacial periods with zero human input?

It all looks very normal to me.

(I studied geochemistry at university and the lecturers all considered it to be nonsense that wasn't supported by the geological record).

Firstly, it's not an all or nothing thing. A 2C hotter world is far better than a 5C hotter world. Any change is good.

Secondly, if you think about coal power stations that had building resumed in 2024 - proposals for those projects would have been written several years ago, and therefore based on energy prices that are now hopelessly out of date. Energy prices have changed hugely in recent years, but it takes time for this to trickle through.

Five to ten years ago, it made economic sense to build a coal fired power plant. This is no longer true.

The Royal Society have stated that we'll need 100 TWh of energy storage. At current prices that equates to £30 trillion of batteries.

That's 12x our annual GDP and it's such a bonkers number that it simply can't be done.

"All the lecturers considered it nonsense" #things that didn't happen.

Of course climate change occurs over epochs. Sometimes it results in things like the great dying. Life recovers, eventually, but it's not so good for human civilisation.

Oh dear. Your argument is a hashtag.

It was what was warranted.

All? Not from what I’m aware they haven’t.

Plus signing it and then acting on it are two different things. There’s plenty who aren’t doing much/enough.

The same cheap energy WE benefited from. Why didn’t we adapt earlier? Why didn’t we innovate and move to EVs sooner? If other manufacturing economies have leapfrogged us, we only have ourselves to blame.