FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Net zero madness, or is it?
Net zero madness, or is it?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"Made my own thread because of the rhetoric shown in some of the others, think we need to encourage better debate on here than just "I'm right, you're wrong". Especially about this topic which is coming whether you like it or not. I seen someone comment on an article the other day who said: "Net zero transition will cost £800bn to implement in the UK, where's anti-net-zero policy (that Nigel farage supports) like scrapping the plan to sell ICE cars, gas boilers etc. will knock around £90bn off the UK economy. So the latter figure looks bargain in comparison." A number of people proceeded to agree with this misleading statement, which tells me many don't understand how to interpret data that gets strewn around, quite worrying really, not just around this topic but for what should be seemingly obvious reasons. It is a classic reform type tactic; to mislead people who they quite sinisterly prey on, knowing they don't understand the context, but they see it as unveiling "truth" or trying to look after people by putting it "plainly" to them. This stance on the topic has come mostly from Nigel farage/reform and GB news. Both of which entities have strong evidence they're financially backed by fossil fuel magnates btw. So I can't take anything they say on this seriously. I'll admit I am pro net zero and hold a bias, but that's because I see it as the future, and an opportunity to reignite a stagnant UK economy that has been doing so since 2008; when neoliberalism had proven to the world that it had failed and the UK's decision to put all it's eggs in stuff like financial services was clearly stupid. Yet people still believe in it and defend it to the death, quite culty if you ask me, but I digress. Not sure where OP in that other thread got £1.4trn from? The ONS, amongst others, estimate the gross investment required to transition to net zero at £800bn over 30 years (TOTAL). That is £27bn per year, not an all in one loss which it's painted as... It includes public and private investment in energy, housing, transport, etc. and is like building an asset base, not setting money on fire. The tens of billions “cost” of anti-net-zero is usually a projected hit to GDP from missed opportunities, reduced competitiveness, or energy volatility. This is annually, ie every year! . It comes from many respected experts without corporate influence, who think that’s a conservative estimate. Crucially, the £800bn includes co-benefits: cleaner air, better housing stock, new industries, jobs, and lower energy bills. Anti-net-zero plans don’t come with any of that, quite the opposite. Delaying climate action only increases long-term costs. Some studies put the cost of inaction or delay well above £200bn over time. But I wouldn't be being fair if I said I wholeheartedly believe these massive figures that are pro net zero either. Not just for balance of thinking, all figures need taking as guidelines and not absolute. I get it looks hypocritical that I make statements which sound like binning fossil fuels and being heavily weighted on 'green energy' (hate that term as its loaded and doesn't fit the description or promote its biggest benefits) being the future and that's not true at all. This is something I'm passionate about from my career background and interests. I'm actually quite a 'petrol head' and believe in some of those 'dirty' industries are somewhat of a necessity, steel manufacturing being one. But that doesn't mean we can't make them better and all profit from the development and rewards. This instead of staying in the 19th century where the dinosaurs want you to stay as it's comfortable for them and control you. The crux of this isn't about choosing between spending £800bn or potentially losing £90bn, and it's especially not about Britain's moral high ground over massive polluters like the US and China. It’s about whether we want to invest in a sustainable future, or pay more later to deal with the fallout, but crucially, it's an absolute economy boost that benefits the ordinary man not just the barons!" We do want a clean and sustainable future, but at those sort of numbers we could clean-up our rivers and beaches and achieve a far more cost-effective win. | |||
| |||
" The ONS, amongst others, estimate the gross investment required to transition to net zero at £800bn over 30 years (TOTAL). That is £27bn per year, not an all in one loss which it's painted as... It includes public and private investment in energy, housing, transport, etc. and is like building an asset base, not setting money on fire. We do want a clean and sustainable future, but at those sort of numbers we could clean-up our rivers and beaches and achieve a far more cost-effective win." Who's we? I will clarify that £800bn is not just state led spending. That is private investment too in that figure and returns profits. Did you know that? I'd like to hear what you think the UK should be doing to clean it's waterways and how it's more cost effective? More cost effective than net zero? They're different topics imo Also why I don't trust reform on this, their stance is nuanced without giving context to their soundbites. "Cutting £800bn" Just sounds good, sounds "logical"... there's no logic, just an agenda it seems. | |||
" The ONS, amongst others, estimate the gross investment required to transition to net zero at £800bn over 30 years (TOTAL). That is £27bn per year, not an all in one loss which it's painted as... It includes public and private investment in energy, housing, transport, etc. and is like building an asset base, not setting money on fire. We do want a clean and sustainable future, but at those sort of numbers we could clean-up our rivers and beaches and achieve a far more cost-effective win. Who's we? I will clarify that £800bn is not just state led spending. That is private investment too in that figure and returns profits. Did you know that? I'd like to hear what you think the UK should be doing to clean it's waterways and how it's more cost effective? More cost effective than net zero? They're different topics imo Also why I don't trust reform on this, their stance is nuanced without giving context to their soundbites. "Cutting £800bn" Just sounds good, sounds "logical"... there's no logic, just an agenda it seems." Enjoy your dirty and unsustainable future then  | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Is something happening to the climate? Yes it certainly looks like it. Is human activity contributing to it? Almost certainly but the amount is open to debate. Will a small lump of rock in the north Atlantic make any difference by achieving net zero? Not a hope. Will the big polluters China/USA/India Etc. Look at the aforesaid lump of rock and say wow we'll copy that? No chance. Meanwhile the small lump of rock will go skint because the deranged net zero policy has driven out what's left of its manufacturing but the inhabitants are still hooked on all the consumer items that are now made in country's burning the oil/coal/gas that the lump of rock used to burn. They will now polish their halo's and virtue signal as to how proud they are for achieving net zero. But not give a second thought to the fact that the pollution hasn't gone away. It's just been exported to another part of the planet that pumps its pollution into the same atmosphere. Of course they will flaunt their virtue on a Chinese made mobile phone manufactured in some sweat shop powered by coal generated electricity. Later they will tuck into that vegan avocado salad sure in the knowledge that no animals have been harmed by it. But conveniently forgetting about all the wildlife in the Amazon (and elsewhere) destroyed by avocado farming. The deforestation to make way for it is someone else's problem. At the weekend they will join a Just Stop Oil demo after being dropped of in Daddy's diesel Chelsea Tractor and of course kitted out in the latest synthetic (oil based) trendy trainers and a plastic kagool in case it rains. They will then return home (picked up by daddy of course) with a smug smile and suddenly............ The lights go out. " Do you know how world market works? Doesn't seem so from this post mate. I hate just stop oil and couldn't care less if I ate another avocado tbf. | |||
"So is this thread about teaching people how to behave in the forum or about you saying your opinion on a particular subject is the only valid one? And that listening to certain sources makes a person less intelligent? I don’t mean to come across as harsh but that’s the way it read to me and I think either way you’re undermining your own point. You can’t ask people to debate better and in the same breath say anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. You’re not debating better. Anyone should be allowed to put forward their opinion (even if it’s wrong) with an equal amount of vigour. Lots of posts demonstrate people clinging to their opinion on something like a life raft, even in the face of insurmountable evidence to the contrary. I can’t remember ever seeing a post where someone admits they got something wrong, they either stop posing in that thread or try to twist the topic into something else. That’s kinda human nature mate, you’d be battling against the tide. But with regards to net zero, which I’m kinda in the middle ground of and can easily be pulled in either direction….. 1. No we can’t carry on as we have been 2. “Green” stuff isn’t always as green as it’s made out to be. Charging an electric vehicle with a diesel generator for example. Or with electric produced from fossil fuels 3. Further to the above point, “green stuff” doesn’t always take all the elements into consideration. I don’t wanna make a long post but a quick example to show what I mean, the way the rare elements are extracted and refined is far from environmentally friendly. 3. The actual amount of impact humans have had on climate is far from having a consensus. When the so called experts don’t agree, you’ll never get the public to agree. If it’s so clear cut and obvious, why isn’t it so clear cut and obvious? 4. The environment is way, way more important than any amount of money. 5. We’ve come a long way from the London smog. And yes more needs to be done, but it doesn’t all need to be done within the next 5 years. 6. The planet will be fine, its humans and other species that won’t be. Should coral suffer because of us? Absolutely not! 7. It’s not just those that are against net zero that lie in their marketing. 8. No matter what you say, if the big polluters aren’t onboard, our 1-2% will make no difference to the big picture. To say taking a bucket of water out the ocean lowers sea levels is true, but irrelevant. Bad metaphor I know but it makes my point. And if South American countries keep cutting down the rain forests to grow avocados for European vegans, it won’t matter what anyone does. (Flippant I know, sorry, but it makes my point - shit I’m meant to be debating better not typing rhetoric) 9. In the light of the above, what should we do? Just give up? No! But we shouldn’t go all in either. 10. A final point. If we were going the other way, which many scientists believe is the longer term destination, global cooling and an ice age that could envelope everything north of Paris and a similar amount of the southern hemisphere, what would we do? I know it’s kinda hypothetical for now, but in 500 years? I personally think the solution is simple, but impossible. We need to stop breeding like rabbits. The population needs to stop increasing and reduce by 2 billion. Hopefully naturally but I can’t see that happening any time soon. We are so hell bent on growth but don’t consider the consequences. There’s just too many people " No, not at all. I've got no problems in announcing my bias, I own what I believe in and have changed my opinions plenty of times in the past. People will see that as fickle, but there's no other explanation othee than it's just cultism when people are so pig headed to not consider another view. I just don't buy the narrative that is only driven from sources which have deep interest in something that's a direct competition for net zero. If you or anyone wants to provide other evidence to the contrary then you can. I think many of your points are valid and agree with their sentiment wholeheartedly! Like you would never believe. Yet your idea of what "growth" is, just makes laughable humour for me. Economic growth/productivity is not really related to population whatsoever, or else UK and most of Europe would be mid to low end of that scale for sure. Did you know there's more house spaces now than in 1970s per capita? As for the UK’s 1% global total emissions🤦♂️ Just that figure conveintry leaves out the carbon we “import” through goods made abroad, and also misses the point that net zero isn’t just about morality. More so it’s about energy security, jobs, and stability in growth for rhethe economy. Population and global inequality are huge parts of this subject, many I have no disagreement there. But climate isn’t just some distant risk, it’s shaping food prices, migration, flood costs, insurance markets right now. We can either plan for it, or pay more reacting to it later. Not just stopping vegans eating avocado toast | |||
| |||
| |||
"Is something happening to the climate? Yes it certainly looks like it. Is human activity contributing to it? Almost certainly but the amount is open to debate. Will a small lump of rock in the north Atlantic make any difference by achieving net zero? Not a hope. Will the big polluters China/USA/India Etc. Look at the aforesaid lump of rock and say wow we'll copy that? No chance. Meanwhile the small lump of rock will go skint because the deranged net zero policy has driven out what's left of its manufacturing but the inhabitants are still hooked on all the consumer items that are now made in country's burning the oil/coal/gas that the lump of rock used to burn. They will now polish their halo's and virtue signal as to how proud they are for achieving net zero. But not give a second thought to the fact that the pollution hasn't gone away. It's just been exported to another part of the planet that pumps its pollution into the same atmosphere. Of course they will flaunt their virtue on a Chinese made mobile phone manufactured in some sweat shop powered by coal generated electricity. Later they will tuck into that vegan avocado salad sure in the knowledge that no animals have been harmed by it. But conveniently forgetting about all the wildlife in the Amazon (and elsewhere) destroyed by avocado farming. The deforestation to make way for it is someone else's problem. At the weekend they will join a Just Stop Oil demo after being dropped of in Daddy's diesel Chelsea Tractor and of course kitted out in the latest synthetic (oil based) trendy trainers and a plastic kagool in case it rains. They will then return home (picked up by daddy of course) with a smug smile and suddenly............ The lights go out. Do you know how world market works? Doesn't seem so from this post mate. I hate just stop oil and couldn't care less if I ate another avocado tbf." Knowledge of world markets is completely irrelevant. Unless you would like to explain. I was only highlighting the impotence of a small lump of rock to do anything significant to alter global climate change. Apart from virtue signalling of course. I also wanted to show the hypocrisy of the net zero/just stop oil nutjobs who seem to think that screaming, shouting, blocking roads and chucking paint around then going back to their comfortable plugged in homes will change anything. I did forget to mention one thing though. The self serving politicians who listen to this drivel and, one way or another, make us pay for it. "World markets" will do just fine. With or without Britain. | |||
"As for the UK’s 1% global total emissions🤦♂️ Just that figure conveintry leaves out the carbon we “import” through goods made abroad, and also misses the point that net zero isn’t just about morality. More so it’s about energy security, jobs, and stability in growth for rhethe economy." Yes we do "import" carbon through the foreign goods we buy. That is the point I was making in the other post. Britain (or any other western country) can never be truly net zero unless we stop importing from the big polluters or they stop polluting. Neither will ever happen. So why impoverish ourselves on the altar of an unachievable goal. Like it or not that carbon has to be produced somewhere. You also mention "energy security". Somehow I don't think that waiting for the wind to blow or the sun to come out is that secure. | |||
"My point of view is that whether you believe in climate change or not, surely we can't go on polluting the planet like we do and expecting our kids and grandkids to breathe in all the site that gets spewed out of factories, oil refineries, cars, planes and any other polluters you can think of...... Can we? " Oh I certainly believe that there is some climate change going on. I also believe that humanity (as a whole) should clean up its act. Where I differ is that I don't believe that putting all our eggs in the basket of wind/solar, using the blunt instrument of tax to force us into it and importing most of our goods from high pollution country's is the way forward. Britain at the moment is to all intents and purposes skint. Just ask Rachel. Yet we refuse to issue licences for more North Sea oil drilling. Oil that the Norwegians are taking from their sector and flogging back to us. We are also sat on top of one of Europe's biggest shale gas deposits but we refuse to exploit it. All in the name of political grandstanding and virtue signalling. It's fucking madness. | |||
"Made my own thread because of the rhetoric shown in some of the others, think we need to encourage better debate on here than just "I'm right, you're wrong". Especially about this topic which is coming whether you like it or not. I seen someone comment on an article the other day who said: "Net zero transition will cost £800bn to implement in the UK, where's anti-net-zero policy (that Nigel farage supports) like scrapping the plan to sell ICE cars, gas boilers etc. will knock around £90bn off the UK economy. So the latter figure looks bargain in comparison." A number of people proceeded to agree with this misleading statement, which tells me many don't understand how to interpret data that gets strewn around, quite worrying really, not just around this topic but for what should be seemingly obvious reasons. It is a classic reform type tactic; to mislead people who they quite sinisterly prey on, knowing they don't understand the context, but they see it as unveiling "truth" or trying to look after people by putting it "plainly" to them. This stance on the topic has come mostly from Nigel farage/reform and GB news. Both of which entities have strong evidence they're financially backed by fossil fuel magnates btw. So I can't take anything they say on this seriously. I'll admit I am pro net zero and hold a bias, but that's because I see it as the future, and an opportunity to reignite a stagnant UK economy that has been doing so since 2008; when neoliberalism had proven to the world that it had failed and the UK's decision to put all it's eggs in stuff like financial services was clearly stupid. Yet people still believe in it and defend it to the death, quite culty if you ask me, but I digress. Not sure where OP in that other thread got £1.4trn from? The ONS, amongst others, estimate the gross investment required to transition to net zero at £800bn over 30 years (TOTAL). That is £27bn per year, not an all in one loss which it's painted as... It includes public and private investment in energy, housing, transport, etc. and is like building an asset base, not setting money on fire. The tens of billions “cost” of anti-net-zero is usually a projected hit to GDP from missed opportunities, reduced competitiveness, or energy volatility. This is annually, ie every year! . It comes from many respected experts without corporate influence, who think that’s a conservative estimate. Crucially, the £800bn includes co-benefits: cleaner air, better housing stock, new industries, jobs, and lower energy bills. Anti-net-zero plans don’t come with any of that, quite the opposite. Delaying climate action only increases long-term costs. Some studies put the cost of inaction or delay well above £200bn over time. But I wouldn't be being fair if I said I wholeheartedly believe these massive figures that are pro net zero either. Not just for balance of thinking, all figures need taking as guidelines and not absolute. I get it looks hypocritical that I make statements which sound like binning fossil fuels and being heavily weighted on 'green energy' (hate that term as its loaded and doesn't fit the description or promote its biggest benefits) being the future and that's not true at all. This is something I'm passionate about from my career background and interests. I'm actually quite a 'petrol head' and believe in some of those 'dirty' industries are somewhat of a necessity, steel manufacturing being one. But that doesn't mean we can't make them better and all profit from the development and rewards. This instead of staying in the 19th century where the dinosaurs want you to stay as it's comfortable for them and control you. The crux of this isn't about choosing between spending £800bn or potentially losing £90bn, and it's especially not about Britain's moral high ground over massive polluters like the US and China. It’s about whether we want to invest in a sustainable future, or pay more later to deal with the fallout, but crucially, it's an absolute economy boost that benefits the ordinary man not just the barons!" Have you got any examples of how it “benefits the ordinary man”? Aside from a few short term government funded jobs that will all disappear when the subsidies dry up. Given the state of the economy it can’t be boosting it that much. I see Labour is about to spaff another £700m of money it hasn’t got in trying to bribe people to buy EV’s. Technology so good the government has to pay you to buy it. | |||
| |||
"It’s an interesting point about “importing carbon production”. I wasn’t sure if the first post that mentioned it, was just passing the blame from China onto us. But it seems part of net zero is to stop buying stuff from the big polluters until they achieve net zero? Well that will certainly help us hit net zero, almost overnight. We’ll be back in the Stone Age. So no more smart phones, everyone will have a Nokia again lol. What else….. computers, cars, flat screen tv’s, toys, power tools, clothes, food, the white goods in your kitchen, shoes, sports equipment and most significantly….. No more solar panels! Need I go on? I assume all the greenies currently purchase these products from the big polluters just as much everyone else does? How about you set an example and stand by your principles then? Do something constructive instead of gluing yourselves to the M25 after a 200 mile trip in your range rover sport. Show us all how it’s done and maybe others will be more inclined to follow? Or is this just like the vegans, people who go on about animal rights but purchase and use products derived from animals on a daily basis when it suits them? But wait, isn’t that going to completely collapse all international trade? How many lorry and van drivers do we have? Warehouse workers? The ports? The trains? The shops? How many millions would this put on benefits? Wouldn’t it lead to billions of people around the world starving almost overnight? Oh wait, probably not. Because whilst the UK is in the top importers globally, we only consume about 3.75% of global output. So there might be some belt tightening in china and India initially, but in the grand scheme of things, this would actually make next to no difference to anyone outside the UK if it was unilateral. So if we add our 1% to this 3.75%, going back the Stone Age cuts less than 5% from the global carbon footprint. While Rachel Reeves has yet another headache of god knows how many billions in extra benefits to pay out at the same time as a loss of tax revenue of unimaginable proportions. Just think of the lost income tax and VAT alone. I have taken it to the extreme I know. And despite this post I am genuinely in the middle ground on climate change. But unless it’s a global journey we are all on, with reasonable, costed out timely goals, what are we actually achieving? " Precisely  | |||
| |||
"Drax power station now reportedly given up fuelling by coal. Instead they are importing wood chip from the USA. Felled and chipped by machinery, transported by diesel lorry, travelling 3,000 miles by diesel ship to uk. The wood pellets are then transported to Drax via rail, with an average of 17 biomass trains arriving at the power station per day Has anyone calculated the carbon footprint of this madness. " No-one will because wood pellets are classed as "renewable". And yes, it is madness. | |||
"Drax power station now reportedly given up fuelling by coal. Instead they are importing wood chip from the USA. Felled and chipped by machinery, transported by diesel lorry, travelling 3,000 miles by diesel ship to uk. The wood pellets are then transported to Drax via rail, with an average of 17 biomass trains arriving at the power station per day Has anyone calculated the carbon footprint of this madness. No-one will because wood pellets are classed as "renewable". And yes, it is madness." Nice logic tho. Chop down the free trees that remove co2 and burn them, pumping all the carbon they have trapped in them into the atmosphere. Then spend billions on trying to artificially remove that same carbon from atmosphere. Even if that technology is 100% efficient in removing that trapped carbon (which it isn’t), you’ve still added to the problem with your transportation. And diminished the planets natural solution by reducing the number of trees. I don’t know why vegans and environmentalists hate trees so much. 🤷 | |||
"Drax power station now reportedly given up fuelling by coal. Instead they are importing wood chip from the USA. Felled and chipped by machinery, transported by diesel lorry, travelling 3,000 miles by diesel ship to uk. The wood pellets are then transported to Drax via rail, with an average of 17 biomass trains arriving at the power station per day Has anyone calculated the carbon footprint of this madness. No-one will because wood pellets are classed as "renewable". And yes, it is madness. Nice logic tho. Chop down the free trees that remove co2 and burn them, pumping all the carbon they have trapped in them into the atmosphere. Then spend billions on trying to artificially remove that same carbon from atmosphere. Even if that technology is 100% efficient in removing that trapped carbon (which it isn’t), you’ve still added to the problem with your transportation. And diminished the planets natural solution by reducing the number of trees. I don’t know why vegans and environmentalists hate trees so much. 🤷 " Coal Not Dole I say. Where's Arthur Scargill when you need him? 
At least the coal mines were pretty much next to the power stations. | |||
"Drax power station now reportedly given up fuelling by coal. Instead they are importing wood chip from the USA. Felled and chipped by machinery, transported by diesel lorry, travelling 3,000 miles by diesel ship to uk. The wood pellets are then transported to Drax via rail, with an average of 17 biomass trains arriving at the power station per day Has anyone calculated the carbon footprint of this madness. No-one will because wood pellets are classed as "renewable". And yes, it is madness. Nice logic tho. Chop down the free trees that remove co2 and burn them, pumping all the carbon they have trapped in them into the atmosphere. Then spend billions on trying to artificially remove that same carbon from atmosphere. Even if that technology is 100% efficient in removing that trapped carbon (which it isn’t), you’ve still added to the problem with your transportation. And diminished the planets natural solution by reducing the number of trees. I don’t know why vegans and environmentalists hate trees so much. 🤷 Coal Not Dole I say. Where's Arthur Scargill when you need him?
At least the coal mines were pretty much next to the power stations. "Irony at its finest lol. The people who were shouting to keep those coal mines open are the same people now calling for the power stations that burnt said coal to be dismantled. | |||
| |||
"What happens if we do nothing differently?A rhetorical question, the scientists tell us temperatures will rise 2.5 - 3 degrees by the end of the century. This is in turn will create greater risk of flooding, droughts and all other extreme weather events. Crops die off, droughts become more frequent leading to famine risks. Sea levels are expected to rise displacing people and major infrastructure damage to cities around the world that are located in coastal areas. This end of world goes on and on with every conceivable touchpoint collapsing to certain failure. My question is probably naive, even childish I would expect to the scientists and climate activists, but I will ask it anyway.. Delaying end of days scenario playing out by reaching net zero before the end of the century, is that really going to happen? The scenarios are so extreme that I find it incredible that one in - one out = net zero is enough to make such a significant change towards stability. My next question is why climate modelling does not include positive evolutionary counters, that would account for human adaptability, biological, technological, and socially? What about climate resilient crops, new food systems, mass migration, urban redesign, and even changes in human behaviour over time? Finally and maybe this is the most important point to the OP, if we agree that net zero doesn’t reverse damage, are we sure we are investing the billions in in the right goal? Wouldn’t it make more sense to invest in how we will "adapt" to the future we already know is coming? Evolve or stand still, I guess. " Absolutely right. Over the last million or so years humanity has adapted to various changes in the climate, from ice ages to warming periods, and we came out the other side. This notion that we can beat climate change by making relatively small changes in behaviour is not only nonsense it is quite arrogant really. Much better to adapt/evolve than career down this unhinged path to bankruptcy. Of course there are ways we can clean up our act but it has to be in areas where we can make a (albeit small) difference. Not betting the farm on on hysterical targets that are not only unachievable but even if (and it's a bloody big IF) it succeeds will make little or no difference. Meanwhile Rachel is still scratching her head as to where her next 50 billion is coming from. Drill baby drill! | |||
| |||
"If nothing else changes, there will be 15 billion humans on this planet by the end of the century. How we can double energy output, double food production, double the supply of clean water and double the amount of housing is a far bigger question. " 15 billion is a scary number and if nothing changes you are probably right. However I don't think it will actually happen because a big change is coming. It's called war. I really can't see us getting to the end of this century without some form of nuclear conflict. Maybe humanity will be less than 1 billion in 2100. | |||
| |||
" Have you got any examples of how it “benefits the ordinary man”? Aside from a few short term government funded jobs that will all disappear when the subsidies dry up. Given the state of the economy it can’t be boosting it that much. I see Labour is about to spaff another £700m of money it hasn’t got in trying to bribe people to buy EV’s. Technology so good the government has to pay you to buy it." It’s fair to ask what the real-world benefits are as I like to question things and expect to find evidence too. I can always provide examples to back what I'm saying, but it's your point that is being oversimplified by stating it's just a case of a few short term “subsidy jobs”. Investment in net zero brings energy efficiency, cleaner air, and more stable energy prices which benefit everyone, but especially the “ordinary man” more than anyone. Contrast to volatile energy source markets when energy price shocks hit, many net zero ones don't. This will lower household bills permanently, especially important for lower-income households; the ordinary man. Public transport, better air quality, more energy independence, all of these reduce everyday costs and health burdens in the long run. You’re right that the economy is in rough shape, but that doesn’t mean net zero is hurting it or that it's not benefiting already. The economy’s problems are deep-rooted in decades of underinvestment, not caused by net zero plans. In fact, these plans are one of the few areas with long-term economic vision from UK government policy, something the UK has lacked chronically and why it's behind. It is the poor relation of developed nations and will become much worse without long-term investment in industries, tech, and infrastructure that competitive nations rely on for decades. The EV subsidy criticism is common, especially when people take it as gospel from oil backed sources like reform are and don't question that. I'm pretty sure historically all emerging technologies needed initial support, as the same happened with cars, trains, roads, and aviation. The government supported petrol car industry too, once. Supporting a transition isn’t bribery, it’s standard industrial strategy. If we don’t do it, other countries will/are/have and we’ll end up importing everything still and paying over the odds for 19th century technology. Once scaled, it becomes self-sustaining and the UK risks falling behind even more by the compounding effects if it doesn't support homegrown industry now. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
" Have you got any examples of how it “benefits the ordinary man”? Aside from a few short term government funded jobs that will all disappear when the subsidies dry up. Given the state of the economy it can’t be boosting it that much. I see Labour is about to spaff another £700m of money it hasn’t got in trying to bribe people to buy EV’s. Technology so good the government has to pay you to buy it. It’s fair to ask what the real-world benefits are as I like to question things and expect to find evidence too. I can always provide examples to back what I'm saying, but it's your point that is being oversimplified by stating it's just a case of a few short term “subsidy jobs”. Investment in net zero brings energy efficiency, cleaner air, and more stable energy prices which benefit everyone, but especially the “ordinary man” more than anyone. Contrast to volatile energy source markets when energy price shocks hit, many net zero ones don't. This will lower household bills permanently, especially important for lower-income households; the ordinary man. Public transport, better air quality, more energy independence, all of these reduce everyday costs and health burdens in the long run. You’re right that the economy is in rough shape, but that doesn’t mean net zero is hurting it or that it's not benefiting already. The economy’s problems are deep-rooted in decades of underinvestment, not caused by net zero plans. In fact, these plans are one of the few areas with long-term economic vision from UK government policy, something the UK has lacked chronically and why it's behind. It is the poor relation of developed nations and will become much worse without long-term investment in industries, tech, and infrastructure that competitive nations rely on for decades. The EV subsidy criticism is common, especially when people take it as gospel from oil backed sources like reform are and don't question that. I'm pretty sure historically all emerging technologies needed initial support, as the same happened with cars, trains, roads, and aviation. The government supported petrol car industry too, once. Supporting a transition isn’t bribery, it’s standard industrial strategy. If we don’t do it, other countries will/are/have and we’ll end up importing everything still and paying over the odds for 19th century technology. Once scaled, it becomes self-sustaining and the UK risks falling behind even more by the compounding effects if it doesn't support homegrown industry now." Okay, so net zero is going to bring my energy bills down. When is this going to happen exactly and by how much? Or is this just some general blind faith you have that strangely can’t be articulated in actual dates and monetary values? And your view is that the only way economies grow is if the government taxes people and hands that cash over to the government’s choice of the week industry it wants to subsidise? Why do you think inefficient and unproductive governments are well placed to make these choices? What experience does Ed Miliband have in business or innovation that he is a good choice of person to select which industries and technologies to bet taxpayers’ money on? When you say “all emerging technologies needed initial support”, I don’t recall the government giving me a grant to buy my iPhones, dishwasher, lawnmower, or Microsoft software. It just sounds like you have swallowed Miliband's propaganda. If he can persuade his mouth to utter some positive words about something he thinks it miraculously comes true. As we are now all finding out to our cost the link between Labour's promises and economic reality is nonexistent. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"What happened to the o-zone layer did it just close up? What ever happened to the term global warming... Well they couldn't use that term anymore because in some parts of the globe it was cooling That's why it changed to climate change What ever we do in England will make zero difference It's all a scam for the elite rich to make the general public poorer and them even more wealthy Net zero is crippling this country " The ice covering of Antarctica increased last year I believe, which kinda proves temperatures fluctuate. I have no doubt that the average global temperature has risen by next to nothing and that humans are responsible for some of that. I also have no doubt that if we continue on our current path, shit will get worse. It’s the arbitrary lines in the sand that get me. Yes if you want to achieve a goal you have to specify parameters, but a 1.5 degree average temperature change over 100 years doesn’t sound a lot. What would we be doing if the temperature had cooled by 1.5 degrees? Absolutely nothing is the answer. And long term climate forecasts are for global cooling and a shortage of co2 in the atmosphere. But yes I believe the hole in the ozone layer closed up. | |||
"What happened to the o-zone layer did it just close up? What ever happened to the term global warming... Well they couldn't use that term anymore because in some parts of the globe it was cooling That's why it changed to climate change What ever we do in England will make zero difference It's all a scam for the elite rich to make the general public poorer and them even more wealthy Net zero is crippling this country " I don't know if you're for real or not, or if you're poking fun at GBNews types, buy this is an excellent example of someone who has swallowed the anti-science propaganda hook line and sinker. 1. The ozone layer is slowly reforming as O3 through natural processes in the stratosphere. This is an excellent example of the actions we took (banning CFCs) having a positive effect. And shows that we need to take action on climate change. 2. "Global warming" didn't stop getting used because "parts of the globe are cooling", it was too simplistic a term to describe the changing climate. 3. What we do in England will make a difference, it's a global issue, it'll take effort from people of all nations. 4. Transitioning away from fossil fuels will be cheaper for the consumer in the long run, and it would remove us from our dependency on externally priced fuels. And the real money is in the fossil fuels industry, why do you think they go to so much effort to push the misinformation that you've swallowed? | |||
| |||
| |||
"What we do in England will make a difference" True, but to an irrelevant level unless the 2nd part of your point number three becomes enacted, which was… " it's a global issue, it'll take effort from people of all nations " Very true mate. But not every nation is getting on board, that’s the issue. Some of them could actually be increasing co2 output because they are building stuff to help us reduce ours. If China for example increase their output by 5% selling Europe 5 trillion euros worth of kit to reduce emissions by 4%, it’s better for the environment if we don’t don’t buy the kit. | |||
"What we do in England will make a difference True, but to an irrelevant level unless the 2nd part of your point number three becomes enacted, which was… it's a global issue, it'll take effort from people of all nations Very true mate. But not every nation is getting on board, that’s the issue. Some of them could actually be increasing co2 output because they are building stuff to help us reduce ours. If China for example increase their output by 5% selling Europe 5 trillion euros worth of kit to reduce emissions by 4%, it’s better for the environment if we don’t don’t buy the kit. " China is a good example, only slightly higher CO2 emissions per head of population than us. World leader in solar panel, wind turbine and other tech. And even if they weren't, it wouldn't be a good excuse to continue our reliance on externally priced fossil fuels, long term energy dependence and long term higher energy prices. I get your point about balance, that's what the Paris Climate accord was supposed to address, but it ended up being weaker than it should have been because most of the politicians there were representing the interests of their corporate donors in the fossil fuels industry. | |||
"You know what all this arguing is doing? Distracting from the real question which should be 'Exactly what is all the money being spent on'. Followed by 'Exactly how does that reduce the countries carbon footprint in real terms'. Followed again by 'How does this huge expenditure help the people in the country'." These are good questions, but the first part is to get past the rampant climate science denial that's prevalent within the media and politics of the western world. | |||
"What we do in England will make a difference True, but to an irrelevant level unless the 2nd part of your point number three becomes enacted, which was… it's a global issue, it'll take effort from people of all nations Very true mate. But not every nation is getting on board, that’s the issue. Some of them could actually be increasing co2 output because they are building stuff to help us reduce ours. If China for example increase their output by 5% selling Europe 5 trillion euros worth of kit to reduce emissions by 4%, it’s better for the environment if we don’t don’t buy the kit. " Isn't the production a one of cost, while the solar panels or wind turbine have a lifespan of many years. So 4% x Y. | |||
"What we do in England will make a difference True, but to an irrelevant level unless the 2nd part of your point number three becomes enacted, which was… it's a global issue, it'll take effort from people of all nations Very true mate. But not every nation is getting on board, that’s the issue. Some of them could actually be increasing co2 output because they are building stuff to help us reduce ours. If China for example increase their output by 5% selling Europe 5 trillion euros worth of kit to reduce emissions by 4%, it’s better for the environment if we don’t don’t buy the kit. China is a good example, only slightly higher CO2 emissions per head of population than us. World leader in solar panel, wind turbine and other tech. And even if they weren't, it wouldn't be a good excuse to continue our reliance on externally priced fossil fuels, long term energy dependence and long term higher energy prices. I get your point about balance, that's what the Paris Climate accord was supposed to address, but it ended up being weaker than it should have been because most of the politicians there were representing the interests of their corporate donors in the fossil fuels industry. " I agree buddy, our reliance on natural gas is what’s killing us, especially now we import so much of it. But powering an EV from a power station burning natural gas is not green in anyway shape or form. And neither is covering farmland with solar panels | |||
"What we do in England will make a difference True, but to an irrelevant level unless the 2nd part of your point number three becomes enacted, which was… it's a global issue, it'll take effort from people of all nations Very true mate. But not every nation is getting on board, that’s the issue. Some of them could actually be increasing co2 output because they are building stuff to help us reduce ours. If China for example increase their output by 5% selling Europe 5 trillion euros worth of kit to reduce emissions by 4%, it’s better for the environment if we don’t don’t buy the kit. Isn't the production a one of cost, while the solar panels or wind turbine have a lifespan of many years. So 4% x Y." Very true. But the actual numbers are unknown, I just used those to illustrate my point. Also the diesel powered ship to deliver them, diesel trucks to move them. Diesel cranes to handle them. Why can’t we make solar panels here? I have a friend who works in the solar industry in the Philippines. Not spoke to her for a while but even there where wages are low, she still has to buy in from China. | |||
"What we do in England will make a difference True, but to an irrelevant level unless the 2nd part of your point number three becomes enacted, which was… it's a global issue, it'll take effort from people of all nations Very true mate. But not every nation is getting on board, that’s the issue. Some of them could actually be increasing co2 output because they are building stuff to help us reduce ours. If China for example increase their output by 5% selling Europe 5 trillion euros worth of kit to reduce emissions by 4%, it’s better for the environment if we don’t don’t buy the kit. China is a good example, only slightly higher CO2 emissions per head of population than us. World leader in solar panel, wind turbine and other tech. And even if they weren't, it wouldn't be a good excuse to continue our reliance on externally priced fossil fuels, long term energy dependence and long term higher energy prices. I get your point about balance, that's what the Paris Climate accord was supposed to address, but it ended up being weaker than it should have been because most of the politicians there were representing the interests of their corporate donors in the fossil fuels industry. I agree buddy, our reliance on natural gas is what’s killing us, especially now we import so much of it. But powering an EV from a power station burning natural gas is not green in anyway shape or form. And neither is covering farmland with solar panels " No but finding better places for solar panels, using new technology as it emerges, combined with wind farms, on shore and off shore, and new tech in this industry (bladeless tech), hydroelectric, biogas, energy efficiencies, wave and nuclear, is what we need. It's all part of the puzzle. | |||
"What we do in England will make a difference True, but to an irrelevant level unless the 2nd part of your point number three becomes enacted, which was… it's a global issue, it'll take effort from people of all nations Very true mate. But not every nation is getting on board, that’s the issue. Some of them could actually be increasing co2 output because they are building stuff to help us reduce ours. If China for example increase their output by 5% selling Europe 5 trillion euros worth of kit to reduce emissions by 4%, it’s better for the environment if we don’t don’t buy the kit. China is a good example, only slightly higher CO2 emissions per head of population than us. World leader in solar panel, wind turbine and other tech. And even if they weren't, it wouldn't be a good excuse to continue our reliance on externally priced fossil fuels, long term energy dependence and long term higher energy prices. I get your point about balance, that's what the Paris Climate accord was supposed to address, but it ended up being weaker than it should have been because most of the politicians there were representing the interests of their corporate donors in the fossil fuels industry. I agree buddy, our reliance on natural gas is what’s killing us, especially now we import so much of it. But powering an EV from a power station burning natural gas is not green in anyway shape or form. And neither is covering farmland with solar panels No but finding better places for solar panels, using new technology as it emerges, combined with wind farms, on shore and off shore, and new tech in this industry (bladeless tech), hydroelectric, biogas, energy efficiencies, wave and nuclear, is what we need. It's all part of the puzzle." I agree. But why not put the panels in those “better places” now? Why put them in the wrong places and then have to move them? The “rush” is removing critical thinking from the whole process | |||
"What we do in England will make a difference True, but to an irrelevant level unless the 2nd part of your point number three becomes enacted, which was… it's a global issue, it'll take effort from people of all nations Very true mate. But not every nation is getting on board, that’s the issue. Some of them could actually be increasing co2 output because they are building stuff to help us reduce ours. If China for example increase their output by 5% selling Europe 5 trillion euros worth of kit to reduce emissions by 4%, it’s better for the environment if we don’t don’t buy the kit. China is a good example, only slightly higher CO2 emissions per head of population than us. World leader in solar panel, wind turbine and other tech. And even if they weren't, it wouldn't be a good excuse to continue our reliance on externally priced fossil fuels, long term energy dependence and long term higher energy prices. I get your point about balance, that's what the Paris Climate accord was supposed to address, but it ended up being weaker than it should have been because most of the politicians there were representing the interests of their corporate donors in the fossil fuels industry. I agree buddy, our reliance on natural gas is what’s killing us, especially now we import so much of it. But powering an EV from a power station burning natural gas is not green in anyway shape or form. And neither is covering farmland with solar panels No but finding better places for solar panels, using new technology as it emerges, combined with wind farms, on shore and off shore, and new tech in this industry (bladeless tech), hydroelectric, biogas, energy efficiencies, wave and nuclear, is what we need. It's all part of the puzzle. I agree. But why not put the panels in those “better places” now? Why put them in the wrong places and then have to move them? The “rush” is removing critical thinking from the whole process " I agree, we should be taking action. Solar panels are on farmland because of a short lived Cameron era policy. I'm always lamenting the lack of action in the renewable energy sphere. Not just solar, but the general reluctance to get the finger out and do anything. | |||
"Solar panels are on farmland because of a short lived Cameron era policy. " Have to take your word for that. He’s been gone nearly 10 years now tho! Solar panels should be on every new building built. Period. | |||
"What we do in England will make a difference True, but to an irrelevant level unless the 2nd part of your point number three becomes enacted, which was… it's a global issue, it'll take effort from people of all nations Very true mate. But not every nation is getting on board, that’s the issue. Some of them could actually be increasing co2 output because they are building stuff to help us reduce ours. If China for example increase their output by 5% selling Europe 5 trillion euros worth of kit to reduce emissions by 4%, it’s better for the environment if we don’t don’t buy the kit. China is a good example, only slightly higher CO2 emissions per head of population than us. World leader in solar panel, wind turbine and other tech. And even if they weren't, it wouldn't be a good excuse to continue our reliance on externally priced fossil fuels, long term energy dependence and long term higher energy prices. I get your point about balance, that's what the Paris Climate accord was supposed to address, but it ended up being weaker than it should have been because most of the politicians there were representing the interests of their corporate donors in the fossil fuels industry. I agree buddy, our reliance on natural gas is what’s killing us, especially now we import so much of it. But powering an EV from a power station burning natural gas is not green in anyway shape or form. And neither is covering farmland with solar panels No but finding better places for solar panels, using new technology as it emerges, combined with wind farms, on shore and off shore, and new tech in this industry (bladeless tech), hydroelectric, biogas, energy efficiencies, wave and nuclear, is what we need. It's all part of the puzzle. I agree. But why not put the panels in those “better places” now? Why put them in the wrong places and then have to move them? The “rush” is removing critical thinking from the whole process " Here's an idea use canals with photon sucking panel barges direct or storage easy to move and out of the way, the minefield of the canal trust licences rules regs and fees for each unit was enough to knock the idea on the head.  | |||
"Solar panels are on farmland because of a short lived Cameron era policy. Have to take your word for that. He’s been gone nearly 10 years now tho! Solar panels should be on every new building built. Period. " Sure and on top of carparks, sports stadiums, house, commercial buildings, bus shelters. There's a lot of suitable places. | |||
"Solar panels are on farmland because of a short lived Cameron era policy. Have to take your word for that. He’s been gone nearly 10 years now tho! Solar panels should be on every new building built. Period. Sure and on top of carparks, sports stadiums, house, commercial buildings, bus shelters. There's a lot of suitable places." Not sure about bus shelters, yobs love to vandalise them, but agree with everything else. The land can be used for frowning food or building homes. | |||
"What happened to the o-zone layer did it just close up? What ever happened to the term global warming... Well they couldn't use that term anymore because in some parts of the globe it was cooling That's why it changed to climate change What ever we do in England will make zero difference It's all a scam for the elite rich to make the general public poorer and them even more wealthy Net zero is crippling this country I don't know if you're for real or not, or if you're poking fun at GBNews types, buy this is an excellent example of someone who has swallowed the anti-science propaganda hook line and sinker. 1. The ozone layer is slowly reforming as O3 through natural processes in the stratosphere. This is an excellent example of the actions we took (banning CFCs) having a positive effect. And shows that we need to take action on climate change. 2. "Global warming" didn't stop getting used because "parts of the globe are cooling", it was too simplistic a term to describe the changing climate. 3. What we do in England will make a difference, it's a global issue, it'll take effort from people of all nations. 4. Transitioning away from fossil fuels will be cheaper for the consumer in the long run, and it would remove us from our dependency on externally priced fuels. And the real money is in the fossil fuels industry, why do you think they go to so much effort to push the misinformation that you've swallowed?" Good response
1. The Montreal Protocol (1987)is actually a rare success story, it phased out ozone depleting chemicals globally and the ozone layer is now on track to fully recover. Proof that international action can work when based on science.
2. Both terms have been used for decades. “Global warming” refers specifically to Earth’s rising average temperature. “Climate change” is a broader term that includes extreme weather, sea level rise, shifting patterns. Scientists didn’t change the name to be sneaky, it’s just a more accurate description of what’s happening.
3. Such a strange stance, again, only parroted by reform type rhetoric. Like; ah it don't matter, if we're only 1% of it, let's give up.
4. Reform and GB News have well-documented links to fossil fuel donors. So calling net zero a scam for elites, while ignoring the literal fossil fuel billionaires who’ve profited from pollution for over a century, doesn’t hold much weight. If anyone’s running a scam, it’s the people trying to delay action (reform) to protect those interests.
5. Net zero crippling the UK? What’s really been crippling the UK economy? Years of underinvestment (private and public), a chaotic energy policy, and our dependence on volatile fossil fuel markets, especially exposed over the Ukraine war. Paying the most for energy in the continent over the likes of France, Germany, Scandinavian countries etc because we rely on fossil fuels so much more. Net zero isn’t the problem, it’s one of the few opportunities to get out of that mess. It could actually rebuild industry, improve infrastructure, and lower long-term costs. But like I said, it's not happening overnight, so it's unpopular and not a vote winner, easier to criticise.
Throughout this thread, I’ve been critical of Reform for their repeated misinformation on this topic. I know it might seem like “bashing” to some, especially those drawn to them as an alternative to the status quo and I get that. But reforms position is where most anti-net zero is derived from. Their lines directly contradict everything I’ve seen from credible science and economics, they only have rhetoric as far as I can tell, so I will never back them on this subject.
I care less about net zero from an ethical or moral perspective, and far more about it as an economic growth strategy. We’ve been stuck in economic stagnation since 2008. Net zero isn’t a cost, it’s an opportunity to finally get Britain building again. | |||
"You know what all this arguing is doing? Distracting from the real question which should be 'Exactly what is all the money being spent on'. Followed by 'Exactly how does that reduce the countries carbon footprint in real terms'. Followed again by 'How does this huge expenditure help the people in the country'." You not bothered to read any of my responses in this thread then? | |||
"Solar panels are on farmland because of a short lived Cameron era policy. Have to take your word for that. He’s been gone nearly 10 years now tho! Solar panels should be on every new building built. Period. Sure and on top of carparks, sports stadiums, house, commercial buildings, bus shelters. There's a lot of suitable places. Not sure about bus shelters, yobs love to vandalise them, but agree with everything else. The land can be used for frowning food or building homes. " Not all land is suitable for growing food and buildings. You would be surprised. It comes down to money, as I've said, not all of this investment is public (tax payer) some of it is but a lot is subsidies that land owners use to cash in and build cheap "power plants" on stuff they've no interest in farming or building on. | |||
| |||
