David I reckon it will take an awful lot to reverse the current direction of travel - I don't hold your level of optimism. It will reverse though, but by that time we will have experienced a huge amount of financial and liberty loss. The governing blob (not Elites, I hate that description of them because it devalues the word) in the UK are taking their revenge for the great unwashed voting for populism.
Interesting response to your question - the standard ill thought through guff. I recently had issue to speak to my bank (yep that one which is headline news today) about understanding a technical issue. They were super proud of their approach to ESG (despite me being a customer for 40yrs I hadn't noticed they had gone full tonto on it). When i asked questions about fossil fuel investment I was advised we are on track for +2°C, planet burning, millions of migrants blah blah. I asked for evidence and she couldn't provide any. Completely vacuous.
Energy is (despite electricity and gas bills) somewhat abstract... food not so much for consumers. Its taken a couple of generations characterised by increasing affluence and comfort to forget just how close the UK came to starving during WWII - saved only by the Atlantic Conveys. Indeed the EU Common Agricultural Policy (for all its flaws) was conceived as a bulwark against food insecurity. Lest we should forget.
Also appreciate your comment on the "robot answer" - we get this all the time in the energy debates. "Well the cost of doing nothing is much greater" - which is such a total non-answer, but is sufficiently emotive for many that it is the "mike-drop" moment, no more discussion needed (or wanted). That doing their "something" might make the problem far worse, in an accelerated time-frame, is inconceivable.
You should ask them how they can pretend to care about agricultural effects on climate when they are silent about Agrofuels, that have more fossil fuel inputs than they replace as an output, and an EROI that is less than 1:1. Over 40% of USA corn crop and increasing. Also soybean for the biodiesel scam. If they ain't screaming in rage over that, than everything else they say on Agriculture is insignificant.
Especially since, instead of burning wood/biomass in forest fires it could be harvested to produce Methanol in local tractor-trailer sized plants that is a direct replacement for gasoline. But methanol is being boycotted by the establishment. Again hypocrisy. Ignoring REAL SOLUTIONS while touting insignificant pseudo-solutions. They should be ashamed of themselves.
David I reckon it will take an awful lot to reverse the current direction of travel - I don't hold your level of optimism. It will reverse though, but by that time we will have experienced a huge amount of financial and liberty loss. The governing blob (not Elites, I hate that description of them because it devalues the word) in the UK are taking their revenge for the great unwashed voting for populism.
Interesting response to your question - the standard ill thought through guff. I recently had issue to speak to my bank (yep that one which is headline news today) about understanding a technical issue. They were super proud of their approach to ESG (despite me being a customer for 40yrs I hadn't noticed they had gone full tonto on it). When i asked questions about fossil fuel investment I was advised we are on track for +2°C, planet burning, millions of migrants blah blah. I asked for evidence and she couldn't provide any. Completely vacuous.
Energy is (despite electricity and gas bills) somewhat abstract... food not so much for consumers. Its taken a couple of generations characterised by increasing affluence and comfort to forget just how close the UK came to starving during WWII - saved only by the Atlantic Conveys. Indeed the EU Common Agricultural Policy (for all its flaws) was conceived as a bulwark against food insecurity. Lest we should forget.
Also appreciate your comment on the "robot answer" - we get this all the time in the energy debates. "Well the cost of doing nothing is much greater" - which is such a total non-answer, but is sufficiently emotive for many that it is the "mike-drop" moment, no more discussion needed (or wanted). That doing their "something" might make the problem far worse, in an accelerated time-frame, is inconceivable.
Thanks for this summary. Very useful and insightful. Not to mention the Absolute Zeroists are wanting to ration food and give a feeling of scarity, even when it is abundance https://garysharpe.substack.com/p/control-the-abundance-control-the
Yes, "Let Them Eat Gloop" cannot be the answer to the coming food crisis.
I coming to believe that Stalin and Mao were not simply cruel tyrants who killed tens of millions out of spite.
Rather, they installed a technocratic central system that deemed such and such would work. We are heading down that path, from both food and energy.
You should ask them how they can pretend to care about agricultural effects on climate when they are silent about Agrofuels, that have more fossil fuel inputs than they replace as an output, and an EROI that is less than 1:1. Over 40% of USA corn crop and increasing. Also soybean for the biodiesel scam. If they ain't screaming in rage over that, than everything else they say on Agriculture is insignificant.
Especially since, instead of burning wood/biomass in forest fires it could be harvested to produce Methanol in local tractor-trailer sized plants that is a direct replacement for gasoline. But methanol is being boycotted by the establishment. Again hypocrisy. Ignoring REAL SOLUTIONS while touting insignificant pseudo-solutions. They should be ashamed of themselves.