Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Gary Sharpe's avatar

Yes, definitely anti-human and anti-life too!

Expand full comment
Peter Batt's avatar

Whatever the many difficulties there are in achieving net zero – whatever it is and if indeed it is achievable – it is still far far less misanthropic than a climate which no longer supplies us the food and water needed to support our lives and lifestyles. Is it not misanthropic to obstruct an agenda designed to protect millions of people from punishing storms and heatwaves? How many millions of people have you seen flocking to live on the sun-baked droughtscapes of Arizona or Madagascar? Not many, eh.

Climate change will impact every aspect of our lives and our economies. For many living nearer the Equator or on large land masses, it already is. Why do you think so many are migrating away from sun-scorched regions of Africa and Asia? Yes, there are parts of the net zero agenda which reflect the reality that our political and economic class is completely in denial, wedded as they are to business models and empires that impose on us an unustainable environmental footprint.

Simply complaining about the trinkets of Western privilege we could potentially lose, without acknowledging the difficult choices we face, reflects both chronic self-absorption and a refusal to confront the real impact climate change is already having on millions of people. Do they not figure in your calculation? Yes, the short-term costs of acting now are high, but the long-term costs of not acting are much higher. Statements that simply assert our right to consume while ignoring the obvious consequences will not age well.

Expand full comment
5 more comments...

No posts