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.
Was the FIRES report a serious recommendation, or a realistic assessment of what would need to be done to achieve Net Zero?
Removing land from food production, stopping all food imports unless its comes via rail, plus net immigration is around 600,000+ a year, one has to ask what the Net Zero proponents suggest we eat if we can't grow it or import it? Each other? Grass and trees?
The article I first saw referencing it seemed to suggest UK FIRES scientists were highlighting just how radical the measures would need to be to achieve NZ, because politicians hadn't yet realised how bad it would be.
I hope the public realises the same very soon and there's serious pushback.
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.
Was the FIRES report a serious recommendation, or a realistic assessment of what would need to be done to achieve Net Zero?
Removing land from food production, stopping all food imports unless its comes via rail, plus net immigration is around 600,000+ a year, one has to ask what the Net Zero proponents suggest we eat if we can't grow it or import it? Each other? Grass and trees?
Maybe we could eat the Net Zero proponents?
Poetic justice.
It's not clear. But at no point do they sound a warning about Net Zero. They seem to take it as axiomatic that it must happen.
The article I first saw referencing it seemed to suggest UK FIRES scientists were highlighting just how radical the measures would need to be to achieve NZ, because politicians hadn't yet realised how bad it would be.
I hope the public realises the same very soon and there's serious pushback.
Yes, definitely anti-human and anti-life too!