Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[glasgowspur]

You know what I love about Tony Blair, won three elections by considerable margins and yet now it's difficult to find someone that admits to voting for him.
He was a snake oil salesman, he still is a snake oil sales and he always will be a snake oil sales man.
Just a pity it so many so long to realise it.

 

[Rorschach]

You know what I love about Tony Blair, won three elections by considerable margins and yet now it's difficult to find someone that admits to voting for him.
He was a snake oil salesman, he still is a snake oil sales and he always will be a snake oil sales man.
Just a pity it so many so long to realise it.

Just an oil salesman now.

 

[Gutter Boy]

And a war criminal

 

[Silly McSilly Face]

Blair is just a paid shill for the FF industry. Carbon capture at scale is impossible for the quantities or carbon we are chucking out.
Net zero is another such distraction that has unfortunately taken root.

So if you agree that net zero is a distraction from the real issues you'll agree with the central point that the Paris agreement is driving us in the wrong direction. It's a "scratch the surface", "make it look like we are trying" treaty. But given net zero IS placing us under significant economic strain, including the significant subsidisation of green energy, including not only grid production, but subsidies for the production and taxation of EVs and the installation of insulation and heat pumps, it is absolutely right that we look at this policy framework with the lens of:
- it's based on environment, climate data and technology from about 10/15 years ago.
- Is it going to offer bang for buck, I.e. are we going to hit 2030 having met all of our objectives in the treaty and having invested trillions of £ and STILL have a significant climate/environmental problem. If the answer to this Q. Is "yes" then Trump and Blair and the INCREASING voices across the political spectrum MIGHT JUST HAVE A POINT.

 

[Rorschach]

So if you agree that net zero is a distraction from the real issues you'll agree with the central point that the Paris agreement is driving us in the wrong direction. It's a "scratch the surface", "make it look like we are trying" treaty. But given net zero IS placing us under significant economic strain, including the significant subsidisation of green energy, including not only grid production, but subsidies for the production and taxation of EVs and the installation of insulation and heat pumps, it is absolutely right that we look at this policy framework with the lens of:
- it's based on environment, climate data and technology from about 10/15 years ago.
- Is it going to offer bang for buck, I.e. are we going to hit 2030 having met all of our objectives in the treaty and having invested trillions of £ and STILL have a significant climate/environmental problem. If the answer to this Q. Is "yes" then Trump and Blair and the INCREASING voices across the political spectrum MIGHT JUST HAVE A POINT.

There is too much in this post to dissect, but just to be clear on my opinion on net zero. Is it a distraction in that it gives permission to the FF industry to push fantasies about offsetting greenhouse gases with some future magical solution like CCS. We have all the solutions we need now. Starmer et al. have bought into such nonsense wholesale, unfortunately. In 20 years' time we will need to be engaging in drawdown.

While Blair might have a point that net zero is gonads, his remedy is also gonads.

 

[Gutter Boy]

So if you agree that net zero is a distraction from the real issues you'll agree with the central point that the Paris agreement is driving us in the wrong direction. It's a "scratch the surface", "make it look like we are trying" treaty. But given net zero IS placing us under significant economic strain, including the significant subsidisation of green energy, including not only grid production, but subsidies for the production and taxation of EVs and the installation of insulation and heat pumps, it is absolutely right that we look at this policy framework with the lens of:
- it's based on environment, climate data and technology from about 10/15 years ago.
- Is it going to offer bang for buck, I.e. are we going to hit 2030 having met all of our objectives in the treaty and having invested trillions of £ and STILL have a significant climate/environmental problem. If the answer to this Q. Is "yes" then Trump and Blair and the INCREASING voices across the political spectrum MIGHT JUST HAVE A POINT.

I took it that net zero is a distraction because absolute zero needs to be the focus. Net zero still implies unnecessary offsetting.