“Every single delegate headed to Egypt’s COP climate summit will be lying about it – although to be fair, a lot of them are in fact paid fossil fuel lobbyists…like the Del Boy wide boys. Ha! At least their lies are honest.”
“But ultimately for advocates of the net-zero transition the only way to convince its detractors it offers the best route forward is to embrace the first and last rule of any successful narrative: show, don’t tell.”
Everyone seems to be pushing for ‘zero-carbon’ or ‘carbon neutral’ or ‘net zero’:
But the concept and any ensuing ‘policies’ are fraught with inconsistencies and umpteen layers of hypocrisy.
As voiced by Dr James Dyke of the University of Exeter:
This is a great idea, in principle. Unfortunately, in practice it helps perpetuate a belief in technological salvation and diminishes the sense of urgency surrounding the need to curb emissions now. We have arrived at the painful realisation that the idea of net zero has licensed a recklessly cavalier “burn now, pay later” approach which has seen carbon emissions continue to soar. It has also hastened the destruction of the natural world by increasing deforestation today, and greatly increases the risk of further devastation in the future….
In other words, this is just greenwashing:
Net-zero 2050-ism must not be allowed to give oxygen to the lie that we can continue business-as-usual, without radically changing our lifestyles and economies… In fact, what appears to be happening is that many corporations and, in some cases, governments are concealing destructive fossil-fuelled business under the cloak of promises to be net-zero carbon by 2050.
Here’s a climate activist group pointing things out in a recent video:
And here’s a very reasonable response in defence of ‘net zero’ – with a warning as to how these exposures are being made use of by ‘traditional opponents of climate action’:
These attacks on the net-zero movement’s entire conceptual underpinning already has been seized upon by traditional opponents of climate action who wilfully misunderstand environmentalists’ legitimate concerns about the efficacy of emissions targets and twist their analysis to argue decarbonization goals are all a crock. As one observer noted to me privately, when The Australian newspaper is praising Thunberg for exposing “the emptiness” of climate promises then something has gone pretty awry.
So, what is going on here? Why is the concept of net-zero emissions under fire just as it emerges as the “North Star” for economic and industrial strategy in many of the world’s most powerful economies? And does it matter? Will well-intentioned critiques of demonstrably inadequate net-zero strategies catalyze more ambitious decarbonization plans or will they inadvertently undermine a trend that has helped successfully push climate issues up the corporate and political agenda?
The first thing to say is that much of the criticism of net-zero strategies from Thunberg, Dyke, Watson, Knorr, et al is entirely justified…
Will the consensus around the net-zero mission hold? It should. It has made too much progress and is too integral to modern politics and economics to fracture in the face of the first sign of criticism. It has survived Trumpism and the worst the pollutoctratic elite can throw at it. It has been one of the most successful environmental campaigns ever seen. Its strengths far outweigh its weaknesses. It is also working every day to respond to legitimate and welcome critiques of its potential flaws. But ultimately for advocates of the net-zero transition the only way to convince its detractors it offers the best route forward is to embrace the first and last rule of any successful narrative: show, don’t tell.
Here’s comment from the OilPrice.com website:
Just as energy production is driven by energy consumption, it is consumption that drives our production of carbon. The idea that a country can significantly reduce carbon production without a reduction in its consumption simply does not stand up to scrutiny. To create a truly net-zero carbon emissions future, consumption will have to drop and the cost of living will have to increase or technology will have to advance rapidly.
To conclude, Dartmoor farmer and Western Morning News columnist Anton Coaker regularly points out the inconsistencies and hypocrisy tied up with so much ‘green policy’ – as covered in these pages:
In his latest comment for the WMN he looks at ‘net zero’:
I cannot stand to hear anyone talking about ‘net zero’, or ‘carbon credits’, or ‘carbon trading’. Any of it. Saying you’re going ‘carbon neutral’, while occasionally walking through an airport, or driving a car, or just living in the modern world, is a lie. Talking about achieving ‘Net zero’, because you donated toward a fund that plants some short lived trees somewhere, is a lie. And while you’re free to lie to yourself…you’re not going to lie to me.
The trade in such nonsense, where wideboys are piling in to greenwash your battered conscience, is the modern day equivalent of those medieval peddlers in religious relics as a cure. I don’t know that I blame the traders…they are only expected to try and make a living. They will, by their nature, making any claim to justify their schemes.
But you, buster, if you bleat about how you’re trying to do something, and will be part of some mythical revolution in human behaviour, and make everything better…..I’m going to call you out. Your house is filled with the products of this global carbon consumption banquet, your lifestyle is wholly reliant on it. You personally are not prepared to go without, and are ready to lie about it.
Every single delegate headed to Egypt’s COP climate summit will be lying about it- although to be fair, a lot of them are in fact paid fossil fuel lobbyists…like the Del Boy wide boys referred to above. Ha! At least their lies are honest.