I’m aware of varying degrees of disagreement with the idea of Net Zero; while I’m fascinated by the conspiracy theory end of the spectrum (increasingly common in the comments sections of right-leaning sites) I’m more curious about more practical day-to-day concerns. Is anyone here able to speak to that (and happy to discuss)?
My take is that Net Zero isn’t optional; fossil fuels are finite and one way or the other we’re going to need to learn to operate without them.
Fossil fuels are finite but they’re not in any danger of running out in the near future. They’re not limited enough to use that as a reason to stop using them. Plus there are corn-derived biofuels and so on, which aren’t much better for the environment when burned.
So yes - depending on who you ask and what constraints you apply, you could be looking at a couple of hundred years for some fossil fuels; actually running out is some way off yet.
The shorter term worry for me is climate change; based on my reading and the IPCC in particular I’m of the view that the changes are down to us and our activities in terms of CO2 production, pollution and deforestation.
Would you be in favour of finding ways of reducing their use (i.e. not right down to zero in 10 years but more of a gradual organic decline)?
No, we shouldn’t wait for an organic decline. We need to stop using fossil fuels as quickly as possible. The faster we do it, the more chance we have of moderating the hell that has already been unleashed on future generations.
My point is that the finite nature of fossil fuels isn’t a persuasive argument to stop using them, because the reality is that we have plenty.
Point taken; the climate emergency is the stronger argument. Thank you.
My perspective is we need this done. Either that or we’re heading towards Arrakis.
Yeah, that’s the summary of it. I always thought we should sell it as a matter of self-reliance and national renewal, as that could appeal to conservatives who tend to be suspicious of radical change (with some justification).
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Whenever the Tories do something profoundly amoral or un-British – such as telling refugees to “fuck off”, as their vice-chair, Lee Anderson, recently did – Labour seems scared of going on the attack.
Despite Rishi Sunak’s earnest technocratic endeavours to focus on moving the needle on his five carefully chosen pledges, he is personally as unpopular as Liz Truss was as prime minister.
This is why Labour’s focus on “getting rid of the barnacles”, the Australian strategist Lynton Crosby’s term for ditching unpopular policies and positions, is becoming a drag on it.
The climate crisis is proximate and pressing and it is an appropriately big mission for the strategic, interventionist state Starmer and Rachel Reeves are modelling on Bidenomics.
The £28bn green prosperity fund is also Labour’s biggest investment bet, which is best understood as Ed Miliband explains it, as a 21st-century industrial strategy that cuts prices for cars, heating and energy and delivers jobs.
Scott Morrison, then the Liberal prime minister of Australia, declared a war on woke and created a clear dividing line between his government and the Australian Labor party (ALP) on fossil fuels, climate crisis and coalmining.
I’m a bot and I’m open source!
The voters will listen to what is important to them. Net zero comes in a long way behind the cost of living. Net zero is very popular, but people need to eat first. Fight the battles on what matters. Following Tory agendas like sheep does not make you look like a decisive government in the making.
