I’m not sure what that means, but I am certain that we shouldn’t try the Green’s plan of attempting Carbon ZERO in ten years, (which you have somehow morphed into Carbon neutral within 30 years), unless some truly phenomenal new invention comes to light between now and election day.
This was a promise to spend 1 trillion pounds, £100Bn per year, to remove all traces of carbon from our economy (presumably including all mammals). To 'de-carbonize it.
Nothing to do with carbon neutral, which is the net state we’ve signed up to under the Paris accords to achieve within 30 years, along with almost every other country on the planet; except USA have since withdrawn. (Which just goes to show, taking the lead isn’t going to sway some people at all).
That’s a sensible start and reflects that a global approach is necessary. I have my doubts about Paris, more needs to be done. E.g. The target goal relies on certain technologies, such as atmospheric global carbon capture and storage that don’t exist and no one I’m aware of is seriously working on outside a research lab (I.e. many, many years from implementation if ever invented).
As I said, the Greens know their policies will never be implemented and they are just a pressure group essentially within the UK, but i don’t think this policy announcement helped the overall cause.
I am touchy about suggestions from people who should know better that we should be limited to one return flight every 2 or even 5 years. Talk about playing into the ultra-rich’s hands!
I do speak with people who would indeed happily ban my air travel, electricity usage (not their own very often, it seems, and I suspect you are one of those Frog) not to mention my evil habit of breathing.
Up to them to decide, surely? Or do we know better?
[quote=“frog_in_a_tree, post:24518, topic:1145436”]
I suspect that there will need to be a focus on reducing the world population and changing attitudes about perpetual economic growth
Reducing global population by scales that would make WWII look like a pin-prick and the 1918 flu pandemic little more than a mild cold would be required. I do wish people would think before opening their mouths. Say it like it is. You’re either talking genocide on a vastly unprecedented scale or some kind of enforced sterilization. The latter policy is already too late to achieve our goals, as set out in the Paris accord, by the way.
The way you’re going on you sound like one of those people in the west who is all for the re-introduction of smallpox into an unvaccinated population (except for yourself and some mates of course), should cease the battle against malaria and HIV in the under-developed world. I see such suggestions on Facebook every time I log on.
You’ve got the first part right. Second part wrong, I never rubbished any green activists. I did rubbish a policy which was so bad (at least in the way it was announced) it could be rubbished even by the likes of Johnson without too much thought.
There are solutions to be found and I believe will be found. While we should all think about the environment, there’s no need to put on a hair shirt about it all as far too many activists that manage to get a say in the media would appear to want us to do.
E.g. Cutting back on air travel (unless you can afford a yacht. Thanks for that Emma Thompson) just when the chance of global travel is becoming available to the world population seems likely to do more damage to global education than anything I can immediately think of.
Of course we could be hit by a few comet fragments in a day or two and in a nuclear winter by this time next year. Which party do I vote for to spend a trillion pounds over that in the next 10 years? There isn’t one, but I bet you many climate change protesters would like to see research ceased on projects that could avert a very real threat to the planet and its whole ecology. Perhaps more real than the greenhouse gas scenario they are painting.