You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion
What is net zero and why is it necessary?
Former Community Member
Decarbonising quickly and effectively to hit our net-zero target by 2050 requires urgent, clear and decisive leadership. Our short video looks at the skills requirements for delivering this target and breaks down the results from our recent Skills for net zero and a green recovery survey. Watch the video and sign in to let us know your thoughts in the comments!
What an incredibly woolly piece of virtue signalling, full of confabulation. We apparently have a ‘Climate Crisis’ We also have ‘Pollution’ are they the same thing or different sorts of problems? We need to reach ‘Net Zero’ to solve these problems. ‘Net Zero’ in what CO2, Everything?
Engineering can apparently solve these problems if we pour enough government (taxpayers) money in to reskill the UK.
Firstly what is the problem to be solved? What does ’Net Zero’ mean? Is it the same as ‘CO2 Neutral’? Is it:
1) Don’t burn anything that contains carbon?
2) Burn things containing carbon and then stick the carbon back in the ground somehow?
3) Burn things containing carbon and buy carbon credits (indulgences)?
The technology for 2) does not exist in an industrial form yet and probably won’t by 2050. It might be available by 2100. If the whole world is trying to become CO2 neutral there won’t be enough carbon credits to go round for 3) to be practical so that leaves 1).
1) means don’t burn coal, oil or gas (possibly wood as well) for: a) Electricity generation b) Process heating c) Domestic heating d) Transport So what can we do?
I fully agree with minimising our impact on our planet, reducing the consumption of finite resources and reducing our emissions of actual pollutants. I am not, however, convinced that CO2 is the problem that it is made out to be and it is now a political tool rather than anything scientific. The CO2/Global Warming/AGW etc. thing has been going for some 40 years now. How many of the predictions have been validated by observation (standard scientific method)? None. Where is our ‘Climate Crisis’?
What an incredibly woolly piece of virtue signalling, full of confabulation. We apparently have a ‘Climate Crisis’ We also have ‘Pollution’ are they the same thing or different sorts of problems? We need to reach ‘Net Zero’ to solve these problems. ‘Net Zero’ in what CO2, Everything?
Engineering can apparently solve these problems if we pour enough government (taxpayers) money in to reskill the UK.
Firstly what is the problem to be solved? What does ’Net Zero’ mean? Is it the same as ‘CO2 Neutral’? Is it:
1) Don’t burn anything that contains carbon?
2) Burn things containing carbon and then stick the carbon back in the ground somehow?
3) Burn things containing carbon and buy carbon credits (indulgences)?
The technology for 2) does not exist in an industrial form yet and probably won’t by 2050. It might be available by 2100. If the whole world is trying to become CO2 neutral there won’t be enough carbon credits to go round for 3) to be practical so that leaves 1).
1) means don’t burn coal, oil or gas (possibly wood as well) for: a) Electricity generation b) Process heating c) Domestic heating d) Transport So what can we do?
I fully agree with minimising our impact on our planet, reducing the consumption of finite resources and reducing our emissions of actual pollutants. I am not, however, convinced that CO2 is the problem that it is made out to be and it is now a political tool rather than anything scientific. The CO2/Global Warming/AGW etc. thing has been going for some 40 years now. How many of the predictions have been validated by observation (standard scientific method)? None. Where is our ‘Climate Crisis’?
