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!
So you have reached the first stage of enlightenment, most of it is about the money. Look a little more deeply at some of the other supposedly ‘Green’ things going on. The COP meetings are just big parties for the not so good and not so great. There is a lot of posturing and demanding more government (our) money for all sorts of things they never actually justify. Have you actually read the Paris Agreement? It says nothing useful at all. There are a lot of already rich people out there hovering up government subsidies for all sorts of things, wind turbines, solar PV, installing EV charge points, experimenting with hydrogen and carbon capture and, of course, biomass. I asked an XR acquaintance what the ‘truth’ was. The reply was: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That there's a climate & ecological emergency, as has been known for decades but campaigned against by Big Oil, Big Pharma and Big Money. They've spent billions of dollars on casting doubt on the science, just like the tobacco industry and the world has fallen for it. The Truth is that our + most other governments are in bed with these guys. The result is this toxic system. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There is a just as toxic ‘Green’ movement run by people who are just in it for the money and don’t believe the science. If you really thought CO2 was damaging would you fly 10s of thousands of people to a conference, the leaders will probably fly in private planes. If you really believed that the ice is melting and the sea level is rising would you buy a beachfront property. There are certainly a few who do ‘believe’ and try to do something but they don’t really think about what’s going on. After George Monbiot discovered that the ‘Anti-Nuclear’ movement had simply made up most of the evidence, I tried unsuccessfully to persuade him to be a bit more analytical about some of the other ‘Green’ issues.
As I have said many times before I fully support reducing our impact on our planet and reducing our consumption of finite resources. I don’t think the current, money driven, path is correct. There are a lot of people out there demanding money and action but with no understanding of what they are demanding (just like teenagers). A FB friend of mine (who I met on a retreat) is a director of Greenpeace and is concerned that COP26 will be as bigger disaster as the Paris party. The only way it could be classed as a success would be to generate an actual plan, even in outline, rather than just demands for money.
So you have reached the first stage of enlightenment, most of it is about the money. Look a little more deeply at some of the other supposedly ‘Green’ things going on. The COP meetings are just big parties for the not so good and not so great. There is a lot of posturing and demanding more government (our) money for all sorts of things they never actually justify. Have you actually read the Paris Agreement? It says nothing useful at all. There are a lot of already rich people out there hovering up government subsidies for all sorts of things, wind turbines, solar PV, installing EV charge points, experimenting with hydrogen and carbon capture and, of course, biomass. I asked an XR acquaintance what the ‘truth’ was. The reply was: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That there's a climate & ecological emergency, as has been known for decades but campaigned against by Big Oil, Big Pharma and Big Money. They've spent billions of dollars on casting doubt on the science, just like the tobacco industry and the world has fallen for it. The Truth is that our + most other governments are in bed with these guys. The result is this toxic system. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There is a just as toxic ‘Green’ movement run by people who are just in it for the money and don’t believe the science. If you really thought CO2 was damaging would you fly 10s of thousands of people to a conference, the leaders will probably fly in private planes. If you really believed that the ice is melting and the sea level is rising would you buy a beachfront property. There are certainly a few who do ‘believe’ and try to do something but they don’t really think about what’s going on. After George Monbiot discovered that the ‘Anti-Nuclear’ movement had simply made up most of the evidence, I tried unsuccessfully to persuade him to be a bit more analytical about some of the other ‘Green’ issues.
As I have said many times before I fully support reducing our impact on our planet and reducing our consumption of finite resources. I don’t think the current, money driven, path is correct. There are a lot of people out there demanding money and action but with no understanding of what they are demanding (just like teenagers). A FB friend of mine (who I met on a retreat) is a director of Greenpeace and is concerned that COP26 will be as bigger disaster as the Paris party. The only way it could be classed as a success would be to generate an actual plan, even in outline, rather than just demands for money.
