De-industrialisation.

[cromwell]

Yes, we have been in industrial decline for years now.
But let's take this statement.
"Net zero does not mean de-industrialisation" is a line that politicians occasionally trot out.
But is it true?
Port Talbot steelworks is closing. Despite Milibands £500 million bung, thousands of jobs will be lost.
Ineos is closing Grangemouth, Scotland's only petrol refinery. 3,000 jobs are at risk.
A proposed coal mine in Whitehaven is now not going to open.
Miliband has forbidden any more licences for gas or petrol exploration in the North Sea.
But hey, it's all going to be alright because politicians of both parties have been promising us "hundreds of thousands of well paid jobs" in green industries.
Although they never say what these jobs are, or even what the industries are.

So next time you hear "Net zero does not mean de-industrialisation", think of another quote:-

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. George Orwell, 1984.


eta - The latest estimate of the cost to achieve Net Zero is £500 billion, which is money that we don't have.

[Workingman]

There is no such thing as net-zero. Not for a household. Not for a town or city. Not for a country. Not for a continent; and not for the planet.

The more of us there are the more stuff we have to produce, that means the more CO2 we produce, and the more finite resources we use up.

If the UK does not produce the things it needs then they have to be produced somewhere else - we still need them. We might not produce the CO2 in our own back yard, and politicians can feel good about it, but it will still be being pumped out in other places on our behalf.

Net-zero is an almighty con.

[Workingman]

When I was born the global population was about 2.5 billion. 70 years later it is over 7.5 billion, and rising - three times. No problem, eh?

All these people need food, water, shelter, phones, TVs. broadband, fashion, cosmetics, medications...

Net-zero is the answer, my anus.

[cromwell]

The Telegraph published a conservative (no pun intended) estimate of the cost of getting to net zero by 2050. £500 billion.
Ouch.

[medsec222]

Duplicate post

[Kaz]

The UK produces less than 1% of the total global emissions. We could get to net zero, but globally it won’t make any difference. Not unless the Yanks, Indians, Chinese etc do the same - fat chance

[Suff]

The problem is that it is the first world leading by experience and the third world developing with the CO2 neutral technologies rather than fossil fuels.

That is the challenge and it is never correctly stressed. If we don't lead by example the other 4bn people in the world are going to follow our prior example and go down the extensive fossil fuel route.

Whilst you are right about net zero in substance WM, net zero for a county is possible if the country calculates how much CO2 it emits, imports and exports. For instance the UK, were we exporting our oil, would need to calculate that on our net zero.

Essentially any country that imports half it's products and produce would have to deploy CO2 mitigation for ALL of the emissions, even if we imported goods that caused the emissions.

This is the danger with the "Just stop" crowd. They are all about activism and nothing to do with the actual challenges we face today. The following word in my experience is "thinking" because that is what they want you to do, follow the mantra and don't think. It's like "5 a day" with no context or even guidelines. People remember the mantra, then eat a BLT, crisps, sugary orange drink, Fruit cocktail with Ice Cream and then have an apple, occasionally mixing it up with a bag of chips with tomato sauce on it. There you go, 5 a day.... Insanity and totally wrong but all that remains is the mantra. "Just Stop".

This labour government will be like so many other Labour governments. Long on rhetoric and actions which "sell well" and very short on the things which really matter to the country in order for it to remain a healthy economy with healthy services.

[Workingman]

Net-zero is not possible for a country, any country. Even Vanuatu, Samoa and Djibouti are not net zero, no country is nor never will be. Farming out CO2 emissions to other countries to plant trees is not net-zero, it is, at best, carbon neutral, possibly - a different thing. The carbon is still being produced, and much faster than the new trees can suck it up. It's all a con.

Healthy economies will not exist when they all crash due to our inaction and consumption of today.

[Suff]

Did I mention the point where Net Zero is another phrase for Carbon Neutral?

[Workingman]

Did I mention the point where Net Zero is another phrase for Carbon Neutral?

No, but you do know that 'Healthy economies' is an oxymoron.

Current economic models are predicated on increased consumption and infinite growth and profits; and none of them can be achieved. We can increase growth for a while by using up the Earth's finite resources and, in so doing, trashing the atmosphere / climate / environments, but one day it must end. They are the exact opposite of net-zero - CO2 rules.

Let's be honest here, net-zero is a fraud and capitalist economics are the reason why.