Australian conservatives’ dismissal of the climate crisis was a huge error. Keir Starmer should make the most of this moment, says political strategist John McTernan
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.
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).
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).