The Lifeboat News
[ Message Archive | The Lifeboat News ]

    Re: Climate scientists: - they've been around, you just haven't heard them.... Archived Message

    Posted by John Monro on August 3, 2023, 10:38 pm, in reply to "Climate scientists: concept of net zero is a dangerous trap"

    New Zealand could be the paradigm of the "net zero" con. NZ intends to meet its net zero pledge by purchasing carbon offset credits for 80% of these commitments. In other words by actually reducing NZ's emissions by 20%. Now if every country were to follow NZ's example, one should be able to see there's a logical problem. But the fact is that it doesn't matter if it's 80% or 25%, that logical conundrum remains. And that of course is the UK's promise, as we've just heard from Rishi Sunak that the UK will still be relying on fossil fuels for 25% of the country's energy needs in 2050 (his rationalisation for approving a 100 more exploration licenses). So the only war of doing this is by purchasing offsets for this amount of CO2 emissions from other countries, perhaps he has NZ in mind?

    Net zero means nothing to Rishi Sunak because his and his friends' and colleagues' jobs are more important than the planet and its human children, and this is so even as he's one of the richest men in England. Net Zero means nothing to the Labour Party or National or their business and transport lobbyists here in NZ either, because their jobs are more important that the planet and its children.

    NET ZERO is a con, a weasel phrase, a political not environmental expediency, a lie to the citizens so as not to upset their boat too much, - it's just a lie, it always has been. The scientists must know this, they are used to not speaking out, and if they do, their bosses will deal to the them and the media will ignore them. It’s not true that this three year old article shows that scientist have ignored this issue, many have spoken including everyone here’s favourite, George Monbiot., but the power of politics and business and spin is enormous and highly effective. But it is true that the more general criticism of "net zero" has only become wider in the last two to four years, when a simple examination of the logic of the idea should have revealed its nonsensicality from the start. The problem was, I think that the "net zero" originally started as corporate greenwash, and it was then adopted by sovereign jurisdictions in the IPCC rather later, it was too good a diversion to not use.

    The ULEZ in London is a prime example of political expediency outweighing more important social concerns - it’s now almost a shibboleth of the political class that the “folk” will vote for anyone who tells them they can continue to drive their polluting vehicles and to hell with anyone else. Tragically, they may even be right, but where’s the political will in power or opposition to fight for this? This article is also three years old https://mahb.stanford.edu/library-item/fossil-fuels-net-zero-carbon-emissions-scam-is-something-humanity-doesnt-have-time-for/

    Net Zero and its partner in environmental crime the ETS are cons in this hyper capitalist world, conjuring fortunes out of literal thin air. What's not to like about the ETS for the rich and greedy and the sociopathic, you don't even have to think much or get your hands dirty. Let a computer churn out some dubious CO2 accounting model and Bob's your Burning Uncle. The calculations and assumptions behind them are of advanced mathematical complexity, and impossible for any lay person, and that includes politicians, to fully understand. That of course is deliberate. The same principle is in widespread use in the pricing of electricity and so-called competition in privatised electricity networks around the world.

    In New Zealand large areas of modestly productive (that’s extensive grazing land) are being bought up by the wide eyed boys from this country and from overseas to pursue a planting crop of a 25 year rotation of Radiata pine, representing 90% of our plantings. The overall supervision of this massive change in NZ’s commercial agriculture goes almost uncontrolled. The value of this land from growing carbon credits is considerably higher than growing sheep or cattle, and seriously distorts the economics of forestry. Radiata is an inferior timber which requires chemical treatment for construction use in NZ’s shoddy housing (and it is), but which in most countries is considered unsuitable for this and which just chip it for board and paper. Radiata’s virtue here is its incredibly short 25 year rotation both to its financial benefit and its quality detriment . Here’s a good article explaining what’s going on and the lack of government understanding https://www.interest.co.nz/rural-news/112375/government-never-foresaw-land-use-forces-they-were-unleashing-ets Note Keith Woodford’s throwaway comment Carbon trading is an artificial market based on a societal goal of climate-change benefits. From a financial perspective, it does not really matter whether the climate-change benefits are real or not. The things that matter are the rules of the game.

    There’s this BBC article which I think is fair though it doesn’t examine the science around rotational tree cropping and CO2 storage (and remember there’s a bit of difference between carbon sequestration and carbon storage - both words are often used interchangeably and often to deliberately confuse) https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200521-planting-trees-doesnt-always-help-with-climate-change The Sierra Club has this article on the difference between carbon sequestration and storage and it says that in a fast rotational forestry situation the long term benefit to storing carbon and therefore mitigating climate change is “minuscule” https://www.sierraclub.org/oregon/carbon-storage-sequestration

    Message Thread: