Whoa, slow there on that net zero

If we assume the Torys pander to “JCs”, the calculation is simple. “JCs” don’t want to be “burdened”. Anything that requires them to get off the golf course, and, worse yet, change anything in their operations, is a “burden”.

Folks on the other side of the house might be more concerned about their spawn’s future.


Totally unburdened.

It’s the proles who don’t want to be burdened.

Strongly/somewhat support     50%
Strongly/somewhat oppose      34%
Don't know                    17%

And from last month in the UK…

‘I’ve knocked on hundreds, literally thousands of doors, and had tens of thousands of conversations with voters… and I just don’t have conversations about climate change.’

So said an anonymous MP, despairing at the British public’s lack of interest in climate change. He was quoted in a 2018 report) by the environmental think-tank, the Green Alliance. The findings were stark. Ten years after the UK had passed the Climate Change Act, which commits the British government to stringent, legally binding decarbonisation targets, there was no sign of any public enthusiasm for climate policy. Politicians across the political spectrum were all in agreement that draconian measures should be taken to mitigate global warming. But they had not brought the electorate along with them. ‘For the overwhelming majority of people’, the report warned, ‘climate change is a non-issue’.

Fast forward five years to today and the public is finally starting to make its voice heard on the climate. Except not in the way our green-leaning establishment had hoped. Rather than clamouring for further climate action, voters are starting to bristle at the burdens of Net Zero.


1 Like

Just ask them how high the temperature needs to be for them to start wanting it to be cooler/colder? Then state: It will take 50+ years to do that. THEN ask: How much would you have to pay to make it cooler?

1 Like

Are they aware of what will happen if they don’t take further climate action? How about the costs and burdens of NOT taking action?

I’m not looking forward to surgery next week. But if I was not aware of the consequences of doing nothing I might decline the surgery. Knowing the consequences of doing nothing makes all the difference.


He was not honest in the least. Where did you get that? There was not the slightest bit of honesty.

He screwed over the UK. ESG has several different profit center opportunities. It is dumb stuff not making money for England. I mean ultra dumb. He is an overblown ejit.

It is like saying XOM costs money but makes money let’s pull out.

Same thing? Absolutely until you add XOM will be replaced by ESG.

XOM has a sort of ESG currently. The laws around the globe support oil drilling. Fund the infrastructures etc…It is not environmentally and socially responsible. But is a host of government stuff.

Who gives a rat’s behind if ESG takes over for XOMG? We will all be better off.

I want a deflationary energy policy.

A good sharp pin should do the trick…

1 Like

I’d be happier with a law against XOM. Along with a profits clawback for screwing the global environment. Talk about betting on a heap of debt when that decision comes down.

Net zero is the goal in many areas of fossil fuel consumption but not all areas of fossil fuel consumption can reach that goal by 2030, 2040 and 2050. But trying is greatly appreciated by the people of the world.

As long as people are realistic about it, it’s a worthwhile goal. My worry is about the zealots with pipe dreams and the power to impose it.

Beware extremists.

The Captain


As Albany has pointed out a number of times, polls show that people support emissions reductions and the like, but they don’t want to pay very much.

An example from New York: in February a poll from Siena College found that 54% would only be willing to pay $20 or less per month (per household) to “adhere to the many components of New York’s climate plan”.



Well then, it’s time to give up all hope.

The solution to the who pays problem was obvious, originally market oriented and Republican and simple: tax carbon fuels on an at first small but then annually increasing % of cost basis rebating the entire amount back equally to all taxpayers, thereby ever more strongly inhibiting use of carbon based energy sources without impoverishing the poor and middle class and allowing decades for the adjustment.

Enraged the rich and fans of muscle cars and scared hell out of the oil companies because, well, it would have worked.

W vs Gore was the election that decided how that came out, and big petrol won, but only just barely.

david fb


You can if you want to. ‘Climate anxiety’ is a thing these days (pre-traumatic stress syndrome?). Personally, I think we’ll muddle through.


1 Like

I’m not sure it will matter much. Europe is already at 20% adoption of BEVs (that’s fully electric cars, not including plug-in hybrids) and that’s before Tesla’s next generation $25K car, substantial imports from China, or self-driving.

I suspect that by 2030, BEV adoption will be so high that finding petrol stations in many European regions will be difficult.

Not 2030, maybe 2035 or 2040. There is no way that 80+% of the vehicles on the road today in [western] Europe will be entirely replaced by 2030. No way*. And I am assuming you mean western Europe here as older ICE cars from western Europe usually find their way east as they age.

* There are nearly 250 million cars on the roads in Europe. If only 200 million are ICE (and the number is higher), then you would need to replace over 25 million cars a year to come anywhere close to switching over to EV over the next 7 years. In reality, only 10 or 11 million are sold each year in Europe and even next year or the year after or the year after that, the majority of those 10-11 million won’t be EV.


I agree. But when one is drowning, one still attempts to swim.


I should elaborate, I suppose. Humanity will muddle through, although I’m not sure our high-falutin civilization will. A smaller population of human beings will move north (or south, as the case may be) to avoid the heat, and they will scrape together a living as best they can. That is assuming we avoid nuclear war and asteroid crashes and things of that ilk. In the meantime we will take small steps that are not so inconvenient as to cramp our style, and we will fail miserably to stop climate change.


Not sure where you are getting the 80+% requirement. Gas stations are already declining in number in Europe.