Monday, 1 May 2023

THE NOT SO BRIGHT FUTURE OF NET ZERO

It is amazing how the government continually pts out the idea that we will somehow achieve net zero by 2050 with just a few minor tweaks of our current lifestyle. That all we need to do is recycle a bit more and cut back a little on flying and driving. Below is a link to a report produced by a serious body which is given £5 million of government funding. 

This report seems to be letting the cat out of the bag when it says:  The future of construction should be based on stone, earth and timber, along with components “reused and repurposed” from demolition. Recycled steel, cement and bricks can be used, although this will be “constrained” – rationed might be a better word. In the Brecon Beacons, a new college called Black Mountains (BMC) is promoting its new climate breakdown university degree. One short course offered by this seat of learning is ‘Composting Toilets‘.    

"No Bricks, No Glass, No Cement" – What Net Zero 2050 Demands According to Government-Funded Report – The Daily Sceptic

This is surely suicidal for any democratically elected government to bring in. Once demand for construction materials is rationed in this way the economy will shrink and millions would become unemployed. People will surely vote out any government which brought these measures in, and yet so far there is no opposition party with any hope of forming a government which is offering to repeal the disastrous net zero policy.

7 comments:

  1. Science is very clear that we will destroy ourselves with continued use of fossil fuels. That is the very definition of addiction. FF has a positive side and yet a very strong negative side. FF can be replaced with renewable energy. In which renewable energy in large enough quantities can generate its own backup storage for low production times due to its intermittent nature.

    FOllowing the fear mongering of the anti net zero society only slows society down from the transition to zero dirt energy and a society of all clean energy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What I would like to know is this - do you accept that getting to net zero means we have to give up all the things mentioned in the article, or do you think it can be done without?

    ReplyDelete
  3. You can reduce the size of the RE system by energy efficiency. Electric motors are a natural for being way more efficient than FF driven engines. BYD from China has come out with $12,000 BEV with a range of around 160 miles. CATL has come out with a sodium ion battery that is much cheaper, lighter, than the lithium ion batteries. The clean energy way of life is getting cheaper to afford for those with less income. Sweden has come up with making steel with hydrogen that meets the needs of manufacturing. Overproduction of RE can then meet the needs of cement, bricks and glass, if it can manufacture steel.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I fear you are being over-optimistic. I foresee a future of high prices and rationing if we rush to abandon the fuels that have brought us the wealth and luxury we have become used to. In fact it is already starting to happen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More GHGs, more misery passed on to our future generations. Can't be any clearer. Fossil fuels are a drag on our health in society. THat's very clear in all the studies coming in. RE plus storage with well thought design wins the day.

      Delete
  5. Tell that to the Chinese and Indians and all the other developing nations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Burning coal brings on birth defects, asthma, premature death, adds to GHGs in the atmosphere. RE brings down health care costs, hires people, brings energy security to nearly every nation on earth. Less reasons to go to war.

      Delete

Climate Science welcomes your views/messages.