Except they aren’t at least not in my groups and from the comments I have seen regarding green issues on Reddit
> How the net zero sceptics’ medieval arguments
This seems an odd metaphor.
The medieval period was obviously well before the industrial revolution.
As such, from an environmental aspect, the medieval period probably has many things in common with the modern net-zero concept.
May be better to refer to net zero sceptics as having “industrial” arguments, rather than “medieval”.
Probably over-thinking this.
Going to switch to weaker coffees for the rest of the day to compensate.
This is the time to be honest.
Every household absolutely needs to be energy self sustained. That means make use of solar and battery storage. We need way more wind farms and also come up with a way to store any excess on a industrial scale.
Water leaks need to be fixed and maintained, but also we must look at how land is used not just for us but for everything else we share the land with.
We absolutely need to invest way more in charging ports for cars, make public transport more interconnected, accessible and reliable so that it becomes a viable means for all to use.
Call me idealistic but those are just a few steps that could be taken to help with climate change and more
>That is why we need to deliver net zero emissions and why over 90 per cent of the global economy is committed to doing just that. Like so much of the thinking that originates from the libertarian right, the idea we can delay or abandon the net zero transition is failing to survive contact with reality.
So why are emissions still so insanely high in the US, China, India, Russia, Germany, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Indonesia and South Korea?
If these 10 countries contribute over 90% of global Co2 emissions, there is no way you can tell me that 90 per cent of the global economy is interested in doing anything other than making a quick and dirty profit.
4 comments
Except they aren’t at least not in my groups and from the comments I have seen regarding green issues on Reddit
> How the net zero sceptics’ medieval arguments
This seems an odd metaphor.
The medieval period was obviously well before the industrial revolution.
As such, from an environmental aspect, the medieval period probably has many things in common with the modern net-zero concept.
May be better to refer to net zero sceptics as having “industrial” arguments, rather than “medieval”.
Probably over-thinking this.
Going to switch to weaker coffees for the rest of the day to compensate.
This is the time to be honest.
Every household absolutely needs to be energy self sustained. That means make use of solar and battery storage. We need way more wind farms and also come up with a way to store any excess on a industrial scale.
Water leaks need to be fixed and maintained, but also we must look at how land is used not just for us but for everything else we share the land with.
We absolutely need to invest way more in charging ports for cars, make public transport more interconnected, accessible and reliable so that it becomes a viable means for all to use.
Call me idealistic but those are just a few steps that could be taken to help with climate change and more
>That is why we need to deliver net zero emissions and why over 90 per cent of the global economy is committed to doing just that. Like so much of the thinking that originates from the libertarian right, the idea we can delay or abandon the net zero transition is failing to survive contact with reality.
So why are emissions still so insanely high in the US, China, India, Russia, Germany, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Indonesia and South Korea?
If these 10 countries contribute over 90% of global Co2 emissions, there is no way you can tell me that 90 per cent of the global economy is interested in doing anything other than making a quick and dirty profit.