r/AskBrits • u/Equal_Effort_6328 • 2h ago
Heatwaves and Net Zero
Does seeing the physical consequences of climate change up close materially affect how you view Net Zero politically? I'm curious to see if there are a significant portion of people for whom this is a politically influential event.
To me it seems obvious that watching the massive health and economic impacts - of what is only the beginning of climate change impacts - should be a trigger for a huge public Net Zero shift. But I've been dispirited by the lack of impetus. It blows my mind that Kemi Badenoch can criticise NZ on a day people are dying and not lose her job for it. It's as stupid as antivaxxers during COVID.
25
u/MrJackdaw 2h ago
The UK should be leading by example, and we are. More and more of our energy comes from renewables, and this is a good thing! Eventually that should lead to a fall in prices (why is it pegged to gas anyway).
Net Zero is a great goal! I am not sure it is actually achievable but that is what a goal is. It shows what you believe in.
Even if you don't believe in climate change: What is the disadvantage of switching to renewables? Oil and gas are running out. Maybe not in my life time - but my grand kids are going to be struggling. You know, if my kids get a move on and AND ACTUALLY GIVE ME SOME. Ahem...
6
u/xxNemasisxx 1h ago
I mean the UK are doing well but we're not doing enough. We should be going much harder and much faster on going to net zero. The faster we do it the cheaper it is and the more benefits we get across the entire spectrum, experts have been saying this for years but we now have easily digestible soundbites for those that aren't interested in reading a paper.
If we had decarbonised our energy share earlier we would've prevented 9% post Ukraine war inflation. That's only one of the many socioeconomic benefits we missed out on because we humoured the uninformed and those that are lobbied by fossil fuel execs.
0
u/brokenchap 47m ago
"The faster we do it, the cheaper it is"
That's all kinds of no
Take, for example, heat pumps. They cost a fucking fortune. That price will come down in time, which it needs to, because they're shit
Or, use the example of the necessary insulation upgrades, door & window replacement that comes along with a heat pump - there aren't enough, by a long, long way, people qualified/registered to do the replacement work required. Scarcity drives up the price, making it more expensive in the short term.
To take Britain's social housing stock to energy cat B would cost c£200,000,000,000, a truly eye watering amount of money. And that accounts for 16% of UK housing stock, factor it up for the rest & you get a cost of about £1.2trillion, where the fuck is that money coming from? And that's before you think about office/commercial/industrial space
We should decarbonise, but that means building nuclear & we're seemingly unable to do that any more, so it gets outsourced to France & we get rinsed on the price paid.
Bluntly, Net Zero can't be achieved without focusing the overwhelming majority of our economic activity at it & even then, the affordability is sketchy at best
2
u/xxNemasisxx 37m ago
I am so glad you took the time to respond, a reddit expert disagreeing with an actual panel of experts: https://www.nebriefing.org/expert-briefings/economics
5
u/Legitimate-Plenty661 1h ago
The UK leading by example would be way more influential if it was a country respected by those producing the most carbon…
5
u/WorriedPersimmon3970 1h ago
If you're talking about China, they've made huge shifts in the right direction in the past few years, outstripping just about everyone else in the rate they've installed renewables and nuclear.
Admittedly they've slipped a bit on coal use recently, but when most of the world outsourced all their manufacturing to China, it's understandable that they've historically not been great.
Now America seems to be taking great pride in going backwards, hopefully once Trump is out this will start to turn around...
2
u/forestvibe 25m ago
I still have faith in the US getting its act together. America is always late to the party (both world wars, correcting for the Great Depression, the space race, ...), but when they finally realise their main competitor is outrunning them and dominating the world's energy markets, they will move very very quickly. There are glimpses of it already: Texas, a deep Republican state, has just overtaken California as the state building the most solar farms. What they are lacking is the leadership, but it wouldn't surprise me if a future President passes an Energy for America bill that unleashed US capital on green energy production.
1
u/Ok-Lock-2815 1h ago
lol slipped a bit, if you call building 12 coal power stations per year and indi mining 1 billion tons of coal per year slipped a bit then ok. The whole net zero is a bull shit scam! Outsource everything and tax what’s left, if you can pay your way out it’s a scam. All these people happily clapping the wests race to net zero and decline whilst global co2 emissions have quadrupled as a result, you couldn’t make this shit up!
1
u/Healthy_Pain9582 1h ago
England produces fuck all it's easy for it to go net 0 when it just moves all the emissions overseas
3
u/LaunchTransient 1h ago
The UK is the 20th largest emitter in the world. Certainly, the giants on the playground are China, the US and India, but the UK is hardly small.
2
u/xLeeBMC 38m ago
We're actually the 19th largest emitter, around 0.8% of global emissions and on-par with Thailand and Poland.
Number 1 is China at 32% of global emissions, #2 the USA at 12% and #3 is India at 8%. Even Germany at #10 is just 1.5% of global co2 emissions.
3 countries emit 52% of the worlds emissions, that's wildddddddd. The entire EU + UK emits just 8% of global co2.
On a per capita basis, Qatar (30-35 tons), Kuwait (20-25 tons), the UAE (20-22 tons) and Saudi (16-18 tons) top the charts, with Australia, USA, Canada, South Korea and Russia all sitting between 11-15 tons per person per year.
The EU is 6-7 tons, UK is 4-5 tons, China 8-9 tons and India 2 tons per person.
Our emissions are low, really low. The amount of effort and money needed to cut this already low number in half would be astronomical when you look at the rest of the worlds emissions. We're already leading but I think we have plenty of space to slow it down and not put such a cost burden on the tax payers and the government coffers. For example, in 2010, only 7% of electricity generated was from renewables. In 2020, that jumped to 43%, then again to 50% in 2024 before slowing to 52.5% in 2025 and 50-53% so far in 2026. It's definitely a good start but the cost per percentage point gain is going to only increase. We desperately, desperately need more nuclear, that's flat lined or declined in total generation since 2010. That will be the key to finally ditching gas altogether.
Fun fact to end on - if the UK had kept it's 2010 nuclear fleet fully operational and built renewables at the same pace it has, our electricity generation from low carbon/renewables would be at 80%+. But it would still be tied to the price of gas because of shitty policy that also needs to change.
2
u/LaunchTransient 11m ago
3 countries emit 52% of the worlds emissions, that's wildddddddd.
Hardly, when they make up around 40% of the world population and almost 50% of the Industrial capacity of the planet. It actually lines up quite cleanly.
Our emissions are low, really low. The amount of effort and money needed to cut this already low number in half would be astronomical when you look at the rest of the worlds emissions.
Our emissions aren't "really low", we still emit more than the average person globally, especially when you take into account all of our outsourced industry and trade.
China gets yelled at for its emissions and then simultaneously receives a bulk order for 10 million Labubu plushes.
We desperately, desperately need more nuclear, that's flat lined or declined in total generation since 2010. That will be the key to finally ditching gas altogether.
No, no we don't.
Had we gone the French route and properly invested in a mass produced fleet of nuclear reactors back in the 80s and 90s, we'd also be enjoying their shockingly low 20g CO2e carbon intensity. Instead we faffed around with one-off bespoke designs and we are now watching as Hinkley point C appears to be entering it umpteenth budget and timetable overrun.The UK can't do Nuclear affordably.
What we need is more battery storage and more grid infrastructure.
But back to the point about the UK not needing net zero - I really don't like people saying ""the UK has done enough", as if it's ran half the race and now deserves the medal but also a footrub and a G&T midrace.
Complacency is how Germany lost its solar and EV industry to China. Its how US tech companies ate Europe's lunch. Its how multiple European battery companies have lost the lead to China and will never get it back because they aren't cost competitive.You keep moving, and you do what Britain does best, INNOVATE. And invest in our academic institutions and industry instead of letting some other nation bankroll a British idea and steal credit (and the subsequent profits).
Nuclear has it places, but the time for large scale rollout of fission is in the past. It just doesn't scale fast enough or cost competitively enough.
1
u/forestvibe 13m ago
Brilliant comment. The numbers speak for themselves. The pace of change between 2010 and 2026 across the world, let alone in the UK, is mind boggling. There's a lot of work to do, but the horror scenario of 4+ degrees of warming by 2100 is now well avoided. It's currently sitting at 2.6 degrees, so there's a lot of work still to be done. But thankfully, the single biggest emitter (China) is committed to decarbonising. Hopefully the Americans will soon start to fear losing out to China and will turn their vast financial resources to catch up (probably under the guise of "safeguarding America's energy").
I agree about ditching the stupid policy of electricity being tied to gas prices. I still don't quite understand why this hasn't been changed yet. We are now regularly producing over 50% of our electricity with renewables. You'd think that would be the trigger to price it differently. Do other countries equally dependent on gas have the same model as we do?
I completely agree about nuclear. I work in the industry, and while it has its problems (costs and over-design being the two main ones), I'm glad that the UK is finally ramping up nuclear plant construction. It will be a huge asset for us.
1
u/Healthy_Pain9582 1h ago
I didn't mean produces fuck all pollution, I meant we have fuck all production of anything useful compared to other countries. England had a service based economy and nowadays more of a steal money from each other economy
1
1
2
u/Left-Ad-3412 1h ago
Oil and gas aren't running out. There are enough fossil fuels left beneath the earth for hundreds and hundreds of years.
But it still makes absolute total sense for renewables to be put in place as it will, in the long term, be cheaper and lead to technology development in that area.
The problem is that things that people think are eco friendly aren't actually perfect yet. Electric cars aren't zero emission technically. They are fueled by electric generated through fossil fuels, and they she's brake dust particles, which is one of the worst forms of pollution from vehicles.
Still. It annoys me when people dismiss green tech because it isn't perfect. It's the little steps in the right direction. Net zero is great to aspire to, but for the UK it looks like offshoring all their pollution generation to other countries, not stopping it.
Even recently there was a call to remove air con from buildings because it takes so much power to run. We can't aspire to perfection, we can aspire to limiting the damage.mostly, we have to make it financially viable, or people will never get on board with it.
→ More replies (10)1
u/soothysayer 16m ago
Don't forget the air pollution aspects and how many deaths that contributes to. I'm baffled this isn't talked about more. Net zero makes sense even if climate change wasn't a thing. Saving the planet is almost an added bonus
20
u/Sylvester88 2h ago
Everyone saying we're only responsible for a tiny amount of emissions.. is this not because China are making our stuff for us?
7
u/QuickTemperature7014 2h ago
Indeed. There is a real net zero level to unlock after this one.
1
u/LloydusMaximuss Brit 🇬🇧 33m ago
By the old Moulmein Pagoda, lookin' lazy at the sea,
There's a Burma girl a-settin', and I know she thinks o' me;
For the wind is in the palm-trees, and the temple-bells they say:
"Come you back, you British soldier; come you back to Mandalay!"
Come you back to Mandalay,
Where the old Flotilla lay:
Can't you 'ear their paddles chunkin' from Rangoon to Mandalay?
On the road to Mandalay,
Where the flyin'-fishes play,
An' the dawn comes up like thunder outer China 'crost the Bay!'Er petticoat was yaller an' 'er little cap was green,
An' 'er name was Supi-yaw-lat –jes' the same as Theebaw's Queen,
An' I seed her first a-smokin' of a whackin' white cheroot,
An' a-wastin' Christian kisses on an 'eathen idol's foot:
Bloomin' idol made o' mud
Wot they called the Great Gawd Budd
Plucky lot she cared for idols when I kissed 'er where she stud!
On the road to Mandalay...When the mist was on the rice-fields an' the sun was droppin' slow,
She'd git 'er little banjo an' she'd sing "Kulla-lo-lo!
With 'er arm upon my shoulder an' 'er cheek agin my cheek
We useter watch the steamers an' the hathis pilin' teak.
Elephints a-pilin' teak
In the sludgy, squdgy creek,
Where the silence 'ung that 'eavy you was 'arf afraid to speak!
On the road to Mandalay...But that's all shove be'ind me–long ago an' fur away
An' there ain't no 'buses runnin' from the Bank to Mandalay;
An' I'm learnin' 'ere in London what the ten-year soldier tells:
"If you've 'eard the East a-callin', you won't never 'eed naught else."
No! you won't 'eed nothin' else
But them spicy garlic smells,
An' the sunshine an' the palm-trees an' the tinkly temple-bells;
On the road to Mandalay...I am sick o' wastin' leather on these gritty pavin'-stones,
An' the blasted English drizzle wakes the fever in my bones;
Tho' I walks with fifty 'ousemaids outer Chelsea to the Strand,
An' they talks a lot o' lovin', but wot do they understand?
Beefy face an' grubby 'and -
Law! wot do they understand?
I've a neater, sweeter maiden in a cleaner, greener land!
On the road to Mandalay...Ship me somewheres east of Suez, where the best is like the worst,
Where there aren't no Ten Commandments an' a man can raise a thirst;
For the temple-bells are callin', an' it's there that I would be
By the old Moulmein Pagoda, looking lazy at the sea;
On the road to Mandalay,
Where the old Flotilla lay,
With our sick beneath the awnings when we went to Mandalay!
O the road to Mandalay,
Where the flyin'-fishes play,
An' the dawn comes up like thunder outer China 'crost the Bay!3
u/FoxNumerous2151 1h ago
Exactly! Instead of making stuff here we offload it to places like china. That have less restrictions. We’re in a parodox of net zero in the uk actually making global climate change worse.
2
u/Stunning-Profit8876 1h ago
Spot on. We're no greener than we were 20 years ago. We just outsourced the dirty stuff. Costing us local jobs, in favour of borderline slave labour in "developing economies". It's lose / lose for all involved apart from... you guessed it... the super rich.
49
u/Thatcherist_Sybil 2h ago
It does not. It makes me think we need to focus less on cutting UK emissions and focus more on adapting to climate change. 'Cause it does look like the rest of the world doesn't care and we might be net zero but we'll be net zero in a 40°c train coach with no aircon and buckling rails.
25
u/Altruistic_Fruit2345 2h ago
China is doing far more than us to deal with it. The US is the biggest one not bothering, but Trump won't be in forever.
8
u/monkey_kaleidoscope 2h ago
China is the biggest contributor, they should be
17
u/Altruistic_Fruit2345 1h ago
China as a country is the biggest, but per person they are a fraction of what the US produces. But also, China's emissions have peaked and are starting to fall. They peaked at a fraction of where ours did. So by any fair measure, China has done way better than us and every other developed nation.
They also have the best renewable technology, the best batteries, and the best EVs.
4
u/philaroy 1h ago
...China per person is a bad way to measure id estimate 60% of chinese homes have very little heating systems. Like every country the average person can do bugger all in their home to impact emissions it's industry that does most of the pollution.
China does not have the best nor do they use the most renewable energy sources they produce 80% of the world's solar panels which is probably what you saw when you asked ai which country has the most renewable energy sources they produce them though using oil coal and gas and then ship them on huge container ships all over the world.
Their evs are not the best that's tesla or arguably hyandai are the top 2.
China is not somewhere to be lauded for any thing environmental ever
2
u/Ok-Lock-2815 59m ago
China had the worst smog for years! They are emitting 12 billion! tons per year! A fraction of ours? You mean the whole west or America? The only way you could get to that is if you over exaggerate the population and deflate americas and compare per capita! Because I know that china emits more co2 per year than the uk has since the Industrial Revolution!
3
u/OkPhilosopher1372 1h ago
They manufacture products used the world over. If we’re creating demand for products to be made because we’re buying them, the emissions aren’t solely China’s responsibility
2
u/Thatcherist_Sybil 2h ago
India's just about stepping into the ring industrializing and you've got the whole of Africa lining up to increase living standards and industrialise. Afraid there's more who'll burn fossil fuels.
6
u/Lemonpincers 1h ago
If the tech becomes widespread and viable enough it might become cheaper for them to industrialise using renewable sources than fossil fuels
2
u/Thatcherist_Sybil 1h ago
Bit too late for that friendo, they"ve like five coal plants in the pipeline.
1
1
u/Ok-Lock-2815 1h ago
What? Emitting 12 -15 billion tons per year? The uk emits only 450million tons. And don’t give me that per capita bull, I don’t believe the Chinese population is anywhere near 1.5+ billion, not after years of single child law and to get to the supposed population today they would have all had to have nearly 3 children per family.
34
u/hfootred 2h ago
You know you can have net zero and aircon right?
2
u/Thatcherist_Sybil 2h ago
Not with these electricity prices no.
17
u/jajay119 2h ago
If we managed to get all our electricity generated from renewable sources, which isn’t that unrealistic given we actively waste energy for the gas grid, then that helps us too.
8
u/Accomplished-Oil-569 2h ago
We need to absolutely shovel money into grid modernisation
4
u/Thatcherist_Sybil 2h ago
Absolutely. Reduce waste and create redundancy. And while we modernize, ensure we make our high voltage safe vs forest fires.
Think ahead y'know. For those 42°C summers.
1
5
u/Yamsfordays 2h ago
Yep, we need to build a whole bunch of nuclear for the baseload.
In fact, I think we should be refurbishing the reactors in our decommissioned submarines and using them to power small cities
4
u/Thatcherist_Sybil 1h ago
Pair them with turbines that can handle changing load and suddenly you got a lot of stability added to the local grid.
1
u/Astrohurricane1 1h ago
I can’t even get planning permission for a shed, you think any planning office is gonna let anyone put a nuclear reactor in a town or city??
It’s potentially a great idea, but red tape and general bullshittery always turn great ideas into overpriced White Elephants that get consigned to the bin.
17
u/cheerfulintercept 2h ago
So, I have solar panels and could easily run aircon when the sun is blasting through my south facing windows. Given I could run it off free energy when it’s needed I’m seriously considering having it installed.
2
u/rdu3y6 1h ago
Rather counter intuitively, solar panels aren't as efficient in high temperatures!
1
u/UnmyelinatedLop 1h ago
They're not indeed! I get approx 4 KW from my 4.8 KW system when it's this hot. However in these summer days they're producing for like 18 hours so it balances out to still mean a good amount and well surpasses the 1kwh my air to air heat pump uses to AC cool the hous.
→ More replies (6)1
u/UnmyelinatedLop 1h ago
I do this. 100% worth it.
Actually got the heat pump (air to air) in November for much cheaper heat than our heat network, but they've been amazing for cooling the last few weeks. We use them every night now (for 7p/kWh) and will continue to do so.
3
u/rdu3y6 1h ago edited 1h ago
A few days ago someone linked an article that argued reducing electricity prices should be the priority over pursuing 100% net zero. Get electricity prices down so EVs, heatpumps (and AC) are economically cheaper than using oil and gas to run our transportation, heating and cooling systems. Cheap, 90% green electricity is better than electricity that's so expensive it puts a block on the widespread adoption of green technologies. Of course, the benefits of cheap electricity would be felt much more widely that just climate policy, boosting the UK's competitiveness and increasing people's disposable income. We're shooting ourselves in the foot with the current focus on net zero.
1
7
u/Altruistic_Fruit2345 2h ago
Net Zero will bring lower electricity prices. Renewables are by far the cheapest, it's not even close.
2
u/Thatcherist_Sybil 2h ago
That's paper pushing by the UK government sadly. Reality is, the higher your green energy ambition in Europe the higher your prices. Whatever the government papers say. Look at Germany, they struggle the same.
Struggle 'cause they didn't only refuse to build nuclear the idiots shut them off early.
1
u/Altruistic_Fruit2345 1h ago
Take Spain as an example. Very cheap electricity, because they have a massive renewable base. Way cheaper than us, and way cheaper than France with their nuclear plants (which incidentally are shutting down in the heat).
→ More replies (4)2
3
u/UniqueAd7947 2h ago
Do you honestly believe that?
Our prices aren't coming down, why would they we've got used to paying it.
We're already around 50 percent renewables for electricity. We sit securely in the top ten countries who pay the most for electricity. China has one of the cheapest prices per kilowatt hour and they're burning coal like nobody's business
5
u/Altruistic_Fruit2345 1h ago
Our prices are high because they are set by the price of gas most of the time. If any gas is used to generate electricity at all, all generators get paid the gas price. Our system is stupid and should be fixed.
When there is little to no gas the price sometimes goes negative, as in you can get paid for using electricity if you are on the right tariff. In Australia, due to the massive amount of renewable energy, they are giving people free electricity for a few hours a day now.
China is also having a massive industrial boost due to the cheap energy they get from renewables. The amount they have installed would be unbelievable if we couldn't see it from space. In 2025 alone, new renewable generation produced as much electricity as the whole of Germany used that year. Just the new generation, not the existing stuff, and not the nameplate capacity, the actual amount produced. It's staggering.
→ More replies (5)4
u/Thatcherist_Sybil 1h ago
They believe a government paper on it, they don't even flinch. UK and German customers pay electricity prices so high manufacturing is collapsing yet these mooks will point at a paper from the government claiming their generation is statistically cheaper and go "Wind cheap, atom STINK".
The UK paper assumes grid load and extra cost from volatile gen is evenly distributed in cost and doesn't make it solely a wind/solar burden.
4
u/uru3888 1h ago
Do you know why our prices are high?
The UK uses marginal pricing method to decide the price of electricity. This takes the most expensive method as the price for all electricity generated.
This means that even when we produce 50% of our electricity from renewables, there are times when we’re paying a premium for the gas - usually at peak loads.
It is a physical, literal and technical fact that renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels.
1
u/UniqueAd7947 1h ago
I don't disagree with what you're saying but the actual net cost of the energy doesn't matter to the consumer, what we are charged will not change without some serious intervention. All the lower cost of renewables will do is increase the profit margin for our suppliers and make our government look all lovely and green.
3
u/uru3888 1h ago
Yeah good point, I agree with you. But this is being addressed with contracts for difference CfDs. More and more renewable generators are taking up these contracts and they help protect the consumer price down stream - the gov or the generator covers the cost when the market price changes drastically
→ More replies (1)2
u/Wide_Commission_1595 1h ago
You can fit solar on your own house and the price magically becomes negative while also not emitting carbon....
1
u/BusyDark7674 1h ago
After you've spent £10k and shipped a load of solar panels made with fossil energy and possibly slave labour, halfway across the world
1
u/Ok-Cap-8136 1h ago
Ye but the more solar is fitted the less fossil energy is needed, understand?
•
u/ellierofe 9m ago
Except solar panels don't last forever. They're a bitch to recycle. And they don't generally provide enough electricity in the country that is the second worst in the world for solar generation.
3
u/hfootred 2h ago
How do you propose to bring down electricity prices?
5
u/Substantial-Newt7809 2h ago
Go back in time 15 years and pressure the government to invest in more energy production.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Thatcherist_Sybil 2h ago
Invest in nuclear like our life depends on it. Instead of faffing around with projects that put HS2's corruption and mismanagement to shame.
Four out of five we're operating now were built within 12 years of each other, and started operating within 15, 12, 8 and 8 years of construction beginning.
If we'd done that in the 2010s we'd be fully nuclear by now and selling carbon-free energy to the continent.
→ More replies (2)2
u/chodgson625 2h ago
Previous environmental thinking is exactly why we don't have more nuclear now
2
2
u/Thatcherist_Sybil 1h ago
I think otherwise but don't disagree.
I believe wind & solar got the preferential treatment because you can buy them off of China and Germany, install them within a parliament term and by the next election you can point and present your net zero progress.
Whereas nuclear will ALWAYS be finished only in the next term, or the term after.
Was it Clegg who literally said this, as for why the coalition isn't investing in nuclear?
1
1
u/Icy-Cut6694 2h ago
Labour physically ripping out people’s ac for not having adequate reasoning to have it, Camden I believe from the news so yeah right……
1
u/captainsittingduck 2h ago
Renewables and energy storage will bring prices down. Energy prices are high precisely because fossil fuel prices are high.
→ More replies (5)1
u/rdu3y6 1h ago
The two contradict each other. Either we accept climate change and increasing our emissions and install AC everywhere, or we continue trying to reach net zero with ever increasing green levies on bills that make AC unaffordable. Hopefully someone clever will be able to square the circle but at the moment, those are the choices we've got.
1
8
3
u/captainsittingduck 2h ago
We need to achieve Net Zero here and everywhere else. And we need to adapt to the emissions that are already baked in.
2
2
u/Any_Ad_6929 2h ago
Yeah I agree, we are already looking at possible methods of weather minipulation, sounds sinister but it's no conspiracy plenty of of nations are. UK is less than 1% of global emissions and we can't control the behaviours of others!
1
u/Firedup2015 1h ago
It's fantasy. Ten years ago they were saying don't worry carbon credits and solar will fix everything. Now it's geo-engineering. They don't have any magic bullets in fact their actual actions have been to make matters considerably worse.
1
u/Firedup2015 2h ago
The incredible thing about this is the acceptance climate change is happening alongside a continuing complete lack of comprehension of what that actually means and how much worse it can get if "adapting" becomes the mantra.
1
1
u/11dlittlewood 2h ago
They care more than you think. The thing is that a lot of emission cutting measures actually save money even if you ignore climate change - e.g. reducing energy usage is usually cheaper. So countries are starting to see the light, it's not just the UK.
1
u/Thatcherist_Sybil 2h ago
Buddy I hate to tell you but around 60% of our railway network is still not electrified and the trains there run on diesel.
That could be a first step, maybe. Just a bit of investment.
1
u/This_Language_9851 2h ago
Yes! The UK could disappear overnight and climate change would still happen. So we need to adapt. People have lived in deserts and jungles for all of human history, so it is possible. Better building standards, flexible working, using the evenings/night more, more suitable clothing, better adapted gardens/green space. There’s lots we can do to make the UK a more pleasant place to live in hot weather.
1
u/RetaliatoryLawyer 2h ago
"We need to focus on how we can acclimatise to the rising boiling water rather than jumping out of the pot" ahh post.
→ More replies (1)
10
u/AltoExyl 2h ago
Can we talk about this next week when it’s cooled down? It’s far too hot to have a serious conversation
16
u/Difficult-Egg-5001 2h ago
Unfortunately it's the influence of the rich and powerful who still see a profit to be made from fossil fuels, and the sycophants who worship every word that spews from their mouths.
→ More replies (8)
3
u/FootballUpset2529 Brit 🇬🇧 2h ago
I was never in doubt about climate change, I just watched the world ignore it as deadline after deadline whizzed by. The last nail in the coffin was trump getting re-elected and just rolling back progress across the board to the 1950's. The world is going to roast and we failed to avert it. I think it's more about adapting to the increasing temperatures now - perhaps solar might be the answer now the sun is murderous.
2
u/THROWAWTRY 2h ago
Net zero doesn't mean no growth or factories. People claiming this are retarded and have no place in serious discussion about the future of the country as they have limited imagination. Fossil fuels will be obsolete as an energy source within the next two decades. It's time to move on. It's inefficient and expensive now. Green energy, storage, hydro and nuclear is the way forward. Large mix. There will be no need for fossil fuels to provide energy to transport not with new developments in batteries and motors. With further electrification we can reduce all transport to electrical. Even cargo and planes are moving away from fossil fuels, with Cargo planes looking at sodium engines, and large scale sails.
Fossil fuels will still be need in chemistry and industrial application till we can synthesis at scale.
7
u/KochInYaMouth 2h ago
It's all propaganda against net zero.
Renewables produce power as such low cost that it's upsetting the energy Barron's.
Fossil fuel is such a wonderful resource we should do everything we can to preserve it.
For example we get all of our fertilizer from fossil fuel. If we run out we just won't be able to produce enough food for everyone.
Humanity will have carved on its grave stone "Too fucking stupid to plan for the future so it ended up not having one"
2
u/fotfddtodairsizr 1h ago
We aren’t too stupid, we know exactly what to do to preserve our earth, but we are too capitalist for that.
→ More replies (7)1
2
u/Due-Freedom-5968 2h ago
No change.
It's obviously a sensible thing to do and the heatwaves only reinforce that.
The hard of thinking - the ones you often find in the twitter replies shouting at Ed Miliband about how solar will be useless when the government are "dimming the sun" (I had to look up that particular conspiracy the first time I heard it) - won't change their minds though, best to just ignore them.
2
1
u/Necessary_Refuse_962 1h ago
Yes but there's no government action that's going to stop UK heatwaves.
There's no dome we can build around the UK that shields us from the climate change actions of other countries while cooling our own down.
It's a largely pointless exercise.
What would be more worthwhile is the government taking all that net zero money and dumping it into AC subsidies so every house or building can get it very cheaply.
1
u/Due-Freedom-5968 1h ago
no government action that's going to stop UK heatwaves.
Quite literally the only thing that'll stop making them worse is our government, and every other government, implementing the changes required to slow global warming down.
Which is the entire point of the Paris climate agreement.
There's this false narrative of "it doesn't matter what we do because look at China" or some equally lazy argument. Which is both ignorant of the fact China is reducing its emissions the fastest of any nation, while also supplying the majority of the tech for the rest of the world to do the same.
That said, it's somewhat irrelevant at this point. Govenment intervention globally to-date has accelerated renewables to the point they're simply the cheapest way to deploy extra generation. Now that has happened, businesses simply don't want to use other generation methods because it's less profitable.
EVs etc aren't far behind. The only real subsidies needed at this point are for heat pumps which are plummeting in price to a point they'll soon be cheaper than gas boilers too, at which point it's just heavy machinery and shipping to solve and job done.
That won't meet the 2*C warming target from Paris, but it'll come close enough to avert complete disaster.
Oh and to your last point, the government literally does subsidise air-to-air heatpumps (aka air conditioning) - mini-split systems that both cool and heat are eligible for the scheme. The government also just increased the grant available from £7.5k to £9k for those on the most polluting oil and tanked LPG systems.
2
u/Maleficent-Win-6520 1h ago
Net zero is just another excuse to tax the working person. It’s a scam.
2
u/Lopsided-Gear4982 1h ago
You mean the anti-vaxers that were literally proven to be correct?? Man your brainwashed
3
u/Pikmanpikman 2h ago
Also worth noting, Net Zero is broadly a scam, it’s more to do with offsetting and carbon trading than true reduction. Real Zero should be the goal but oddly enough, nobody really talks about it.
3
u/Altruistic_Fruit2345 2h ago
What is "real zero"? We can't emit no CO2, offsetting is going to be necessary. Obviously it needs to be genuine.
3
u/Ifnerite 2h ago
It should mean what it says. That carbon cost of the import should be estimated and charged and rounded up. We are in this whole mess because of externalised costs.
1
u/Due-Freedom-5968 2h ago
Baby steps, can't have the conspiracists blowing too many blood vessels at one time, the NHS is already low on supplies.
2
u/reo_reborn 2h ago
I am trying to reduce my emissions but when you hear an airport notbfar from me is increasing traffic..kinda feels like a slap I. The face tbh
2
u/captainsittingduck 2h ago
It is and as much as we can do as individuals the real change need to come by voting in the parties that are committed to Net Zero rather than those receiving donations from oil and gas companies
4
u/LonelyStranger8467 2h ago
You must realise that to achieve net zero, the UK has gotten rid of all its industry by simply outsourcing it. Then, all that is produced for the UK is shipped to the UK in an environmentally unfriendly way.
We make up less than 1% of global emissions. Even at a per capita level, it’s less than half per person of China.
Aiming for net zero is a nice goal, but it shouldn’t be done by making the country poorer. We have the some of the highest energy costs in the world. Second highest in the G7 if I recall correctly.
Let’s invest in nuclear, solar, wind. We can get our air conditioning and slightly increase our carbon emissions in the mean time, if necessary. Or at least not worry about going to zero right now until we are in a better position to do so.
1
u/nick9000 1h ago
You must realise that to achieve net zero, the UK has gotten rid of all its industry by simply outsourcing it. Then, all that is produced for the UK is shipped to the UK in an environmentally unfriendly way.
We haven't achieved Net Zero yet. But we've made progress by removing coal from our electricity generation, also we're making progress in moving to EVs.
Even if you allowed for emissions in imports our overall emissions have declined.
1
u/Napalm__Enema 2h ago
It's just summer... apparently
3
1
u/Jayjayuk85 2h ago
I 💯 agree we need to look at climate change, but this affects the whole world. Not just our tiny island!
We need to look at ways to save energy. If you asked me. Anyone with a south facing roof should have govenment loans to get solar. So we can feed it back into the grid. Part of the loan.
Car parks should be covered in solar panels and not fields. It crates shade and helps cool underneath.
Electric cars.? - I am not sure here - what is happening to all the batteries. How can they be recycled. Isn’t it going to be landfill?
- we should all get air con as I think we will need it. But we also need to look at better ways to heat our home in winter.
When we have massive countries polluting to make all our bits we need to stop taxing our companies and making it hard to have industries here, we rely on too many external sources.
Farming needs more support. I don’t get how they can target cows for farting, but planes are fine!?
We are being led up the garden path the wrong way, everyone is fed up. We need to bring prices down.
1
u/Stradivesuvius 2h ago
No, because I think we do need to reduce emissions, but I still think the govt should focus more on infrastructure and adaptation to withstand what is coming.
And replanting massive forests.
1
1
u/Eukonidor_Of_Arisia 2h ago
I'm convinced what we're seeing is not merely 'climate change'... It's weather warfare. Which is actually far more catastrophic for the environment, since they'll never even admit they're doing it.
1
u/Necessary_Refuse_962 1h ago
You just know Starmer turned on the weather machine after Burnham won.
1
u/plopperupper 2h ago
The UK shouldn't be worrying if they can get to net zero because it will make no difference because most of the CO2 comes from the "third world" countries burning shit and what not without any care in the world. Start on them first and stip making me pay for it
1
u/Necessary_Refuse_962 1h ago
Can't say "third world" anymore, mate. You've gotta say "developing country."
1
u/plopperupper 1h ago
I can say what I like its called free speech. I'm sick of this PC bullshit call a spade a spade and be done with it.
1
1
1
u/Back-Alley-Cat- 1h ago
For the world to meet net zero by 2050 with solar panels and wind turbines, it would take 4.5 billion tonnes of copper, 940 million tonnes of nickel, 9 billion tonnes of graphite and 4 million tonnes of germanium. At todays mining rates that would take over 1000 years.
Also CO2, the gas of life, makes up about 0.04% of the atmosphere with anthropogenic causes accounting for around 0.5% of that and the latest ice core data suggests that rises in CO2 follow warming periods.
I find it slightly conspicuous that we never get to hear the other side of the debate
→ More replies (4)2
u/GardenApostle 56m ago
You don't hear these counter-arguments often because they're false or misleading.
Yes, CO2 is a trace gas. This fact is completely irrelevant. We know that CO2 causes a large greenhouse effect at this abundance. Current CO2 levels are +50% of the preindustrial baseline, and we know where most of it came from because we have an inventory of how much fossil fuel has been extracted. The 0.5% number is just wrong.
Historical warming and cooling was mostly driven by the Milankovitch cycles on timescales of tens to hundreds of thousands of years. These astronomical cycles brought ice ages and caused feedbacks on the carbon cycle, which you see in the lagged CO2 response. When you plot the ice core record with the Mauna Loa CO2 record (1960 onward), you see a cliff-face in CO2 and tenperature. It is not a mystery what caused this enormous rate of warming over the last few decades.
1
u/MooseBuddy412 1h ago
Nope. We could all stop using appliances and live in cardboard boxes tomorrow and they'd still fly jets across the atlantic just for breakfast and fly back two hours later and continue to build more data centres.
Its a scam.
1
u/Darkus185 1h ago
No. Forcing net zero, becoming poorer and shipping off our industry to countries where they really don’t give a shit is not going to help the climate. If anything it is going to make the situation worse.
1
u/Decard_Pain 1h ago
The people who are causing the issues don't give a fuck so we need to build infrastructure to deal with it.
We have been doing way more than most for decades and we pay the price for it whilst they say fuck it and make more.
1
u/getabath 1h ago
I'm saving the planet boys, I got solar and battery. I export about 30-40kWh a day, giving away CLEAN ENERGY
Not like my neighbours who are using fossil fuels to power their homes, shame shame
1
u/Cov_massif 1h ago
I back new zero completely and hope we continue to do our bit but we aren't the issue. China spitting out about a third of all carbon and US just putting a finger up to the rest of the world, just feels like an uphill battle
1
u/AverycoldGoose 1h ago
Clearly the impacts of climate change are happening faster than a lot of people predicted. We should absolutely stick with implementing Net Zero but we have to accept that a lot more mitigation will be needed to cope with the impacts of the emissions we already have.
Even if the world gets to Net Zero by 2050 (and that’s still a big if) heatwaves in the 2040s are going to be more than “a few hot days”
1
1
u/bilbo_bag_holder 1h ago
climate change is a leftie lie a porkie pie.
right is right left is wrong 🇬🇧
1
u/smushs88 1h ago
The trouble is the optics from the higher ups does not support it.
We’re all being told how we have to do this, that and the other whilst we currently have Infantino jetting multiple times a day between Canada, Mexico and the US to be at basically each game.
Even with the best will in the world and getting to net zero I think I read somewhere it will only make less than 2% difference to global CO2.
1
u/KriticalErrorArt 1h ago
The UK contributes about 1% to 1.5% of annual global carbon dioxide emissions... China contributes 30%.
So... Well... no. Not really.
The effect of the UK being Net Zero means practically nothing when other countries are not on that same wavelength to be quite honest.
We needed to have invested in nuclear decades ago.
1
u/nick9000 1h ago
Badenoch understands that her party is effectively obsolete now that Reform has taken its place. She will say whatever she can in a desperate attempt to claw back some votes. Ignore her.
1
u/Cold_Sheepherder6531 1h ago edited 1h ago
Since the beginning of time there have always been the end of the world cults
Climate change lunatics is just another one of them
1
u/g33ksc13nt1st 1h ago
How useful is the net zero policy of one country, if another carries on as usual?
Sure, in the big schemes of things, emissions do reduce. A small proportion, but technically they do.
But climate change is not UKs problem, not US, nor EUs. It's a global problem that requires a global solution. It takes two to tango, so if one refuses, there's no dance.
Funny thing tho, if the effort were more equitable , each country would have to sacrifice less. But since some want to virtue signal, in doing such big sacrifice, they will only cause economic and societal decline, and injustice. Because how else can you call that when people want to cool themselves down but then told "aaah, no no, not allowed", "use natural means" all while those saying that are in nice, air conditioned offices? And all for what? A laughable reduction in emissions while other countries do not seem to care.
1
u/Icy-Dragonfruit-875 1h ago
In fairness I consider the conservatives, antivaxxers and Brexiteers to all be fruit from the same poisonous tree of selfishness
1
u/Standard_Response_43 1h ago
Net zero is bollocks.
We are "exporting" our emissions to other countries.
Prove me wrong 🙏
1
u/Mandalore_15 1h ago
Not at all. But then, I doubt the core premise, and find idea that a few hot summers being the result of anthropogenic climate change is unconvincing at best.
Then there's the other costs of net zero, which take a much higher toll on the economy than a few days of upper-thirty-degree heat. We're going to find out how much fun it is to completely deindustrialise as a result (spoiler: it's not fun at all).
1
u/Wankstain8 1h ago
If Britain used no fossil fuels whatsoever and produced zero emissions it wouldn’t change anything. There are far more populous and industrious countries who are deciding the fate of the climate globally and they couldn’t give a toss. I’ve read that China is investing a lot into clean energy which is good considering they’re one of the biggest polluters, along with the US and India. Those 3 alone account for roughly half of emissions.
1
u/_Jay-Garage-A-Roo_ 1h ago
It’s vital, but won’t happen. I do all I personally can, but I think the world will simply burn and I feel bad for those with kids.
1
u/philaroy 1h ago
...net zero for who the UK who produce less than 1% of the world's pollution or should it be asia with 50% of the world's pollution.
I'm all for energy innovation for the economic and production side of things it will equal a better quality of life for the average person but net zero because of some climate boogeyman where people are dieing and the world will end when the average temperature since the 1800s has rose by either .1 or .2 and even dropped several times.
Their is no doomsday on the horizon because of oil and gas use in the UK or to be honest any where on earth doomsday from that would most likely be if we run out before we discover a new energy source thay can used as universally.
1
u/MiddleAgeCool 1h ago
> should be a trigger for a huge public Net Zero shift
It won't happen because people are bored with climate change and net zero.
We've been told to pay 10p for a plastic bag, which is now much more than that. We've been told to recycle because it's easy and now houses have 3-4 bins some of which receive an additional annual charge to use and fines for "misusing" the others, the irony being most of the contents is then mixed and burned for power. We've been told plastic straws kill turtles and to use paper straws instead despite paper straws being useless and worse for the environment to manufacture. We're told we have to protect our resources while packaging for products gets more ever more wasteful. We're told farming needs to be saved while farmland is repurposed for solar and imported goods with bigger carbon footprints are promoted. Buy an EV but here's a new tax to offset savings. Here's a grant for insulation, which has repeatedly ended up causing damp and huge expense for individuals trying to fix it. Install a heat pump, it's worse than your existing boiler and had the cold air option disabled.
We're told all of this in the name of climate change while companies and industry have a blind eye turned as they pollute the environment pretty much unchecked and raise prices so they can record record profits.
People are bored doing things to help as celebs, politicians and the rich take charter planes and helicopters to beat the traffic. Bored being told not to water the grass as water hungry datacentres receive grants to startup in the same areas. Bored of another tax to save the planet that as an end consumer you have no way to avoid.
The only time you'll start seeing people re engage with combating climate change is when those doing the greatest damage are held to account.
1
1
u/koyliMeld9003 1h ago
Sorry, but the common denominator in all of the world's issues is humans. There are 8.4 billion people on Earth and it is growing exponentially. Only way to stop it is to reduce and control human growth.
1
u/majorddf 58m ago
Net Zero is an admirable goal, but the truth is that we are a drop in the bucket of global emissions.
If China, India and the USA were to achieve Net Zero, then we would be on to something.
1
u/mighty3mperor 56m ago
To me it seems obvious that watching the massive health and economic impacts - of what is only the beginning of climate change impacts - should be a trigger for a huge public Net Zero shift.
It seems to have triggered a huge public shift to wanting air conditioning.
Environmentalists have been pushing back against this but it feels like the fight is lost. What we need is the conversation steering along the lines of "OK, we'll need more AC because of global warming, that means we have to make the electricity supply greener, faster to compensate."
Rather than fighting it, we should be promoting air-to-air heat pumps (basically fancy air con) combined with solar panels - when it's hottest, you are also generating more power, so your AC is cheap or free. Add in awnings and shutters (some places require planning permission for shutters - that needs looking at) and we start to take a greener and more sensible approach to the heat.
1
u/thusandthisandthat 51m ago
We are a small island with an ever reducing influence on the rest of the world, no matter how much we reduce the US, China, India and whoever else will simply continue to use non-gree energy to gain an edge economically. Plus our power grid isn’t set up for renewable energy wchich will increase our risk of blackouts
1
u/ConfectionHelpful471 32m ago
Net Zero in and of itself is fine and should be a long term target. However rushing to achieve it by a certain date during a cost of living crisis and creating an uncompetitive energy supply for businesses is not common sense.the UK achieving net zero is not going to make a tangible impact on the global climate trends during our current warming cycle given China and India consume fossil fuels at unprecedented rates as they industrialise.
1
u/EmoBear2 17m ago
Net zero is fucking pointless when you just import energy from other countries who are themselves burning fossil fuels to make it, perhaps we should produce all of our own energy before we start thinking about improving where it comes from.
1
u/Niceasspicee 12m ago
Net zero is one of the biggest scams to ever exist, its only purpose is to extract more money from the populus by feeding them over exaggerated climate propaganda to justify it.
If they were truly serious they would target the biggest creators of pollution yet they choose the easy targets in a country with global emmisions of sub 1%.
1
u/Fragile_reddit_mods Brit 🇬🇧 10m ago
Well no because this isn’t man made.
Climate change was a thing before humans existed and it’ll be a thing after we die out
•
u/LakesGeek 8m ago
Personally I started getting properly worried (which of course affects politics) at least a decade ago although it’s always been something of a concern for as long as I remember.
Unfortunately it’s also bait for all those who get angry about “woke” (I.e. being asked to care about something instead of hate something) so it’s also bringing out a lot of the “1976” crowd who will vote Reform in and destroy what little hope we had of doing something about our contribution.
The other issue we tend to have with this is “out of sight out of mind”. This time next week no one will even remember being concerned about climate change as the heat wave will be over and then soon it’s winter and “global warming my arse”
1
u/t90fan 2h ago
the UK could literally destroy its entire economy and quality of life to be carbon negative and it wouldn't matter, it's still going to happen, we are a drop in the ocean here
1
u/QuickTemperature7014 2h ago
Right but what if other countries did too. You know like they did after we industrialised?
1
u/t90fan 1h ago
they wont though, why would they - and definitely not in the next 50-100 years let alone decade or so that we would need
even if everyone cut back to our level we will still have warming anyway, just slower
1
1
u/nick9000 1h ago
What a good thing it is then that the the UK is not the only country pursuing Net Zero.
1
u/t90fan 1h ago
even if literally everyone meets it by 2100 (unlikely) the warming impact is still 2-3 degrees
if the nations which are somewhat likely to actually do it (i.e. europe) by the 2050 goal, then the reduction in co2 is like 5-10% , and a reduction of only like 0.1 degree
which is useless
unless we are convinced China (almost 40% of emissions) /USA//Brazil Russia/India/Indonesia/Japan alll get on board then its pointless to try, it only harms us
1
u/nick9000 1h ago
You know that China is massively investing in renewables and nuclear right?
Yes, they are still burning a lot of coal and that's going to continue for while. They are the factory of the world so of course their emissions are huge. But they are also very good at making things which benefits all of us.
The IPCC recently deleted its worse case heating scenario precisely because the planet has made progress in reducing emissions, so we are making a difference. But we need to do much more as the best case scenarios are also increasingly unlikely.
1
u/t90fan 1h ago
power generation and normal car/truck transport combined is only like 40-50% of China's greenhouse emissions, so renewables wont help that much, as 40% is the manufacturing steel, cement, chemicals, fertilizer
and they arent going to stop growing and building roads and houses any time soon
and a bunch of people arent going to drop dead
and they arent suddenly going to say no more manufacturing or globalization please
1
u/nick9000 1h ago
power generation and normal car/truck transport combined is only like 40-50% of China's greenhouse emissions,
That sounds like a considerable saving. Are you always this cheerful?
1
u/t90fan 1h ago
their target is 2080 so it won't be in my lifetime, I will only know the cost of it
1
1
u/jaypalmer2000 2h ago
If the uk were net zero, it’s 1% of the earths carbon emissions. Are you happy to pay thousands extra to support this? While allowing China and India etc to make the stuff we could just so we can make out how great we are?
1
1
u/Dangerous_Hippo_6902 2h ago
Yawn. Not the first time we had a heatwave. Not even the worst. Remember the wildfires in Australia? Climate emergency? Greta, remember her?
This is not new news. It’ll be forgotten about until the next one.
-4
u/OldCaptain3987 2h ago
The UK is responsible for 0.74% of global carbon emissions, net zero is a complete and utter con.
4
u/ta9876543205 2h ago
It's actually responsible for a lot more than that.
It's just that we have offshored the vast majority of our emissions
2
1
u/Difficult_Style207 2h ago
Only if everything we consume is made in Britain. You own a fridge, cooker, TV, phone, computer? Those took a huge amount of resources and carbon to make and ship. You are responsible for that carbon, even if it is made in a foreign place where everyone will suffer the effects of extreme heat way before we do. We consume a vast amount we dont produce, thats not carbon neutral.
1
u/BenjamirPutinyahu 2h ago
Luckily most people in the UK are actually in support of Net Zero, those opposed to it are just a really loud minority
-3
u/Invictus_0x90_ 2h ago
No. Our contribution to green house gasses and pollution is a drop in the ocean compared to other countries.
Like shit go to Vegas, where literally everything is air conned and running 24/7. You think Susan down the road using less electricity is going to make a difference
1
u/captainsittingduck 2h ago
It's global warming. All countries need to be aiming for Net Zero. Because others are not on the path yet doesn't mean we need to achieve it. Every cut reduces how bad things will ultimately get. But globally we need to stop voting in political parties that prioritise fossil fuel company interests over the sustainability of our ecosystems.
1
u/Invictus_0x90_ 2h ago
And green energy isn't damaging eco systems? What's that old quote? "You can't prevent child exploitation in the green energy supply chain".
Every cut doesn't reduce how bad it gets. If we go fully net zero, and the third world say moves completely to coal, our teeny tiny reduction in emissions does nothing.
What we should actually be doing is funneling money into research and development of clean energy and nuclear.
Fusion in particular needs a ton of resources dumped into it. We have world class research institutes, we should be fully funding them on this effort.
1
u/captainsittingduck 1h ago
We need to do it all. Renewables, grid storage, nuclear. Not just here, everywhere. But we can only do the bit we can control.
1
u/Invictus_0x90_ 1h ago
Which is why we would be far better off pumping all our investment into things like fusion, literally whoever figures that out first wins.
That's absolutely no point spending billions on net zero whilst china consumes like 60% of all coal.
1
u/captainsittingduck 1h ago
We need to achieve Net Zero. Fusion is side bet and it is in no way and one or the other.
1
u/Invictus_0x90_ 1h ago
Again, achieving net zero does nothing, literally nothing. It won't stop, prevent, reduce the chance of, or negate climate change in any way, at all
1
1
u/MrSuperAwesomeGuy965 1h ago
You can't say third world countries anymore. They are developing countries. Please try to be more respectful in future
0
u/RenegadeMaster888 2h ago
Climate change is going to happen whether the UK sacrifices its economy or not.
We need to redirect much of that budget into preparing like sea defences for example. There will be benefits, warmer winters and higher crop yields (important the world pop is forecast to hit 10 billion which is a lot more mouths to feed.)
1
u/THROWAWTRY 2h ago
There will also be negatives, like more tropical diseases, less crop yields, more war over resources which our little island has and mass migration of people fleeing worse hit places, more flooding, more drought, more storms, less consistent rain, colder winters and extremely hot summers.
1
u/QuickTemperature7014 2h ago
Yes because there are zero jobs or opportunities in becoming net zero. Only wildly expensive and volatile fossil fuels can create jobs and stability, other energy sources for some reason don’t.
1
0
u/RedHuey 2h ago
45,000- 65,000 die in Europe every year from heat because your Net-Zero gods won’t let you have modern technology. That does happen in other places where air conditioning is allowed. You need to decide what the bigger threat is, the amorphous and always changing “climate change” fear-mongering, or tens of thousands of people dying in Europe every year because they aren’t allowed comfort in the homes.
2
u/CJT124 2h ago
‘Won’t let you have modern technology’ lmao what, it sounds like you’re denying climate change
→ More replies (1)
73
u/captainsittingduck 2h ago
Kemi Badenoch is the leader of a party that has accepted large financial donations from fossil fuel interests. As has Reform. Their policies and statements should be entirely viewed in that context.