I saw a video this week of an Australian cabinet minister trying, unsuccessfully, to disguise the fact she has no idea what net zero means. She's hardly the only one, so let's help the transition army: what does net zero mean, in layman's terms? All definitions welcome, not just the ironic ones.
That works for offsets in general but for a broad net 0 to work it has to mean you (or pay someone to) sequester an amount of CO2 that is removed from the atmosphere equal to what you emit.
If everyone needs to reach net 0 there is no room for anything less rigorous than this.
No carbon created net of inputs and outputs. However, this begs the question: does it matter what anyone does to be "net zero" if the largest users of energy combined, China and India, don't do likewise. If not, aren't we emptying the sea with a teaspoon? I smell political control.
When I heard that CO2 has been declared a harmful chemical by I forget who I had a quick chat with my daughter, aged 11,just to check she remembered what trees and other plants eat. She was a bit shocked by the declaration.
Let's close the factories, stop manufacturing, halt anything on planet earth that causes CO2 emissions. I think net zero can be achieved if you think of it this way.
Yes and people will surely want to return to slaughtering vast numbers of whales for valuable oils, make the greatest candles. Good lubricants too. And sea turtle shells are an excellent substitute for oil based plastics. They're natural. And I hear gorilla meat is very tasty, especially if you are starving.
Net Zero, Carbon Credits, Carbon Trading are just more Financialization of Carbon Speculation Frauds like their previous one called Cap & Trade which did zip to reduce emissions but made $billions for grifters like Al Gore. In fact before their institution after the Kyoto Accords in 1997, emissions increased from 1.5%/yr for the previous 24 yrs to 2.2%/yr for the subsequent 19 yrs, including the depression that began in 2007. A total failure. Just another wealth transfer of $trillions from the poor & middle class to the uber-rich. Government guaranteed profiteering.
If they REALLY cared about emissions (hint: they don't), they would institute the Revenue Neutral Carbon Fee & Dividend advocated by the most honest, uncorrupted climate scientist, Jim Hansen. The CF&D penalizes the energy hog rich and rewards the energy frugal middle class & poor while eliminating preferential subsidies, mandates and exemptions given to the political favorites wind & solar. They are favorites because they cost $trillions but do zip to reduce fossil consumption, apart from causing energy poverty --> reduced emissions.
After over $4 trillion spent worldwide on wind & solar, combustion fuels remain @ 90% of World Primary energy, unchanged before that massive rampup done in the past 10yrs. The ESG scam artists tout efficiency but totally ignore that wind & solar are the epitome of an inefficient electricity supply. They ignore all the huge energy inefficiency losses that intermittent wind/solar cause i.e.: Curtailment? No. Overbuild? No. Cycling Inefficiencies? No. Economic forcing of low efficiency diesel & OCGT instead of high efficiency supercritical coal, CCGT & hydro? No. Long distance 3-10X oversized transmission? No. Extremely low EROI (energy return on invested). No. High materials inputs, >20X nuclear/gas/coal? No. Vast losses of productive land, >300X nuclear/gas/coal. No. Huge waste recycling energy cost? No. Creating 2 grids which must run in parallel? No. Vast embodied energy in battery storage. No. 70% energy losses of hydrogen backup/storage. No. And yet these same Grifters get paid huge credits for "Energy Efficiency" projects. What a Scam.
It's through buying credits from these giant industrial wind and solar, bird munching, Eco-destructive installations that Apple, Microsoft, Amazon & Google/Alphabet have achieved the top 5 on the ESG top 500 list. Like one unit of solar energy is a direct replacement for one unit of coal energy. It's all nonsense. This marketing of wind & solar credits shows an almost total lack of understanding of grid architecture. They have NEGATIVE environmental value. That's right they actually increase grid emissions. And Tesla (since Musk is not a good Neoliberal stooge) is not on the ESG top 500 list but Exxon is at #8. ESG is Scam Central.
If we turn the whole Pacific into a natural rainforest to sequester carbon …. We still won’t compensate for all the carbon still emitted. Only large scale direct sequestration from the atmosphere might do that….not holding my breath
Net zero means businesses finance wind/solar farms in Texas so they can spew their carbon emissions in their home state and still claim carbon net neutrality. This also has the side benefit of not degrading their own electric grid while Texas’ grid becomes fragile because of over-reliance on renewables. No kidding . . . that’s net zero in a nutshell.
Yes, and that's the big advantage of having a climate change accounting system that is all based on paper carbon. They get to claim that one unit of wind or solar built anywhere replaces one unit of coal energy. Which is utter nonsense. In fact the Bentek study showed emissions INCREASED after wind power was expanded in Colorado and Texas. In other words in ACTUAL FACT the wind farms should be earning a Carbon DEFICIT, not a credit.
Is it not obvious what is happening in front, around us. I have tried on many occasions to self doubt my own conclusions, but time and time again there are specific actions and proofs taken by governments, politicians, MSM, technology platform companies & executives, pharma companies & executives, billionaires, corporations, etct etc which confirm that my initial thinking was in fact true. Their actions validate what I fear most, what I question to be true, what and how I self assess my own rationality and instincts...
I often say I hate to be right because I tend to be right about the bad things. I do hate it but it's always better to be prepared than surprised by bad things.
Net Zero by 2040 means by then they'll have gotten rid of anyone who is not a zero in all public positions. they will all be complete zeros. it will be a glorious time.
Net Zero is a control mechanism. Don't forget that we humans also emit carbon dioxide, so does net zero mean eliminating people? I do not ask this question ironically.
I have also asked this question in all seriousness: if the loudest worriers about the planet are indeed so worried, why not reduce the burden by taking themselves out of the existence equation? The sad truth is that we may very well see exactly this sort of thing happening thanks to climate anxiety.
Net Zero is a means to grade green energy advocacy using a arithmetic calculation. On a range of a scale from -5 to +5 grade each of the following criteria. Training, education, experience, logic, credibility, verifiable data and finally, results. Add the scores together and the net is zero.
No idea, but I know that the Carbon credit markets will be as corrupt as the ethanol RINS markets and that the carbon credits bought and sold will actually be worth Zero.
"Put simply, net zero means cutting greenhouse gas emissions to as close to zero as possible, with any remaining emissions re-absorbed from the atmosphere, by oceans and forests for instance."
That's a sales pitch. In actual fact, Net Zero is a Bankster organized carbon accounting system which as all Banksters just love, in the form of a ledger of debits and credits. With opportunity for financial wizards to make profits buying and selling on each side of the ledger. Casino Capitalism at its finest. That was already tried with the old Cap & Trade scam which ran after the Kyoto Accords in 1997 and was a total failure except to make scam artists like Al Gore billionaires.
The important point here is what the ledger actually uses are paper carbon credits. Which uses gross oversimplifications of what are complex analysis. Like pretending 1MWh of Solar power generated displaces 1MWh of Coal power. Sorry the grid doesn't work that way. Or 1 hectare of forest protected from logging saves all those trees from carbon release. Not even remotely close to correct.
Sep 10, 2022·edited Sep 10, 2022Liked by Irina Slav
This is the key statement:
" The energy sector is the source of around three-quarters of greenhouse gas emissions today and holds the key to averting the worst effects of climate change. Replacing polluting coal, gas and oil-fired power with energy from RENEWABLE SOURCES, such as wind or solar, would dramatically reduce carbon emissions"
By "such as wind or solar" they really mean "by wind & solar". Notice no mention of the only low carbon energy source ACTUALLY capable of replacing fossil fuel, namely Nuclear Energy. These idiots have no clue of how the electric grid or our energy supply works. Promoting a fantasy that can only result in total economic collapse. A cynic would say that is the REAL GOAL. Malthusian Banksters and their Club-of-Rome religion. Poverty stricken people are easier to control.
I'm imagining Net-Zero is when all of the climate alarmists stop exhaling, and hence, stop the emission of their CO2 into the atmosphere. A bonus might be fewer "record heat waves" across the planet with less hot air from them. Now back to our regularly scheduled "crisis"......
Let us make it "ZERO BREATH" and everyone stop breathing! I heard that they are going to have a wearable sensor that can measure and monitor your CO2 emission from your breath and will be stored in the cloud with AI/machine learning analyzing the breathing. You will get a text message to tell you that your quota of CO2 emission is over for the day and you need to stop breathing for the rest of the day! This would be a great idea for silicon valley start-up! I will not be surprise if I see one!
The balance of CO2 between what is emitted and what is reabsorbed ie by trees oceans etc. is zero The atmospheric reading of CO2 should stay at the same level.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but NetZero 2050 is moronic.
It is "deep decarbonization". That is the 'Mariana Trench' of usual decarbonization, which has been underway, unsuccessfully, for 40 years. The decarbonization result over 40 years is truly Net Zero.
NetZero 2050 is having no energy for long periods of time. It means billions of deaths.
NetZero 2050 will replace hydrocarbon fuels with 'green H2', as the stated goal. A little math shows that that part of NetZero 2050, is NetNegative.
And, these results are the positive side of NetZero 2050.
Hey Irina, All the varied discussion on this topic, I think, is an indication that nobody knows, or at least it will be difficult to come up with a definition that we all agree with.
I'm concerned about the plethora of major financial institutions which are on-board with this Net Zero agenda which is designed to control the populace and resources in a Technocracy.
There are many examples. Here is one...
"The industry-led, UN-convened Net-Zero Banking Alliance brings together a global group of banks, currently representing about 40% of global banking assets"
it means negating the emissions by reducing them, or using other methods. By the way, NPE Technology, managed to do just that, it makes any flue gas from any industrial chimney reach Net Zero from day one. It also completely neutralises the flue gas pollutants. The problem is NPE Technology made this great discovery, and solved the CO2 issue, but governments, multinational companies, and other entities involved in decarbonisation, are not interested. On the one hand we are living this climate emergency, on the other we have the solution that can reverse climate change and we are not taken into consideration. We have 4 global certifications by independent 3rd party companies to support what we claim. It is very difficult to understand why fossil fuel industry is not interested in solving its issue, save the planet and continue earning their fat profits. Ultimately, they are the reason why we are in this situation, profit is the factor stopping them doing the right thing, but this technology would allow them to keep earning, so I am really lost for answers. Today in the Guardian there was even an article talking about deniers and the fact people don't want to accept the situation we are in.
If you are curious about NPE Technology, here is the video of the technology, btw it also has the benefit of extra clean energy. A no brainer in this period of energy crisis.
Net zero means that CO2 emissions from a certain activity becomes equal to zero through the investment in green projects completely unrelated to the activity, or through the purchase of carbon credits, even though the underlying supply chain and life cycle carbon emitted by said activity has a substantial carbon footprint. It’s kind of like putting all the CO2 from that activity in a net… so it becomes zero.
The way I understood it from the beginning back in the Clinton/Gore years:
Net zero is absolving your carbon-producing sins by purchasing a form of indulgences, which can be carbon credits, planting trees, donations to an approved charity or political cause, etc.
Back then it often involved giving money to China which they would theoretically use to help them displace carbon-intensive activities with less carbon-intensive ones.
We spend a lot of money to make our air good and it goes to China, and then we get their bad air so we have to spend even more money to clean it up--Herschel Walker US Senate candidate
Net zero means no carbon is emitted from the start which is absurd.
It does not mean that.
The net part, as I understand it, means you do emit but you eliminate or avoid emitting an amount equal to the one you emit.
That works for offsets in general but for a broad net 0 to work it has to mean you (or pay someone to) sequester an amount of CO2 that is removed from the atmosphere equal to what you emit.
If everyone needs to reach net 0 there is no room for anything less rigorous than this.
No carbon created net of inputs and outputs. However, this begs the question: does it matter what anyone does to be "net zero" if the largest users of energy combined, China and India, don't do likewise. If not, aren't we emptying the sea with a teaspoon? I smell political control.
U.S. and Russia are big users, too, but I see your point and I agree.
carbon = life, net zero does not exist. We can reduce, but net zero is not possible. Goes back to enthalpy; google it...
When I heard that CO2 has been declared a harmful chemical by I forget who I had a quick chat with my daughter, aged 11,just to check she remembered what trees and other plants eat. She was a bit shocked by the declaration.
Let's close the factories, stop manufacturing, halt anything on planet earth that causes CO2 emissions. I think net zero can be achieved if you think of it this way.
Let's! Back to nature and see who survives. It's fair.
Really? Think of all of the carbon pollution if 8 billion people are foraging for and burning wood to cook and stay warm!
Yes and people will surely want to return to slaughtering vast numbers of whales for valuable oils, make the greatest candles. Good lubricants too. And sea turtle shells are an excellent substitute for oil based plastics. They're natural. And I hear gorilla meat is very tasty, especially if you are starving.
Well, there will be less than 8 billion before long, so that might help, I guess.
Net Zero, Carbon Credits, Carbon Trading are just more Financialization of Carbon Speculation Frauds like their previous one called Cap & Trade which did zip to reduce emissions but made $billions for grifters like Al Gore. In fact before their institution after the Kyoto Accords in 1997, emissions increased from 1.5%/yr for the previous 24 yrs to 2.2%/yr for the subsequent 19 yrs, including the depression that began in 2007. A total failure. Just another wealth transfer of $trillions from the poor & middle class to the uber-rich. Government guaranteed profiteering.
If they REALLY cared about emissions (hint: they don't), they would institute the Revenue Neutral Carbon Fee & Dividend advocated by the most honest, uncorrupted climate scientist, Jim Hansen. The CF&D penalizes the energy hog rich and rewards the energy frugal middle class & poor while eliminating preferential subsidies, mandates and exemptions given to the political favorites wind & solar. They are favorites because they cost $trillions but do zip to reduce fossil consumption, apart from causing energy poverty --> reduced emissions.
After over $4 trillion spent worldwide on wind & solar, combustion fuels remain @ 90% of World Primary energy, unchanged before that massive rampup done in the past 10yrs. The ESG scam artists tout efficiency but totally ignore that wind & solar are the epitome of an inefficient electricity supply. They ignore all the huge energy inefficiency losses that intermittent wind/solar cause i.e.: Curtailment? No. Overbuild? No. Cycling Inefficiencies? No. Economic forcing of low efficiency diesel & OCGT instead of high efficiency supercritical coal, CCGT & hydro? No. Long distance 3-10X oversized transmission? No. Extremely low EROI (energy return on invested). No. High materials inputs, >20X nuclear/gas/coal? No. Vast losses of productive land, >300X nuclear/gas/coal. No. Huge waste recycling energy cost? No. Creating 2 grids which must run in parallel? No. Vast embodied energy in battery storage. No. 70% energy losses of hydrogen backup/storage. No. And yet these same Grifters get paid huge credits for "Energy Efficiency" projects. What a Scam.
It's through buying credits from these giant industrial wind and solar, bird munching, Eco-destructive installations that Apple, Microsoft, Amazon & Google/Alphabet have achieved the top 5 on the ESG top 500 list. Like one unit of solar energy is a direct replacement for one unit of coal energy. It's all nonsense. This marketing of wind & solar credits shows an almost total lack of understanding of grid architecture. They have NEGATIVE environmental value. That's right they actually increase grid emissions. And Tesla (since Musk is not a good Neoliberal stooge) is not on the ESG top 500 list but Exxon is at #8. ESG is Scam Central.
Mass formation psychosis. Note not a psychologist but do understand psy-ops.
Similar to lamb being led to the slaughter house.
The Nazis employed this very effectively.
We learned a lot from the Nazis, I think. I wish I didn't have to say this.
If we turn the whole Pacific into a natural rainforest to sequester carbon …. We still won’t compensate for all the carbon still emitted. Only large scale direct sequestration from the atmosphere might do that….not holding my breath
It is something you would list as a goal to better your chances at receiving financing.
You're more cynical than me at this particular moment. Love this definition!
Net zero means businesses finance wind/solar farms in Texas so they can spew their carbon emissions in their home state and still claim carbon net neutrality. This also has the side benefit of not degrading their own electric grid while Texas’ grid becomes fragile because of over-reliance on renewables. No kidding . . . that’s net zero in a nutshell.
And they can mock Texas for not having a reliable grid when hey get a chance, right?
Absolutely! That’s what they like the most about the whole deal!
Yes, and that's the big advantage of having a climate change accounting system that is all based on paper carbon. They get to claim that one unit of wind or solar built anywhere replaces one unit of coal energy. Which is utter nonsense. In fact the Bentek study showed emissions INCREASED after wind power was expanded in Colorado and Texas. In other words in ACTUAL FACT the wind farms should be earning a Carbon DEFICIT, not a credit.
Spending an inordinate amount of time and effort to cast blindly about while obtaining nothing of value.
Money, too. Because CCS is so expensive.
Is it not obvious what is happening in front, around us. I have tried on many occasions to self doubt my own conclusions, but time and time again there are specific actions and proofs taken by governments, politicians, MSM, technology platform companies & executives, pharma companies & executives, billionaires, corporations, etct etc which confirm that my initial thinking was in fact true. Their actions validate what I fear most, what I question to be true, what and how I self assess my own rationality and instincts...
I often say I hate to be right because I tend to be right about the bad things. I do hate it but it's always better to be prepared than surprised by bad things.
Net Zero by 2040 means by then they'll have gotten rid of anyone who is not a zero in all public positions. they will all be complete zeros. it will be a glorious time.
Brilliant! :D
https://netzeroclimate.org/what-is-net-zero
It's a fantasy.
Thanks for the source.
Its a plot to poison our precious bodily fluids.
Net Zero is a control mechanism. Don't forget that we humans also emit carbon dioxide, so does net zero mean eliminating people? I do not ask this question ironically.
I have also asked this question in all seriousness: if the loudest worriers about the planet are indeed so worried, why not reduce the burden by taking themselves out of the existence equation? The sad truth is that we may very well see exactly this sort of thing happening thanks to climate anxiety.
It is 100% about control. The same people scheming for control, created the climate anxiety.
Net Zero is a means to grade green energy advocacy using a arithmetic calculation. On a range of a scale from -5 to +5 grade each of the following criteria. Training, education, experience, logic, credibility, verifiable data and finally, results. Add the scores together and the net is zero.
JJW
Uptake by biota and oceans is in balance with emissions. A lot of comments on this thread ironic comments, on par with mood in the world.
No idea, but I know that the Carbon credit markets will be as corrupt as the ethanol RINS markets and that the carbon credits bought and sold will actually be worth Zero.
When a politician says "net zero" in a non-critical way, it means they are an idiot.
👍 Thank you friend!
From the UN Net Zero Coalition:
"Put simply, net zero means cutting greenhouse gas emissions to as close to zero as possible, with any remaining emissions re-absorbed from the atmosphere, by oceans and forests for instance."
That's a sales pitch. In actual fact, Net Zero is a Bankster organized carbon accounting system which as all Banksters just love, in the form of a ledger of debits and credits. With opportunity for financial wizards to make profits buying and selling on each side of the ledger. Casino Capitalism at its finest. That was already tried with the old Cap & Trade scam which ran after the Kyoto Accords in 1997 and was a total failure except to make scam artists like Al Gore billionaires.
The important point here is what the ledger actually uses are paper carbon credits. Which uses gross oversimplifications of what are complex analysis. Like pretending 1MWh of Solar power generated displaces 1MWh of Coal power. Sorry the grid doesn't work that way. Or 1 hectare of forest protected from logging saves all those trees from carbon release. Not even remotely close to correct.
Um, this confusing, and it is not net. Thank you, UN Net Zero Coalition, for making things clearer.
As David Ben-Gurion used to say about the UN, pronounced "Oom" in Hebrew when it was constantly excoriating (It's never stopped, BTW) "Oom-Schmoom" See e.g., https://www.epsilontheory.com/the-industrially-necessary-doctor-tedros/
Here is the UN source link.
https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/net-zero-coalition
This is the key statement:
" The energy sector is the source of around three-quarters of greenhouse gas emissions today and holds the key to averting the worst effects of climate change. Replacing polluting coal, gas and oil-fired power with energy from RENEWABLE SOURCES, such as wind or solar, would dramatically reduce carbon emissions"
By "such as wind or solar" they really mean "by wind & solar". Notice no mention of the only low carbon energy source ACTUALLY capable of replacing fossil fuel, namely Nuclear Energy. These idiots have no clue of how the electric grid or our energy supply works. Promoting a fantasy that can only result in total economic collapse. A cynic would say that is the REAL GOAL. Malthusian Banksters and their Club-of-Rome religion. Poverty stricken people are easier to control.
I'm imagining Net-Zero is when all of the climate alarmists stop exhaling, and hence, stop the emission of their CO2 into the atmosphere. A bonus might be fewer "record heat waves" across the planet with less hot air from them. Now back to our regularly scheduled "crisis"......
Let us make it "ZERO BREATH" and everyone stop breathing! I heard that they are going to have a wearable sensor that can measure and monitor your CO2 emission from your breath and will be stored in the cloud with AI/machine learning analyzing the breathing. You will get a text message to tell you that your quota of CO2 emission is over for the day and you need to stop breathing for the rest of the day! This would be a great idea for silicon valley start-up! I will not be surprise if I see one!
This sounds too much like a Black Mirror episode for comfort.
The balance of CO2 between what is emitted and what is reabsorbed ie by trees oceans etc. is zero The atmospheric reading of CO2 should stay at the same level.
.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but NetZero 2050 is moronic.
It is "deep decarbonization". That is the 'Mariana Trench' of usual decarbonization, which has been underway, unsuccessfully, for 40 years. The decarbonization result over 40 years is truly Net Zero.
NetZero 2050 is having no energy for long periods of time. It means billions of deaths.
NetZero 2050 will replace hydrocarbon fuels with 'green H2', as the stated goal. A little math shows that that part of NetZero 2050, is NetNegative.
And, these results are the positive side of NetZero 2050.
Hey Irina, All the varied discussion on this topic, I think, is an indication that nobody knows, or at least it will be difficult to come up with a definition that we all agree with.
Actually, jokes and criticism aside, I see quite a few people who are sceptical of the whole thing at least know what it means.
Net Zero is as high as Fatih Birol can count.
BUMP
Just wondering if you had a link to that minister. I do get amused by our pollies and its especially terrible now with the "teals"
Yep! Here it is:
https://twitter.com/BernieSpofforth/status/1567844676979367936
A huge net that can't actually hold anything.
Because it's made up almost completely of holes.
I'm concerned about the plethora of major financial institutions which are on-board with this Net Zero agenda which is designed to control the populace and resources in a Technocracy.
There are many examples. Here is one...
"The industry-led, UN-convened Net-Zero Banking Alliance brings together a global group of banks, currently representing about 40% of global banking assets"
https://www.unepfi.org/net-zero-banking/
Well, control is like air to banks, of course they'll be on board. For us, it should be concerning, no doubt about it.
it means negating the emissions by reducing them, or using other methods. By the way, NPE Technology, managed to do just that, it makes any flue gas from any industrial chimney reach Net Zero from day one. It also completely neutralises the flue gas pollutants. The problem is NPE Technology made this great discovery, and solved the CO2 issue, but governments, multinational companies, and other entities involved in decarbonisation, are not interested. On the one hand we are living this climate emergency, on the other we have the solution that can reverse climate change and we are not taken into consideration. We have 4 global certifications by independent 3rd party companies to support what we claim. It is very difficult to understand why fossil fuel industry is not interested in solving its issue, save the planet and continue earning their fat profits. Ultimately, they are the reason why we are in this situation, profit is the factor stopping them doing the right thing, but this technology would allow them to keep earning, so I am really lost for answers. Today in the Guardian there was even an article talking about deniers and the fact people don't want to accept the situation we are in.
If you are curious about NPE Technology, here is the video of the technology, btw it also has the benefit of extra clean energy. A no brainer in this period of energy crisis.
NPE Technolgoy Video 1
https://youtu.be/tqMmKRCaU9o
NPE TEchnology Video 2 - waste
https://youtu.be/BOBKblzRCWA
Net zero means that CO2 emissions from a certain activity becomes equal to zero through the investment in green projects completely unrelated to the activity, or through the purchase of carbon credits, even though the underlying supply chain and life cycle carbon emitted by said activity has a substantial carbon footprint. It’s kind of like putting all the CO2 from that activity in a net… so it becomes zero.
It's when a hockey net is empty.
"Net zero" is double-speak for "Give us the money or you're a racist, misogynist, homophobic, Islamophobic, transphobic climate denier."
I so wish this wasn't a valid definition.
"Net zero" means regressing to the 1700s (at least) and the re-introduction of slavery in the Western nations.
Net Zero: A circular argument shaped like a zero signifying nothing.
Let us make it "NUT ZERO"!
What a good idea!
The way I understood it from the beginning back in the Clinton/Gore years:
Net zero is absolving your carbon-producing sins by purchasing a form of indulgences, which can be carbon credits, planting trees, donations to an approved charity or political cause, etc.
Back then it often involved giving money to China which they would theoretically use to help them displace carbon-intensive activities with less carbon-intensive ones.
With this memory you're a dangerous man. We're not supposed to remember that far back.
Thanks for that. That is no less than the Foreign Minister Penny Wong and is a hero of the woke circles.
We spend a lot of money to make our air good and it goes to China, and then we get their bad air so we have to spend even more money to clean it up--Herschel Walker US Senate candidate
Hi Irina, A little belated perhaps on this topic, but I came across this on net zero which seems to put it in perspective:
https://unherd.com/2022/09/the-great-net-zero-lie/
Thank you, Ross. This seems to be an increasingly popular perspective. Certainly food for thought.