Tbh I find the “net zero” approach problematic on so many levels that I hesitated posting this article. But due to the fact that this is an analysis of the press that had a span of almost 15 years of this topic, it seemed like worth posting.

Apart from that, personally I agree with you (if I got you right) that privatisation of the energy sector in the UK , or any sector I can think of actually, is to the detriment of all living beings and the environment as a whole. Still I don’t mind researches that talk about other relevant things, even if I consider them less important, for example. Meaning, looking at one thing, doesn’t mean not looking to another.

I suppose, this is quite debatable, because the current money system does waste a whole lot of energy, It’s just not calculated how much. Honestly, if you have have links showing how much energy the banking system consumes globally, please share.

On the other hand, bitcoin’s blockchain is a decentralised and transparent system. This is not something that the banking system can claim.

Archived link of the article

Take a look at the links I shared above. You might find them interesting.

Edit: @dumnezero to answer your question, the key words would be phasing out fossil fuels, and this could not take place in a week. So the answer is no.

Third, we need new ways to remove (…) carbon dioxide from the atmosphere each year, and store it safely in the ground.

No, we don’t. Fossil fuel companies do.

• Reactionary Decarbonization | On Carbon Capture and Techno-Utopianism
• How the role of carbon storage has been hugely overestimated | Carbon Brief

Industrial manufacturing is declining in Europe for sure, but not because of complying to climate policies, as you claimed. Industrial production is falling in most European Union countries, largely due to a lack of competitiveness with China and the US.

Also, the article you linked about the EU loosing manufacturing jobs does not back your claim. On the contrary it says: The move to a sustainable economy is an opportunity to turn the situation around. Towards the end, it also mentions that the EU should make sure that industry jobs are not lost and that Europe’s industrial sectors and their workers are fundamental to delivering the climate solutions Europe needs, which are very different things to what you said.

The leading countries in addressing climate change appear to have prioritized their efforts at the expense of industrial growth,

Personaly, I would be glad if this were the case. Honestly, I wonder how you came to this conclusion

Archived link of the article

Carbon dioxide from Google’s power plant will be injected into the same geological storage formations already used by ADM’s ethanol facility. The site is the location of the first long-term CO2 storage well in the U.S.

Typically, around 2,000 metric tons of CO2 are sent into the well every day. But injections there were halted in 2024 when salty brine, which stores dissolved CO2 deep underground, was found to have migrated into “unauthorized zones,” according to the EPA. ADM said the leak was the result of corrosion at a monitoring well, E&E News reported, and they’ve since resumed injections.

A recent study of 13 CCS facilities representing 55% of all captured carbon shows that most aren’t living up to expectations.

I don’t think it’s a misleading title because leaks are considered emissions.

The leaks from oil & gas are huge to begin with, and some of them are even called super-emitting methane leaks. From another article:

About 40% of human-caused methane emissions come from leaks from fossil fuel exploration, production and transportation. These rose by almost 50% between 2000 and 2019. Another 40% comes from agriculture(…) All are forecast to rise.

Not only that these leaks and are not visible to the naked eye, so

the big challenge is knowing exactly how much methane is being emitted, where it is being emitted and for how long it has been emitted. [source UN environment program]

The waste part, for some reason, I thought it was kinda implied. Thanks, anyways.

The part that you say more or less that coal plants produce more radioactive waste than nuclear plants even if we take into account nuclear accidents, is the one that made me wonder tbh.

Btw, perhaps, one of the most famous papers about this topic was written in 1978 [abstract, [full pdf](file:///home/myname/Downloads/9362611%20(1).pdf) ], but it doesn’t mention accidents. Actually, in the abstract they say that the study does not even assess, the total radiological impacts of a coal versus a nuclear economy. This one, from 2021, doesn’t talk about accidents, either.

I thought you might have a relevant article or something to share about the accident part you mentionned?

Sorry, I don’t understand why you say this. Can you explain?

Edit: Maybe it’s the “skeptical” thing. Well this site is about the following

Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation
Global warming is real and human-caused. It is leading to large-scale climate change. Under the guise of climate “skepticism”, the public is bombarded with misinformation that casts doubt on the reality of human-caused global warming. This website gets skeptical about global warming “skepticism”.

Our mission is simple: debunk climate misinformation by presenting peer-reviewed science and explaining the techniques of science denial, discourses of climate delay, and climate solutions denial.

Coal plants produce more radiation than nuclear plants, even if you take all the accidents into account.

In a way yes, but only in the sense that nuclear waste is supposed to be well contained and stored for disposal. Still, the accidents are not taken into account, at least in the studies I took a look at. If you have any that says otherwise, please share.

If I got you right, it’s kinda the other way around.

Regardless of the last femicide, the government decided to promote these restrictive mesures on sex ed. That is because preventing gender-based violence and promoting consent are not notions that fascists care to advance, on the contrary.

You might be interested in taking a look at the following video.

The Dead Internet Theory is WRONG (but its worse than you thought) [16:56]

I think this depends on the locality. Where I come from one could argue that burning a forest is a form of deforastation anyways, because in order to be able to get a building permit, it must not be in a forest zone. So this is a typical practice: burn forest, buy land, build villa/hotel/etc.

In this context tho, I believe what is meant by deforastation is cutting down trees, clear-cut style, for some commercial purpose.

deleted by creator

I think you are right, but we also need to factor in that the west has been exporting its industrial production to other countries (cheaper labor, cheaper taxes etc). So it seems to be a tricky thing to see this by country.

The way I see things, it’s more that the prevelant economic system dictates this kind of behavior, more than any one country. In the sense that the countries in power change, but they all follow some sort of capitalist model, which is also a form of neo-collonialism imo, at least when it comes from western countries . China is another story imo, that follows the economic model.

I find it quite impressive that you feel entitled to dictate to me how you want me to post. You are free to post the way you want when you start doing so.

Edit:

1. The strikethrough
2. [email protected] I am not proud of my reaction to your approach, which really hit a nerve due to its tone. If you look into my post history, you will notice that sometimes I add stuff in the body section sometimes I don’t. Personally, when the article is short usually I don’t. Apart from that I am more interested in the people who are willing to to read the article, and what I add is for them (archive link, the study that inspired the article, etc). I don’t care for those who are bored to make a click to check it out.

I don’t think I understand you. Why don’t you click on the link to access it? As the link reveals, it is from ScienceDaily, so there is also a summary.