It's always good to know what we are dealing with, that knowledge makes our after-the-fact excuses and explanations for our failures much more coherent, if not more plausible.
The writer, Norman Denton is, among other things, Emeritus Professor of Risk, Queen Mary University of London (probability, statistics, decision-making, uncertainty, risk, the usual).
1. Reminder of what ‘net zero’ really means. This graphic from UK Govt FIRES project. Key points: all airports except Heathrow, Belfast & Glasgow to close by 2030. NO FLYING at all by 2050. No new petrol/diesel cars by 2030; by 2050 road use restricted to 60% of today’s level.
2. Food, heating and energy restricted to 60% of today’s level by 2050. That means either a colder, hungrier population or massive depopulation. To those who think this is conspiracy theory here is the Govt approved document:
repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/hand…3. Of course '15 minute cities' now being pushed everywhere are key to all of this. As I said in 2020 the covid lockdowns were always going to be the precursor for climate lockdowns
4. It's quite amusing that several people have jumped in with replies that this is 'all made up' and has 'been debunked many times'. The link to the actual document was in the thread but I'll repeat it: repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/hand…
....MUCH MORE (Threadreader)
And on eXtwitter for the comments/replies.
As always, the correct question to ask of each and every policy is how many degrees C will this proposal reduce the temperature. You don't want the airy-fairy answer in tons of CO₂ or number of automobile-equivalents, you want degrees.
The reason for this is: you have to do comparisons to judge the effectiveness of policy proposals and to do that you have to use the the tools of science (maths).
As we've said over the years - this version is from 2019 but there are many others:
In the last years of the last century there was an international agreement on global warming policy called the Kyoto Protocol. It was a pretty big deal.
It was going to be expensive for the developed economies but worth it.
You heard of it right? It was in all the papers.
And do you recall how much the Kyoto Protocol would cool the planet?
Of course not.
The U.N. and the NGO's and Enron* and the consultants and everybody involved elided right past that number.
The answer was (no, not 42), the answer to the question of how much would the Kyoto Protocol cool the earth was 0.07 degrees. But that's 0.07°C, which is more cooling than if it had been 0.07°F.
The answer was not from me, it's the analysis of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research....****
*The first step is to get honest.
Like this guy, Enron's top lobbyist, John Palmisano, senior director for environmental policy and compliance who emailed from Kyoto:
If implemented [the Kyoto Protocol] will do more to promote Enron’s business than will almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring of the [electricity] and natural gas industries in Europe and the United States…. The endorsement of emissions trading was another victory for us…. This agreement will be good for Enron stock!!It was time to turn deeds into dollars, he added:
Enron now has excellent credentials with many ‘green’ interests including Greenpeace, WWF [World Wildlife Fund], NRDC [Natural Resources Defense Council], GermanWatch, The US Climate Action Network, the European Climate Action Network, Ozone Action, WRI [World Resources Institute], and Worldwatch [Institute],” reported Palmisano. “This position should be increasingly cultivated and capitalized on (monetized).As gentle reader has surmised, we've been following this stuff for a long, long time.
....This has helped form my personal belief that carbon trading is not going to lower world temperature by even a half-a-degree.Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research estimated that Kyoto would result in a reduction from baseline of 0.06°C to 0.21°C . (under one Kyoto scenario 0.06 to 0.11°C, under another 0.11 to 0.21)....
For example, in an October 1998 article in Nature, Martin Parry (Co-chair of the IPCC's Working Group II) said the effect of the Kyoto Protocol (and it's associated carbon trading, CDM etc. [articles 6,12 and 17 of the protocol]) would be a reduction of –0.05°C by the year 2050.
Here's the U.S. NCAR 2006 estimate of Kyoto's effects.
