Comment Re:Its dead, Jim (Score 1) 43
"Eliminating that incredible poison, toxic in every stage of its extraction, use, and disposal, to the extent feasible is an obvious priority"
My point, which none of the replies address, is: who is it a priority for? Only for the countries that are doing about 5% of global emissions. Whether we believe there is a climate crisis or not, 95% of the world doesn't, and are acting accordingly.
What people in the English speaking countries need to recognize is that the world is not going to lower emissions. This is not about whether we believe, whether I personally believe, whether there really is a crisis or not.
Its about the simple fact that in 40 years of trying the advocates of the reality of a crisis have failed to persuade the world of their point of view. So any sensible policy has to accept this, and has to accept that global action is not happening and is not going to happen.
This is reality, and its the only sensible starting point for policy discussions. The world in which policy is formulated and implemented will be one in which only supplies of fossil fuel are the limiting factor for global emissions.
Accept this, because its reality. Then figure out whether in such a world your national policies make any sense, what effects if any they will have. The answer will mostly be that they do nothing at all.
For example, the UK is supposedly moving to net zero in power generation, and is also supposedly moving to ban the sale of all except EVs in 2030. The question to ask is: what difference will that make to the world and global emissions in a world in which 95% of the emissions are done by countries who don't care one way or the other and have no intention of reducing their emissions?
The answer is, it will make no difference whatever. Same goes by the way for the US, which has now opted out anyway. No presently proposed policies in the English speaking countries will make the slightest contribution to lowering global emissions. This is the way the world is, whether we like it or not.
Now the question is, why do you still want to do these things? This is the important, hard and inconvenient question. Its analogous to the question about antibiotics. Refusing to treat your child with them will make no difference to global antibiotic resistance. Accept that, because its the truth. Now, why do you still want to refuse?