Emissions Confusion

By Viv Forbes

What parallel universe are our politicians living in?

Their Net-Zero policy says we must reduce carbon dioxide emissions to induce global cooling.

Then their COVID closures and lockdowns destroyed the travel industry, thus slashing travel emissions. Success – one industry approaches their zero-emissions goal.

Are they pleased? No, those who were locked down yesterday are today promised Queensland government travel vouchers to visit Cairns. And the feds have already offered 50% air fare subsidies. All travel subsidies increase emissions.
And now three levels of government collaborate to promote another travel emissions extravaganza – the Queensland Olympic Games.

Maybe tourists will ride bicycles to Cairns and the Games buses, trains and planes will run on political hot air?

Do they want more or less emissions? We are confused.

Queenslanders paid to take a holiday:

Federal Travel Subsidies:

Brisbane bids for Olympic Games:

One thought on “Emissions Confusion”

  1. Viv,
    “Net Zero”emissions is actually a deliberate misnomer.
    Net Zero emissions is in truth zero emissions.
    I only realised this when I read Professor Simon Lewis’ article in ( naturally ) The Guardian, “The Climate crisis can’t be solved by carbon accounting tricks.”( The Guardian, Wed,3 March 2021).(h/t ATTP, ‘Zero emissions” post).
    Lewis says no to former Bank of England Chairman Mark Carney’s claim that you can use carbon offsets to claim carbon neutrality.
    No recognition of sinks or other negative forcings etc.will be allowed.
    By 2050 you must have NO emissions (or as close as possible) and then look at sinks, carbon offsets, albedo or volcanic negative feedbacks, negative carbon geo-engineering etc.
    He is right!
    Go to the UN Special Report on 1.5 C Warming ( Oct.2018).That is exactly what our involvement in the Paris Accord means.
    The target is no anthropogenic emissions by the nominated date.(2030 or 2050 etc.)
    So claims by Supermarket companies and leading corporations that they are, or will be shortly, “carbon neutral” are false.
    How can they be when all their products are from fossil fuels.
    The usual explanation given to the public that net zero emissions means that we can still allow fossil fuel emissions but can off set them by ticking a box and hoping that someone, somewhere is planting trees on our behalf,or accruing carbon credits, is simply not the truth.
    I will write a letter to the Editor of the CM,as the opportunity arises, ( I get letters in regularly against the usual green suspects) and endeavour to refute the common explanation of net zero emissions.
    We have to get the message out.
    No sane person will cease all fossil fuel emissions on that basis.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *