Some content on this page was disabled on March 17, 2025 as a result of a DMCA takedown notice from Guardian Media Group. You can learn more about the DMCA here:
Some content on this page was disabled on March 17, 2025 as a result of a DMCA takedown notice from Guardian Media Group. You can learn more about the DMCA here:
I disagree with Chris Stark. The concept of net zero by 2050 is scientifically mandatory and easily understood, as well as being viable to achieve with sufficient determination
As ever, there are vested financial interests anxious to sell fossil fuels.
But it would be utterly irresponsible to abandon the entire concept , just because of these selfish and irresponsible minority interests
I fully agree with you but when you see much of the press, the expression is quite toxic. Personally I prefer “decarbonisation” to net zero because I want to minimise an opening for fossil fuels. But even I use net zero a lot.