Why Europe is Souring on Net Zero

[@TheVesko95]

Nuclear is not utopia - it is reality. It exists, it works and it's pretty amazing and safe. It is the future but it is expensive up front but worth it in the long run.

[@SimonTmte]

I suppose issue is it only partly exists and works, it's obviously not a stagnant piece of infrastructure technology, the EPR design is referred to as unbuildable and has had extreme cost overruns and delays, Finland, France, UK, Hinkley Point C construction began 2017 expected finished by latest 2031 at a cost of upwards of £49,7 billion, leading to EPR2 that remains to be proven in the future in France, so if you'd want to build a plant in Europe today you'd need to choose between the Russian VVER-1200, which is not a option particularly in Western Europe, South Korean APR-1400 that supposedly wouldn't meet European safety standards, record of US design AP1000 has been as bad as EPR with cost and delays, the UK may begin construction of a Chinese design by 2025, so there'd be an ongoing development with risk someone pays for, one could build out old and proven nuclear designs but it sorta sucks to build old technology today that'd stay around for another 60+ years, and these designs may have weaknesses not meeting modern standards and expectations

[@pcfirebeats]

It is also really expensive down the road, as safe decommission of nuclear power plants is expensive as hell.

[@teaser6089]

@@pcfirebeats The cost of Wind and Solar is also much higher than the advertised cost, because they never include the needed batteries in the cost when talking about it

[@pcfirebeats]

@@teaser6089 Even then, the safe decommission of a nuclear power plant is the most expensive process of the nuclear power plant operation.

[@LCTesla]

Nope it's obsolete tech. Solar power pareto dominates it at this point and will only start to escalate in effiency further and further while nuclear power's cost RISES with every installed GW.

[@Jayjs20]

How hard it is to NOT build a nuclear reactor near natural disaster zones? Like 99% of them never have any issues. We need more, not less.

[@tanvirsourav83]

Most of the ppl r against it. That's why Germany stopped

[@teaser6089]

@@tanvirsourav83 Most people in Europe are for reactors now

[@realdankengine]

Everywhere is a potential disaster zone. Besides, nuclear is not renewable, the fuel is extremely expensive both to buy and dispose of, the reactors are eyewateringly expensive to construct and have a limited lifespan at which point they must be decommissioned, which is also incredibly expensive. Nuclear as it is really isnt the solution

[@singranasbonfireofdreams8161]

@@realdankengine this is very very misleading, its like saying solar is not renewable since the sun will run out one day, we could "mine" the entire sea-bed of all the worlds oceans by filtering uranium out of the ocean, thats millions of years of power resources, the cost of this would not meaningfully raise the electricity costs of the nuclear power since the fuel is such a low fraction of the costs. as for the waste, you could store it in deep drilled wells or empty mines if you care, personally i dont see a problem with dumping it to the ocean floor in the middle of the pacific, the amounts are so minor, and the ocean so massive the health effects are much less than the dust of windmills and solar panel operation.

[@brsi9916]

@@singranasbonfireofdreams8161 nuclear waste can also be recycled lmao

[@Mhark127]

Decarbonization by outsourcing production to other countries,😂 very impressive indeed.

[@SDDT24]

In the uk the list of counties that we could buy fuels from included Afghanistan and North Korea 😂 you couldn’t make his up

[@kuil]

Decarbonization is great but is also rife with opportunities for corruption and incompetent decisions. Any net zero policy needs to take into account imports that don’t fulfill your net zero goals.

[@loukasfrantzolas6494]

EU decarbonization has happened in both consumption and territorial based emissions. Since 1990 (until 2022), consumption based emissions fell by 21.18% while territorial emissions fell by 29.20%. Most decarbonization isn't happening because of outsourcing, stop spreading misinformation.

[@magivkmeister6166]

Deindustrialization would be more accurate, just means increased reliance on foreign nations, which may or may not align with your interests. So genius.

[@camelemoji2918]

We can’t make policy for other countries, other than restricting trade etc. (not ideal). It is entirely up to other countries to achieve net zero. Europe is doing their part, other countries need to step up and do more.

[@rombaft]

Can I add that Europe has been strong in exporting it's CO2 emissions, not eliminating them. Manufacturing has been exported to other continents due to over regulating. People thinking we are emitting less CO2 per capita while we are eating more, traveling more and having ten times more stuff then in the 90's are delusional. You can see this clearly in the China CO2 emissions btw, these are partly from manufacturing for the rest of the world/Europa

[@sagm5674]

Any adult person acknowledges that us Europeans have been spoiled with extremely unsustainable living standards for a very long time. Us refusing to step back makes us the problem

[@Ushio01]

Travelling is based on where the plane or ship leaves so that can't be outsourced. CO2 is also mostly from electricity production and vehicles usage not manufacturing. More efficient dual cycle gas and renewables replacing coal is a big reduction as are more efficient ICE vehicles and BEV's. Hell the light bulb change from incandescent to LED saves over 50 million tonnes of CO2 per year. China the workshop of the world's CO2 emissions are 25% from manufacturing but this includes domestic manufacturing and construction. Electricity generation is very national dependant.

[@nothereandthereanywhere]

If that is the case, how come US emissions aren't dropping as in EU? USA has exported most of it's manufacturing to abroad as well. There is severely limited manufacturing in USA, especially if you look at what it was 50 years ago. Or even 30 years ago. USA has mostly designing capacity and developing on the screen, manufacturing is outsourced to Asia overall.

[@adr2t]

@@nothereandthereanywhere Yes and no, many of them yes, but a lot of it is still on China/Asian countries that are over producing everything. Even stuff no one wants. Like Lead Paint Toys. On the flip side, US does produce most of its steel in house and all of its wire. Same with many of the basic need stuff. The hard part is just telling people there will be less options going forward. No one wants to hear that, but thats the way it needs to be around the world as we the world over produces everything. I mean look at the market today, China sitting on soo many EVs that the world doesnt want, afford, or need. Like that is the prime example of what is wrong here.

[@alx9r]

The fact that there’s controversy about what the numbers mean and little attempt to convince anyone of their meaning is the real story.

[@joncarter3761]

Net zero is impossible without either nuclear or fusion power. One is unobtainable with current tech and one has a very bad reputation because of accidents and waste. Europe wants it's cake and to eat it too and isn't willing to go nuclear, renewables aren't reliable enough so are falling back on fossil fuels.

[@Lemonz1989]

Nuclear isn’t net zero either. It has to be mined. Not to mention that Europe doesn’t even have any fissile materials to mine. It has to be imported. Ukraine has a lot of that, but you can see what happened to that country. Russia has too, obviously, but they can’t be trusted. So the most reliable partners to import from are the US, Canada or Australia.

[@glynnec2008]

Nuclear "waste" is a misnomer. It is spent nuclear fuel, which can be recycled and sent back into the reactor. The only reason the US doesn't do it is because Jimmy Carter acted like an idiot and banned it. Japan and France and Russia and nearly every other country recycle their spent fuel.

[@jamessloven2204]

1. I wholly agree, and France has done a great job in pioneering nuclear power on the continent, while Germany actively sabotages that effort. 2. Fusion is a pipe dream. Theoretically possible, but it needs 10x the current levels of R&D, and 15 years at this high level investment.

[@Cancoillotteman]

@@jamessloven2204 Fusion is the future, if a remote one. I wholeheartedly agree we need more nuclear fission in the short-run to transition properly out of carboned energy. But anther transition will be needed down the line, and it seems pretty obvious that will be either collecting energy strait from orbit or using fusion, both being "pipe dreams" for the moment. But we need those dreams in the long run .

[@seasong7655]

You seem to be very biased towards nuclear energy. It's entirely possible without nuclear.

[@realmadridsi]

""While GDP is ticking up" forgot to mention 'at a significant lower rate than the US or China for over a decade, heavily falling behind.'

[@RecklessFables]

That seems really misleading considering the state of the American cost of living. Large corporations are doing great, yay! /s

[@blakpower1995]

​@@RecklessFables Not well enough for you to get some of it

[@CorbinCCraig]

​@@RecklessFablesAmerica is incredible. I bought a 3 bedroom house as a restaurant manager at 21 years old without any financial assistance.

[@waki0069]

​@@RecklessFablesit's the same here lol. Probably even worse

[@cooltwittertag]

GDP doesn't improve living standards, government action does. Megacorps making more money does nothing to help you

[@anewman1976]

The Green Party got demolished from 12 seats to 1 in the election of last week here in Ireland, not so popular here now. They are a party that the voters felt added taxes to the populous.

[@rod9829]

I think it was mainly a protest vote against immigration, too cowardly to vote against FFG though

[@klaykid117]

Voting for green parties is like donating to charity. It makes you feel good when you personally have the resources to make it work but as soon as you hit tough times you can't waste your efforts on things like that.

[@rubyboyke]

Same happened in Belgium, I used to vote for them but I cant support them anymore

[@artiefakt4402]

People will have to pay, sooner or later, one way or the other... and probably more than they would do today.

[@00dude3]

All green parties are misanthropic anti human parties

[@normanstewart7130]

5:56. You've got it the wrong way round. Economic growth in Europe is low BECAUSE of the energy transition, specifically because energy is so expensive here.

[@cooltwittertag]

How? Green energy sources are cheaper than carbon alternatives. You need to learn the economics of this issue before commenting on it.

[@cooltwittertag]

Objectively, green energies are both cheaper to build and maintain, meaning lower costs. Whats costing more is the capitalists desire to extract profit out of this factoid commonly spread.

[@cooltwittertag]

they spread this type of misinformation to make you think its more expensive. In truth renewables are the only type of energy source not reliant on government subsidies to be economical.

[@normanstewart7130]

@cooltwittertag This is one of the great lies about renewables. The retail price of electricity is driven UP by renewables. The reason is that wind and solar are unreliable, so you need two electricity systems, the renewables-based one and a backup one, typically powered by gas. The backup one has to paid for out of the retail price in addition to the renewables one. For the backup system, we still have to pay the capital costs, staffing, maintenance plus whatever consumables are used. In the end, the combined system is more expensive. Just look at countries with large amounts of wind and solar, they have the highest retail electricity prices.

[@normanstewart7130]

@@cooltwittertag To illustrate the problem; here in Ireland we have invested heavily in wind-generated electricity. Huge amounts of capital are tied up in wind farms. Today, Thursday 12th of December 2024, we have the situation where 6,860 MW of electricity is needed, but all that installed wind capacity is generating only 301 MW. So wind can only supply 4.4% of our electricity today. That means we need a gas-fired system, which is working away today. In our retail electricity bills we have to pay for both the wind farms (which are almost idle today) and the gas-powered stations, which will be at half capacity in a few weeks. So the use of renewables has led to major over-capacity in the system with large amounts of redundancy. All that surplus capacity has to be paid for in our retail bills.

[@PeterBondeVillain]

I don't think europeans are souring on green politics as much as it is now more concerned about geopolitical and inflation matters

[@vaclavdockal6272]

I mean. It's interconnected, isn't it?

[@cooltwittertag]

@@vaclavdockal6272 Funding coal and gas is ironically directly inflationary government action, though not the desirable kind. As carbon will keep getting more expensive and renewables (which are already much cheaper in actual cost) will keep getting cheaper, governments will wonder why they let populist agendas interfere with supporting their countries stable growth.

[@SimuLord]

"It's easy to be a saint in paradise." - Benjamin Sisko, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Funny how as soon as economic pressures start to mount, things like climate concerns tend to be the first things discarded.

[@miguelsousa9802]

Good video summarizing it, but it does two grave mistakes: 1) Assuming Europe countries are being more anti-NetZero (they are not, they are just against the CURRENT NetZero plans) 2) mixing Nuclear power plant with Solar power plants, and calling them both expensive. The anti-nuclear stance that certain countries in Europe hold (cough Germany, Austria, ...) made Europe not only more reliant on renewable energy sources, but also natural gas. Europe by itself is not a producer of natural gas, and yet countries supported it, to be point that, if some geopolitical problem occurs - Russia invading Ukraine, cutting natural gas exports - the continent gets into a huge energy crisis. Suddenly, your NetZero path cannot be complete, because you needed more cheap natural gas to go with renewables, while investing in batteries and hydrogen to replace gas. It's no easy task at all. If said countries had embraced nuclear, Europe itself would have had better, cleaner and more affordable electricity. Because yes - while a nuclear power plant is an expensive project - it provides affordable electricity to everyone for decades. While renewable energy will always have electricity prices coupled with natural gas prices. And yet, so far, Europe was very very focused on just maximizing solar+wind at all costs. They even wanted France to pay €500 millions of a fine for "not installing enough renewables", despite France having one of the cleanest electricities in the continent via nuclear. It's non sense. Europe still prioritizes NetZero and Energy Security - the countries are just not in agreement with the current Green deals pushing so many renewables, and completely ignoring nuclear and other environmental concerns. The continent needs more nuclear, and more and more countries are awakening for it.

[@mrgalaxy396]

Europe isn't exactly rich with nuclear fuel either, you're just replacing one energy dependency with another. France has its colonies to exploit to get their nuclear fuel for cheap.

[@magicjuand]

"While renewable energy will always have electricity prices coupled with natural gas prices." storage exists...

[@miguelsousa9802]

@@mrgalaxy396 its quite different. Uranium is very energy dense and easy to store, while gas you need huge amount to store it. France is a perfect example: There was a coup d'état in Niger recently, which cut off a sizeable ammount of uranium which was imported from France. However, when this happened, there was no affect on France, since they had uranium stored for years. It gives them more than enough time to ramp up their operations somewhere else, or to find new deals with ease. Cut-off natural gas however, and you see a huge crisis as you see in Europe, which is still lasting. The EU is still giving huge amount of subsidies to compensate for the acquisition of very expensive gas that had to purchase rushedly to avoid a worst case scenario.

[@miguelsousa9802]

@@magicjuand With exception of pumped-hydro - which you cannot expand easily, as it is very location dependent - countries are not using storage in a significant amount to replace natural gas. Sure, you have some that are getting better for 4h to 6h storage, which is great for small wind fluctuations, and go use solar energy during part of the night, but it doesn't replace the need for gas for long term storage nor for days - or weeks - with low sun or low wind. My country - Portugal - is a perfect example of this. We have a huge amount of capacity in renewables and a nice ammount of hydro storage. However, we still are very dependent on both natural gas + imports from Spain. If you compare it with the likes of Sweden and Finland - which have a good balance of hydro+nuclear+renewables - they have very little use of gas and much more affordable electricity. It's a greener and more secure energy system all together.

[@BOZ_11]

until they agree, they don't agree with net zero

[@SubjectiveFunny]

They make BILLIONS on this transition. They do not care how much it costs, they are not the people who will suffer.

[@passenger9000]

Yeah… Green energy means being dependant on China and countries with resources needed to produce batteries…

[@robw6954]

China is only dominating the battery market because we all decided it was more worthwhile to funnel billions to Israel to secure petroleum rather than investing into electricity storage technologies

[@yuvalne]

speaking of costs, you know what's more expensive than the green transition? climate change. by a few orders of magnitude.

[@FrankLloydTeh]

The DANA that caused a year's worth of rain to come down in just a few hours at Valencia Spain... is going to be more common.

[@quasii7]

Yes, but we (humans) prefer short term consumption over long term sustainability.

[@DemonZest]

@@quasii7 we prefer to let others (our descendant) deal with our sh*t !

[@kacperpiotrowski7239]

Great point! Let's start with carbon intensive lifestyle of celebrities, politicians, multi-milioners and billioners. Only one yacht per person oh and no more jet flights. Do a zoom COP next time.

[@kuil]

Net zero needs to include not buying from those who aren’t manufacturing net zero. Otherwise you are just discouraging native industry with no real benefit to the environment. You would simply be harming your own nation for no good.

[@SkyTheHusky]

(7:05) "For the coal mine, you have to constantly employ a whole load of minors." - TLDR, 2024

[@tanvirsourav83]

It takes many more ppl to produce those solar panel and wind turbine in factory. Which increases job sites

[@SkyTheHusky]

@@tanvirsourav83 The joke went right over your head

[@tanvirsourav83]

@@SkyTheHusky I misread minor as miner so, I didn't though U were joking at the first place, mb

[@norude]

as a child, I yearned for the mines

[@hugoguerreiro1078]

@@norude there's a reason Minecraft is so popular among children.

[@TW19567]

I guess humans are going to roll the dice on climate change and see whether we can "adapt" to a harsher and more volatile climate.

[@kuil]

We will. Nature will. It will suck, but the saying ‘life finds a way’ will always be true, until water no longer is liquid.

[@AustrianPainter14]

Nobody believes in ‘climate change’ including you

[@magivkmeister6166]

​@@kuilThat's a Jurassic Park quote. You're basing your assumptions on how life will adapt on a movie. Perfect.

[@TW19567]

@@kuil Until food production and insurance etc etc becomes so prohibitively expensive that people are wondering why they did not heed warnings of what climate change would bring.

[@Aa-fg6jf]

Europeans are safe, people in in dry climates are the one who will be screwed

[@briangasser973]

So the EU/UK wont frack for natural gas due to emissions, but have no issue buying US LNG produced from fracking?

[@spaghetti0356]

Yeah, we're fucked.

[@justinpaul3110]

😢

[@pistolen87]

Nobody knows the future, even climate scientists, predictions are not facts.

[@blockdragonspecialsummonne7887]

You know it's fucked when even koishi thinks so

[@spaghetti0356]

@@blockdragonspecialsummonne7887 I LOVE NOT THINKING!!!!

[@blockdragonspecialsummonne7887]

@spaghetti0356 no thoughts bwain empty

[@sebas0608459]

net zero using renewables is not possible without deindustrialisation. without industry, europe's GDP growth is stagnating, while reliance on other nations is increasing. Contrary to the US, Europe did not capitalize on the software boom, and now is losing out on the AI boom. So if you don't have any competitive industry left, how do you expect to pay for the most expensive form of energy...

[@SDDT24]

In the UK the plan was to import fuels from countries on a list that included Afghanistan and North Korea , we are NOT reducing our emissions we are just contracting it to other counties to take the hit and it’s pathetic

[@MidnightSouls]

What list? What fuel does Afghanistan even export? Afghanistan imports the vast majority of its fuel from Iran and neighbours.

[@pistolen87]

"Afghanistan and North Korea " 😂

[@muhammedjaseemshajeef6781]

Do they even have oil?

[@ikt123]

how the hell did this get 88 upvotes

[@BreadWinner330]

Last time I checked we import most of our gas from Norway? We're extracting oil in Scotland but that's only for specific industries, and we've shut down our last coal mine a few months ago.

[@andreasflicke1094]

The hope that the energy transition would pay out in the long run is WRONG. Germany has kind of the highest percentage of green energies in the world, but Germany has also the highest electricity prices around the world. Ideology doesn't pay out anytime.

[@lIlIlIlIlIlIlIlIlI]

Those prices are artificial. Energy is sold on demand as there's no practical storage technology. They rather shut down wind turbines to increase demand, thus keeping the price high, rather than flood the market with cheap power when there's overcapacity. You're being scammed.

[@benportman]

"Europe does not really have any gas or oil if it's own" Norway has very large reserves

[@santiagopayan2531]

Yes, but you pay them 5 Times the salary AS in Russia, while China get it under Market value. I.e. you cannot compete.

[@benportman]

@santiagopayan2531 id argue expensive gas is better than intermittent, more expensive renewables

[@briangasser973]

After spending trillions of Euros, has their been a measurable decline in global climate change since 1990?

[@nerenahd]

Europe be like: the boat is sinking and I'm the only one trying to take the water out, damn I might as well join the party and enjoy myself a little bit, we're all gonna die anyway.

[@RetroRadianceLight]

If Europe can blame anyone for all this, it’s the US under Trump starting this ball of screwing up climate control

[@twisted_void]

Spot on!

[@Chris-xl6pd]

Finally at least the nutters are sobering up, the idea that any one block can save the planet is hilarious and the world is about to deglobalise heavily and this is going to make survival in the short term more important than vertue signalling to the entire world how amazing you are trying to save the future. It was a noble venture but ultimately doomed to fail based on the age old human hubris.

[@phattorangecatto]

Europe was never meaningfully trying to save the planet. All they did was export their carbon emissions to other countries and pretended they were net negative. All their factories and energy sources that were CO2 intensive came from outside of the EU. They were still consuming and using non green items every single day and acting like it didn’t count because it the oil was pumped across the border in Russia or the things they were using didn’t count because they were made in China.

[@Cancoillotteman]

@@Chris-xl6pd I don't know if giving up on a noble fight is proof of wisdom or madness, no matter the chances to win. "C'est inutile, bien sûr c'est inutile ! Mais l'on ne se bat pas dans l'espoir de vaincre. Non, non ! C'est bien plus beau lorsque c'est inutile !"

[@augustus331]

Guys, you're kind of layering it on thick here. With any big change in society, it doesn't come linearly. Every time change happens, the status-quo pushes back. There's recessions in progress, too. Or have you forgotten about the €800 billion a year Draghi-framework?

[@saus9870]

dummy's push ev's without knowing about brake dust and battery production, i'm never gonna support being gaslighted.

[@Zyzyx442]

Took us f****** long enough to wake up

[@roo_stonks]

"... they wouldn't agree to any climate deal that didn't also place binding obligations on china..." aka if china doesn't join in on hitting the breaks, we wont either and run this bus that is the earth into the climate change wall even faster and harder, causing more passenger causalities.... what an amazing stance and logic, truly US american at its finest.

[@cazman182]

Short term thinking that will absolutely doom us as food gets harder to grow and gets more expensive, places become uninhabitable due to extreme weather events (Florida already uninsurable), and entire species go extinct.

[@SDDT24]

Tbf China is the no.1 net emitter so if they don’t reduce their emissions were are all screwed no matter what

[@kacperpiotrowski7239]

Without China (And India) pitching in there can not be a solution to Climate Change. What is US to do if those two won't Play Ball?

[@Carthodon]

That's not American thinking, its rational. If western countries cut CO2 emissions without every other major power signing up, then all that those western countries are doing is provide more room for other powers to raise their emissions. It is somewhat revealing that those countries which are more aggressive with environmental policy are not self reliant militarily, and in part your mentality is a privileged mentality.

[@James-tv4pl]

China is actually doing significantly better than the US when it comes to renewable energy

[@fogbullit1000]

Net zero is impossible while every human breathes out carbon dioxide

[@c.rutherford]

I honestly think humanity just collectively can't help itself, its just got to destroy the planet.

[@mircea_h]

you know, the planet also can erupt a volcano and destroy 90% of all living things in few days. doesn't even have to be a catastrophic event, they say we are nearing the next mini ice age. the planet will be fine regardless what we do. it can go back to single cell life forms and back to mammals, it has enough time

[@BernasLL]

Whoever is against nuclear, should be against humans living near volcanos, sysmic areas, or monsoon areas, or similar levels of risk / reward.

[@ObIitus]

The fun part is that nuclear is very low risk. The few overblown incidents are nothing compared to body count of any other energy production industry. But that is boring.

[@pjl0714]

Europe outsources polluting industries to other countries, and then morally accuses that country of not contributing to a green earth? Have you always been the good guy?

[@tonybloomfield5635]

Europe, Canada, Australia, the USA and many other countries all *_'export'_* their CO2 emissions to Asia.

[@notinterested7911]

Thats just not true. The EU's consumption and territorial CO2 Emissions have fallen by a lot since 1990

[@Cancoillotteman]

First of all : it's a gross oversimplification. Europe's CO2 consomption has indeed lowered quite a bit, although it is true that the most polluting industries have been exported. Second and most importantly : What of it ? What are those countries gonna do about it ? Refuse European investments ? Go ahead, they'll lose more than us. Do nothing and face the consequences of climate change ? Well Europe has the most temperate and sheltered lands besides Canada. So in the end, do you wish to just score a moral point, or DO SOMETHING about it ?

[@ad_astra468]

If that was the case it’d have a trade deficit don’t you think?

[@Global-yt]

@@ad_astra468 it imports emission-intensive manufactured goods and exports services and tech. Yeah, that has little correlation.

[@dengist8172]

Outsourcing polluting industries to other parts of the world does not help with climate change.

[@ObIitus]

But makes politicians richer.

[@gortys3929]

TLDR: people realised how much it cost when it hit their wallets.

[@spongeysoap7035]

the most expensive thing we can do is nothing

[@peachyjam9440]

EU purposefully put the cost onto the citizens instead of the companies, corporations, governments

[@Maxშემიწყალე]

@@spongeysoap7035 If it actually mattered, they'd do way more drastic things.

[@rfgnmf-nmesofuehsdjfnrmeowfsdz]

That's not how governments work​@@Maxშემიწყალე

[@steinarnielsen8954]

TLDR: people realised that the increased cost actually contributed to climate change.

[@philipcarson8438]

The green economy is about as real as the emerald city.

[@ImStevan]

4:24 did it? algeria was just a part of france

[@dchubworldsharenetwork]

Down with Net Zero, we don't need it!!

[@bobolow221]

Bruh is anyone else watching all these videos on Europe's future and getting super fucking depressed. We are being overtaken in basically every industry we were good at, we virtually have zero tech companies, Any field we go into China and the US outpace US in a matter of years, no natural resources, every country has a shrinking population, Extremism on the rise and unstable governments, Russia in the wings, Like there is no hope we are fucked 😢

[@amcmillion3]

The oppressive bureaucracy and incredibly high tax burden prevent people from setting up tech companies. Tech companies need a ton of upfront capital and the ability to quickly move people in and out of the business. This is not possible under the EU regime.

[@justinpaul3110]

yeah its sad, ridiculous and utterly predictable that this pipe dream would ruin anyone who tried it😢

[@kusadasi8641]

Neoliberalizam has failed us, but instead of a right wing, we finally need to look into the left, but that will be tough.

[@GermanTopGameTV]

It's always doom and gloom. The chinese seem threatening, so do the russians, sure. But look into Ukraine and you'll see that the russians are dying every day, and we are not. Look into China and see them living under a toxic cloud of polution, and we are not. Doing things "the right way" might not make you the spearhead of the world, but slow and steady has it's place and will never go out of fashion. China won't take your job. The US will not cripple the EU with new tech. Life is good here. The climate crisis is a marathon and we sit at kilometer 3, wondering were the sprinters went. Do not doubt, we'll overtake them before the finish line. At least China, the US might stay ahead, but they are our allies and there's little to fear from them. Don't belive me? Check out the consequences of the one child policy in china, coupled with the fact that the chinese state has basically no immigrants. Our demographic crisis looks like a minor inconvinience in comparison.

[@goyakat2211]

But we have the best industry: we make a ton of LLAAAWWWWWWWSSSSSSS. Nobody can beat us on that 💅

[@TheyCalledMeT]

Because Merkel unilateraly shut down nuclear power plants way too early. Because the sabotage of northstream pipelines let energy cost explode, to a degree it became economy threatening and citizens had to pay insane bills ... which led to a massively growing interest in affordability

[@kwazar6725]

Lots of greenwashing going on

[@steinarnielsen8954]

That was Angela Merkel's idea behind transitioning from nuclear to coal.

[@TheJensss]

The problem with the "green" politics in Europe is that it is mostly about money and taxes, making people's life miserable and expensive. The we have unpopular politics which results in emissions cut failing and everyone looses. Emissions cuts should be something good for people like fast trains and cheap nuclear energy. Not expensive fuel and electricity with high taxes on cars.

[@MorganJosh-p6p]

I'm favoured only God knows how much I praise Him, $230k every 4weeks! I now have a big mansion and can now afford anything and also support God’s work and the church.

[@SimplotElbie]

Wow that's huge, how do you make that much monthly?

[@LiahSantos-li7xs]

Only God knows how much grateful i am. After so much struggles I now own a new house and my family is happy once again everything is finally falling into place!!

[@JulienTchotcho]

I'm 37 and have been looking for ways to be successful, please how??

[@GODDID-ne4oi]

I earn from investing in the digital market with the guidance of (Ms. Evelyn Vera) Brokerage services. I'm happy to talk about it!!!

[@MeislerFoulger]

I remember giving her my first saved up $20000 and she opened a brokerage account with it for me, it turned out to be the best thing that ever happened to me.

[@lemdixon01]

'Renewable' is why energy costs are increasing. Net zero slavery. Zero carbon is death because we consume and produce carbon to stay alive.

[@AndersWahlberg]

"Net zero" is already dead. Von der Leyen and the rest of Europe' utopian Khmers just have not come to terms with it yet. Watch what happens when Trump takes USA out of the Paris agreement and the supporters of "green transition" are voted out of power in upcoming elections.

[@Dendarang]

Net Zero isn't dead for the reason mentioned in the video - Europe is extremely energy poor and all of our energy suppliers are hostile or unstabe or just ripping us off. Net zero for Europe isn't even about climate or "saving the planet", quite frankly, it is (and should be) simply about European energy sovereignty and security.

[@Joey-ct8bm]

What green agenda? Ursula reversed all green policy because of farmers protests and gave farmers 300 billion of EU funds the last 4 years.

[@Patrick-y4d1z]

Cool, doesn't mean net Zero can't be done for countries that aren't completely fucked. The US can go dwell with the likes of India.

[@nathaniellindner313]

Trump may be pulling the US out of the Paris agreement, but that's just an ego thing. In truth, he's a huge environmentalist: Not only is he now a wholly owned subsidiary of Elon Musk and thus obligated to support EVs, he also has identified the American lifestyle as being the most climate-damaging in the world, hence his move to implode the US economy come January. When global trade with the US collapses and the average American is too destitute to leave their tent, the US's climate footprint will plummet, and possibly take out a couple other countries with it. It's absolutely bold, but Trump might just save the Earth.

[@apollomedia7210]

I dont know what going on here but my boy Ali needs a haircut. 😂

[@Pvemaster2]

Being a global leader on climate issues means nothing if the continent falls apart because of it

[@tomwaitsmencse]

Reality is finally hitting these people.

[@Dendarang]

But that is precisely why Europe should go all-in on Net Zero. Europe is very energy poor and we import basically all of our energy from abroad from countries that are hostile or unstable that can and will weaponise Europe's energy dependence on them. Achieving Net Zero in Europe would mean achieving energy sovereignty and independence. Screw the planet, do it for national security.

[@steinarnielsen8954]

In this case the continent falls apart while contributing to more emissions.

[@bittripper3530]

Replacing dependable base load generation with erratic wind and solar was never going to be a good idea

[@Volfied]

Nobody asked me, I'm still up for it.

[@2goober4u]

I am obama and I say let it grow

[@WarCode-1]

Europe's challenges with the net zero agenda highlight the complexities of balancing environmental goals with economic realities. It’s a critical moment to reassess strategies and find sustainable solutions that work for everyone.

[@nolansebastian.h]

Stop waiting for the government to give job opportunities which are wasting much of your time when you can invest in digital marketing and live your dream life.

[@tradinggeek-h4e]

Indeed because the research of investment practicing has liberated a lot of families out of poverty, I recommend it to every bread winner out there.

[@kyrenfei]

Investing is the act of putting money to work now to earn more later. It's a key way to save for important purchases or retirement. Stocks, bonds, real estate, and commodities help build a diversified portfolio.

[@SarahHoner]

Identify with a renowned financial advisors, especially in the U.S., we first identified all firms registered with the SEC in the country. MELANIE KRISTINE SKELTON was on the list with productive insights

[@SarahHoner]

Melanie Kristine Skelton highlights a management approach focused on clients' best interests and achieving investment goals amid market fluctuations.

[@jackgagneux]

I am interested, please how do I connect with her?

[@pradeepmagan6951]

finally, it took long enough

[@TheodoreWilliam-x3z]

Congratulations! To my recent success in cryptocurrency trading! It's great that I were able to turn a profit of $58,000 last week despite the challenging economic conditions.

[@Rahffnation]

That's absolutely fantastic! Wishing you and your family all the happiness and good health that this blessing can bring.

[@Sandra-t9e8n]

It's crucial to conduct thorough research and consider consulting with a financial advisor before making any investment decisions.

[@Sandra-t9e8n]

The professional is Mrs Angela Mcclain

[@EvelynCarol-m7g]

Wow. I'm a bit perplexed seeing Ms Angela Mcclain, name been mentioned here also. Didn't know she has been good to so many people too, this is wonderful. She has been the one guiding me through the fears and falls of trading. I guess her good reputation speaks for itself now, she has built a remarkable legacy for herself.

[@AnnaChloe-t1y]

What I appreciate about Ms Angela Mcclain, is her ability to tailor strategies to individual needs and she has this skill of making complex crypto concepts easy to understand.

[@nah88]

Drill, baby, drill!

[@Exarhadsgfds]

It can't work since Europe is the only one trying

[@roamingfaber4302]

Why no more nuclear????? Like what

[@kemicalhazard8770]

So basically, economy not going great = people somehow blaming... climate action? Instead of all the things actually causing issues with the economy

[@santiagoalcantara3806]

The actual problem: capitalism. The right let's blame migrants that are descendants of their colonial subjects and net zero instead of seeing the real economic causes of cost of life crisis like a profit drive economy

[@8Nifon8]

Yes, things like energy prices for example. Oh, wait.

[@davidblair9877]

@@8Nifon8I’m sure the fact that Europe has virtually no local gas or oil resources has nothing to do with energy costs, eh? Sure would be nice to not rely on Czar Vladimir or Sultan MSB for our lights, no?

[@AnymMusic]

welcome to the world we live in. It sucks

[@RockerTopper-hh3ru]

@@davidblair9877one of the largest natural gas fields in the world is off the coast of the Netherlands, and they haven’t exploited it (or not fully at any rate) because of the Greens placing regulations and red tape in the way. Had they done so it would have gone a long way to alleviate current European energy problems, but they haven’t because they apparently prefer moral superiority to putting food on the table, and on a long enough timeline that kills. Furthermore, the moment Russian boots crossed into Ukraine is the moment the anti-nuclear faction of the Green movement should have ceased to be taken seriously, and the fact they were not immediately and unceremoniously laughed out of the political room is a damning indictment of European political culture.

[@thepax2621]

"Net Zero" hasn't "passed", it was st1llborn from the beginning 🤷🏻‍♀️

[@cosmedelustrac5842]

If only the US could try as hard to work on a good energy transition.

[@seanthe100]

Different calculus when you produce the most energy

[@justinpaul3110]

The USA isn't interested in cutting its economy's throat for a superstitious, pseudo-religious ideology.

[@cowboybeboop9420]

The US passed the "Inflation reduction act". This is basically a bribe/subsidy for European industry (mostly green tech) to relocate to the US. At to that the fact that they`re selling us gas at triple the Russian price and you can see how EU industry is being stolen by America. That`s how they plan to transition. By stealing our stuff.

[@Tintersurf]

​​@@seanthe100not really Arguably with the amount of land they have they could lead the charge on championing energy transmission across geography. I.e. from vast solar capacity in places like california, to colder northen states. But who needs a federal approach right, thats just for people who care about other people

[@SoloRenegade]

US is already one of the most energy efficient countries with declining emisions for more than 15yrs straight already.

[@breakev]

We'll be the civilization who didn't think it was financially viable to save ourselves.

[@HypaxBE]

It was radical idealism, lacking realism from the start and was called out plenty of times. Thanks Frans Timmermans and co.

[@schtormm]

3:04 "But muh Chiyna"; the slogan of politicians ruining the climate since 1997

[@elchotocorazon]

Why isn't Norway the primary oil supplier for Europe?

[@firewarp8819]

europe wants gas not oil and frankly norway doesn't have enough of etheir

[@elchotocorazon]

@@firewarp8819 Norway's in the top 20 major oil producers in the world

[@jaspermooren5883]

​@@elchotocorazon yes, but as a top 20 supplier it still only supplies 2% of global demand. Norway almost exclusively sells their oil and gas to the EU (EU pays well and politically Norway is a good choice for the EU and the EU is a good choice for Norway, as well as obvious transportation reasons, with Norway being in Europe), but it's simply not enough to supply European demand. About 25% of European gas imports are Norwegian, but the other 75% still comes from the rest of the world.

[@firewarp8819]

@@elchotocorazon top 20 'o' not even close to enough for the entire EU

[@baronvonjo1929]

Europe likes exporting its emissions.

[@Siranoxz]

Why do i have the impression that the EU is in panic mode running like headless chickens and not knowing what to do?.

[@AlexDubois]

Because you lack information?

[@sagm5674]

Because of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall

[@steinarnielsen8954]

Because the coal industry and the climate movement have been spreading disinformation about the only solution to climate change.

[@dennisaskeland5870]

Rough to run a race with chain around the ankles. Especially when the competition always cheats

[@Daniel_Z35]

Best news source anywhere!

[@michaelbarnard8116]

Going green good until it costs us too much money 😅😂🤑😱

[@ultracapitalistutopia3550]

Trump: Allow me to introduce myself.

[@ATHLDN]

Net Zero is Gross Propaganda

[@fefifofob]

People just don't understand that the sky really is falling.

[@Ricardo-mk2et]

😂

[@dai-belizariusz3087]

it really doesnt

[@martinh8784]

🤣🤣🤣 They have been telling me this since the 1960s. Looking out of the window ... the sky is still there. The sky will be still there in thousands of years. Have you ever considered that all the "buy electric cars, solar panels, heat pumps, etc." is just capitalism in action ... the green version of consumerism? If the climate cult would not talk nonsense like this all the time, people might actually listen to them.

[@Tintersurf]

​@@dai-belizariusz3087not falling just filling up with reflective particles which insulate the planet and drive vastly accelarated climate change 👍

[@GiulioAnichini1982]

Technical but hopefully constructive cricitism (not an energy expert): solar farm should be compared with a coal power plant, not with a coal mine. You still need mines to create solar farms, if we are comparing the two sources in terms of how much labour they deploy, it’s incorrect to compare farm with mines. That said, not a fan of coal and moderate renewable fan. Nuclear should have been the way 50-60 years ago. Unfortunately we have chosen a different path.

[@Mick_Unfiltered]

31 seconds ago is wild, was never that early to anything, not even my birth, I was overcooked.

[@Willys-Wagon]

Sure conveniently forget Europe lost significant access to cheap transitional energy.

[@tomdip2094]

Net Zero has always been a pipe dream. Yes, some of the emission reductions can be attributed to greater efficiency, but so can outcourcing heavy, energy intensive industries, like steel, cement and brick production, to name a few. There's also the fact that as wind and solar become a larger fraction of the overall energy supply, other costs increase to offset the variability in output of these source in order to balance the load. My point is that just because we've reduced emissions by almost half compared to our peak, reducing that second half is going to be much, much more expensive and painful. Even with sophisticated grid upgrades and widespread nuclear power, I struggle to see NetZero ever materializing.

[@koenma932]

It can be done with nuclear power

[@tomdip2094]

@koenma932 We can get a lot closer with nuclear power, definitely. But getting to zero is still an almost impossible goal if we wish to preserve our standard of living. Nuclear can't be turned on or off so easily, as it's most efficient as a base load. That means we need some sort of variable energy supply, be it gas, hydro (there just isn't really enough for this) etc. The other option is to have battery storage, but we are not even close to having the required capacity for that any time soon.

[@dex6316]

Have you considered why the goal is “net zero” and not “zero”? It’s because decarbonizing industries such as cement production is unclear, so we are depending on the unproven technology of carbon capture and storage to eliminate the impact of the last 5% of emissions or so. We know how to eliminate over 90% of emissions right now, but we have to transition to using new technologies and techniques to do so. While a renewable energy grid is difficult, renewables can comfortably produce around 80% of a grid’s energy. Replace the final 20% with a clean baseline source like nuclear and you don’t have to rely on energy storage or overproduction to overcome volatility. In fact the power generation sector is actually one of the easiest sectors to decarbonize and one we can decarbonize whenever we want compared to other sectors that require the development of new technologies and or changes in practices.

[@rosscomt5295]

Europe’s coming to realisation with many other countries. We are powerless with cheap goods. They are a win today but loss the day after

[@gp-1542]

Build more nuclear reactors? Come on Europeans its not that hard

[@robindumpleton3742]

Hardly mentioned Nuclear, especially in Germany who wasted €Billions first building and then throwing out nuclear, keeping 49% of electrical generation coal powered. Only France pushed through to major nuclear generation

[@benjaminlanham9454]

Wait till we see the cost of global climate change

[@spongeysoap7035]

shame that voters are so short-sighted

[@PeterWalls-kq6ye]

Fact of the day,,, did you know the uk would require 4 to 5 times the copper current being used on the electricity supply .. and is one of the most toxic substances you could mine,, dw news did a report last year,,,Germany floats on a sea of copper,,,but refuse to mine it. And forget the nuclear option,,90 years of uranium left at current usage.. word of warning,,German could have it's current supply of Russian gas stopped in the new year..go green go broke. As your gona find out.

[@steinarnielsen8954]

We've already seen the costs of transitioning from nuclear to coal. Climate change is only a bonus of this genious idea.

[@the.monologue]

very cool that you got an interview with an official climate advisor! love the production quality on these videos.

[@fernandobignardi6716]

2:36 i feel i always like to see both graphs , per capita and overall emissions china still produces a lot of things for the west, so it is excpected to be high. thi isnt a simple issue nor a way of criticising china and not blame usa or europe for doing their parts. i just want to add more numbers objectively emissions in T/per capita multiplied bypopulation in millions USA: 4.887,74 China: 11.970,00 Europe: 4.153,52

[@calebbearup4282]

Because the Green new deal is freaking ridiculous

[@johndoethe]

We are not enthusiastic. We are hostages.

[@PecoraSpec]

go to USA or Russia.

[@taraldomland8657]

This is really sad, climate change is the largest threat the world faces. The world will be a much more dangerous place and tense place between nations if not dealt with. People all over will suffer

[@baselius662]

Are you sure climate change is the greatest threat? Why not nuclear war, starvation, war, etc etc. Climate change is not our greatest threat it simply isn't.

[@taraldomland8657]

@ of course you can name hypotheticals. But climate change is happening right now. Nuclear war is not, my arguments is about there will be a lot more starvation if the climate gets put of control, there will be much more trouble for poor nations, and borders will have to be protected with maybe violence, war will be more rampant because more people will be desperate, nuclear war will be more likely then. War is happening now, but most people are not suffering directly as the civilians in those areas. Though it’s unfortunate with the genocide in Gaza and the war in Ukraine and so many more places. Climate gange is gonna ruin the foundation that we live on, and most people don’t understand how intricate that is. So yes, climate change is the only existential threat humanity stand before. There are no others happening right now. And ethically, we are destroying the world wich created us, is that righteous

[@baselius662]

@taraldomland8657 no we are not righteous. We are the stewards of this earth, we did not make it we merely inherited it. And I do believe we in the modern world are very materialistic and seek out to fulfill our desires through consumption. But there is something very anti-human among the more radical climate crowd, not saying you are that. When climate becomes the good in of itself humans may become an "hinderence" in the way. Maybe it's not your experience but from what I hear and see people speak to casually that "there are too many people on the planet", "we are an parasite of the earth". I don't see pragmatist grounded in reality trying to achieve the best results with a degree of efficiency, but idealist convinced of their own moral purity enacting their will on the world. I would not be surprised at all if we see a rise in climate terrorism in the near future.

[@paulc6766]

@@baselius662 Oh yes it is. And don't think it won't cause wars and mass migration.

[@baselius662]

@paulc6766 like it or not Europe is still dependent on fossil fuels, the rest of the world even more so and it will be very hard, dare I say impossible to change that on the desired time. Guess what we need to tackle the effects of climate change? Energy i.e fossil fuels.

[@apz202]

Because it is expensive and unnecessary.

[@VonKirda]

Do not buy an EV. Stay with ICE or plug in hybrid. Europe will have many other priorities than investing in charging infrastructure for a long time to come.

[@guilhermem.3981]

Equinox produces oil and gas from Norway, Europe produces oil.

[@Istrino]

6:13 Nuclear power is not renewable. It's recyclable and can arguably be considered sustainable given it's low CO2-emissions (at the cost of radioactive waste) yet to label it renewable is incorrect given that the reactors requires nuclear fuel (such as uranium) to run and this is a finite resource that doesn't replenish as quickly as it is consumed for now.

[@Me-yq1fl]

It's basically renewable as there is enough Uranium to power every home as if it's a first world country for thousands upon thousands of years. You can also extract it from seawater, which gets it's trace Uranium from tectonic plate movements.

[@miguelsousa9802]

But that recycling is really a huge part. We'd be talking about supply of uranium of thousands of years via Fast Reactors only with Uranium. When considering other techniques - sea water extraction - or even other elements - thorium - the scale is so huge that it can be considered nearly renewable. And let's not forget that - while wind and sun themselves are renewable - the materials used to harness them (PVs, wind turbines, (...)) are made of finite material that are not entirely recyclable. And yet, we still call these renewable sources.

[@Istrino]

@@Me-yq1fl I certainly see where you're coming from. And yes, it's certainly long lasting and can be treated as such but if we go by the definition of renewable energy then it doesn't quite fit the bill. Though I agree with you that the supply should last for more than enough time!

[@tonybloomfield5635]

Moot point. Rather than saying renewable, let's then say *_almost_* infinite. There are many thousands of years of known uranium deposits based on using current technologies which will only get better.

[@Istrino]

@@miguelsousa9802 It certainly is! But the definition of renewable is still that it replenishes faster than we consume it, which isn't the current case. I'm not against nuclear energy and have been supporting the use for a long time. You're certainly right that the materials used for all renewable energy production is finite (even the steel in the wind turbine and nuclear plants is finite after all). But the definition of renewable has been set after the energy source rather than the means used to extract it. I'd say the best argument to label nuclear energy as renewable as the wind and solar energy is to bring up the fact that even the sun is finite in itself and will eventually run out of fuel. But yes, good arguments I don't disagree with you, with time the definitions might change.

[@BloodshotEight0]

6:18 not renewable. Still cheap, safe, and clean though

[@krakken-]

Renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels. Renewables mean that the EU is not reliant on Russia - a poor partners. Long term energy independence is a huge advantage for the EU. BUT... it does take investment and time to make the switch. And there is pain in the short term, as the EU still needs to get fossil fuels, but now from the US, and not as cheaply as before. Without the good renewable industry jobs that are increasingly going to China and the US. All that makes the energy transition much easier in China and even the US than the EU.

[@peachyjam9440]

Russia could've been a normal partner if they wanted it to, but US interests were in overthrowing it and feeding money to the military industrial complex

[@axl1002]

Renewables mean that you need to have gas powered stations at stand by all the time.

[@lentilsoup460]

​@@axl1002 Or nuclear power stations. And small modular reactors, which require much less initial capital to start functioning. About the same CO2 emissions as many renewables, and although the waste is a problem we can just bury it very securely in the middle of nowhere.

[@TorreFLoeckx]

Only temporary

[@Ondar007]

The biggest difference between nuclear plant and solar panel is that solar does NOT produce steady stream of cheap energy. It produces only when sun is shining! Small cloud over and you need to fire fossil instead! So in the end, if you don't have humungous battery, it can be even more expensive, than just burn fossil instead. I have solar on my house and the biggest battery I can buy can store less then 1/3 of average daily need. And purchasing this battery made this whole setup unable to pay for itself in even 10 years!

[@ironboy3245]

Looking at too short a timeframe. Most solar setups pay themselves off in 15 years, with the warranty on solar panels lasting for 25 years

[@pistolen87]

Yes, Europe needs more baseload energy.

[@julianskinner3697]

We have enormous batteries on wheels they are called evs.

[@ward648]

Imagine trying to explain modern economics to say a medieval serf; yes we could have saved the Earth from certain destruction, but you see we decided not to so more people could work harder digging lung cancer rocks out of the ground

[@jamisojo]

"Certain destruction" clearly doesn't apply to global warming. The Earth will be just fine.

[@rhettcovington9131]

The manufacturing jobs moved helping reduce CO2 emissions. Progressives also oppose nuclear power and France shut down the majority of its reactors due to opposition. Then the Russian natural gas pipelines were compromised and now they and the Germans have had to reopen coal power plants. This discussion did not mention the carbon footprint, lifespan, and waste involved in solar and wind power, which offsets some of the advantages. All this to say there is a complicated mess of competing agendas and hostility toward those with different agendas that makes for no clear solution.

[@victorln]

A video on why various of the eu fossil deposits aren’t being tapped would be interesting. Places like the arctic, north sea and Groningen which came to a halt. And how other countries facing similar problems overcome them (i.e earthquakes near population centers)

[@paial]

Last 20 years: GPD of EU grew 60%; GDP of USA grew 124%..... The results speak for themselves....

[@kwazar6725]

Eu has decomissioned green nuclear power and reintroduced coal power.😂

[@buggle6118]

"Going net zero is too pricey" The British Office for Budget Responsibility did the maths and said that about £20bn of investment are needed annually to be net zero by 2050, the current asylum system costs £4bn annually, cut the irregular/illegal immigration and we are already nearly a quarter of the way there to carbon neutrality

[@Tintersurf]

@@buggle6118 there are many ways to combat this without resorting to attacking people who have nothing in this world. The current windfall tax raised £3.8 billion in a year and even then oil and gas still had record profits. Keep that up and we are a quater of the way there! 👍

[@steinarnielsen8954]

Shutting down nuclear power is pricey. While contributing to emissions.

[@samuelaje4339]

I like the way she says "Olaf Scholz"

[@Ushio01]

Why have electricity prices skyrocketed? Before you have a natural gas power station costs maintenance and fuel. Today you have wind turbines, solar farms, battery backup and a natural gas powerstation for when the wind doesn''t blow and the sun doesn't shine and 4 times the maintenance while buying just a little less fuel because it's stopping and starting that uses the most fuel.

[@SoloRenegade]

and they shut down nuclear like idiots

[@Ushio01]

@@SoloRenegade Yep I mean shutting down old plants that have reached end of life is one thing but accelerating decommissioning and not building replacements was stupid.

[@caoryn]

Comparing CO2 emissions between the "countries" in a per-capita perspective is a LOL moment - I know how to fix the metric, let's get more people where the numbers are looking bad!

[@1verstapp]

i always thought that net zero was more to do with wishful thinking/looking for a miracle rather than anything remotely practical.

[@lemdixon01]

Or slavery

[@jonathand.t.5051]

Thats because nobody actually has done anything significant politically to push it in a way that we can see in our faces that yes, nations are committed to net zero

[@friedrichvonhoffmeister3343]

UTOPIAN least biased TLDR take wtf