Panel: Climate Change and the perils of Net Zero
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 พ.ค. 2024
- 16:00 - 17:30
Panel: Climate Change and the perils of Net Zero
Samuel Furfari, professor of energy geopolitics and energy politics, Free University Brussels
Johan Gardebo, research fellow, Clare Hall, University of Cambridge
Barbara Kolm, founder, Free Market Road Show; director, Austrian Economics Center; president, Hayek Institute and Professor of Austrian Economics, University of Donja Gorica, Montenegro
Richard Schenk, research fellow, MCC Brussels
Chair: Jacob Reynolds, Head of Policy, MCC Brussels
The Net Zero objective has become a key driver of EU policies such as the much vaunted and highly controversial EU Green Deal. As both proponents and critics agree: the Green Deal implies both a major centralisation of power away from nation states and a transformation of the way people live.
It would be an understatement to say that not everyone is happy with this transformation of how we live and work. Farmers, under immense pressure from the implementation of EU environmental policies, have engaged in European wide headline grabbing protests causing the European Commission to pause and review some of its measures. Similarly, in the face of mounting controversy over the Green Deal ahead of the European elections, the Commission has postponed the publication of its Heat Pump Action Plan. Moreover, the state of play with regards to the 2035 ban on new petrol car sales remains uncertain. In member states, the outlook is perhaps even more fractious, as widespread de-industrialisation - widely attributed to green policies emanating or inspired by the EU - looks set to lead to enormous political upheavals. Those reliant on the jobs provided by Europe’s traditional industries, from chemicals to cars, are a major source of potential unrest.
Now is a vital time to review and debate the wisdom and current trajectory of European environmental policy. Whilst it is essential to take the threat of climate change seriously, are net zero policies a help or a hindrance? When fossil fuels currently supply about 83 per cent of the world’s commercial energy, compared to 86 per cent in the year 2000, is the EU’s approach to their elimination pathbreaking or implausible? How can we best harness human innovation and ingenuity to mitigate and adapt to the consequences of climate change?
This panel is part of the event Climate Change: beyond the 'consensus': brussels.mcc.hu/event/climate...
Larger viewer numbers are urgently needed for this important issue
Any governmental or policy-making authority that insists on adopting and implementing "Net Zero" policies MUST BE REQUIRED TO PROVE 1) that there is a climate-related existential threat that is a direct cause of Anthropogenic Climate Change, 2) that the proposed policies will be effective at the implementing the proposed policy and 3) the proposed policy will resolve the problem as stated
Things already proven in tens of thousands of scientific and academic documents
@@giooooooooo Is it? Even the IPCC don't state that it's proven! :)
@@giooooooooo Not so. The so-called "greenhouse effect" of CO2 has NEVER been detected or measured in open atmosphere, it is conjecture based on a laboratory experiment with the gas confined in a tube.
The whole circus stops dead in its tracks at point 1 of your argument.
There is no climate "crisis" of any kind; it's all cooked up out of phoney statistical analysis, naked data manipulation and flawed computer models.
Fortunately, it's only a matter of time before reality interposes itself and the insane net zero ideologues suffer the ignominy they so richly deserve.
Crashing the global standard of living and global economy in a decarbonization Great Leap Forward.
Not the global economy, only the economy of the West.
What about the people that are cooking with wood and cow dung? What do we tell them?
@@karollbrinton8317 Doesn't matter what you tell, they'll ignore it.
Sad to see so few people in the meeting.
It is actually disturbing how little is cared about your input and debate. It seems that the majority of people will first have to hit the wall to wake up pertaining to the absurdities being followed and advocated by the so-called ruling and unfortunately in cahoots with a seemingly majority of intellectuals. If not a majority of intellectuals are in cahoots where are the voices of reason?
Interesting debate
Audio level is too low compared to most other YT videos, unfortunately.
So they say 40% of equivalent C02 emmisons are from animals so question where does the carbon that the cow come from in the first place well grass and crops take in these so called emmisons CO2 in the first place to grow when they ferment natural they give off co2 when they get eaten by cows they give of methane due to aerobic conditions inside the stomach and the bacteria that break it down. So if we say animals are producing emmisons it would be idiotic of someone to not into account the emmisons absorbed by the grass in the first place . Carbon emmisons from animals started in the atmosphere and not as locked up carbon deep underground such as oil coal gas and all there byproducts plastics etc that eventually decompose back into carbon emmisons. Its called the biogenic carbon cycle if you don't understand that you shouldn't be public speaking as your talkiing rubbish.
Britain did'nt cause the Pakistan flooding, people building in Flood Plains did.
2016 ‘energy’ became ‘green energy’. The concept of security of supply of energy was gone. Energy policy became decarbonisation. Energy price surge began long before Ukraine. Increase in energy price in EU linked to renewables.
The fools are attacking population growth
The panel....or the EU elite ? Who are the fools you refer to ?
Absolute bunk to suggest that Newton was wrong. He was putting forward a model, not a theory (as was Einstein), so was saying 'if this, then that'; and he was absolutely right.
The dream of net zero is not as rediculous as the dream of never ending growth. We can have net zero but we would have a vastly different way of life. We cant have never ending growth unless we figure out how to mine other planets and live on other planets once weve trashed this one.
It is much more nuanced, complicated than you present....discussion, debate, knowledge, true science....is the only wise way forward !
Incentives for developing 'regenerative farming' can restore not only drastic health improvement for humans, but also can take the 'dead' soil filled with poisons that kill the micro organisms, and pass on poisons to plants/animals/humans
Very right! There's some things you can't debate away.
The Climate movement started in the media in the 80's. Writers were including, tongue in cheek, environmentalist concerns way back when and because these things end up on TVs in living rooms, the word is spread through osmosis. People get used to hearing the green environmentalists arguments through programming of Butterflies or Only fools and horses, two programmes which included the actor Nicholas Lyndhurst, for arguments sake. You can listen to Rodney Trotter mention the climate in so many episodes but don't forget, he's a plonker, according to Del boy anyway. So it's clear that the environmental concerns of the writer, in such programmes have pushed the green cause, whether for laughs or not, no one is laughing now and we are hearing references to terms like existential threat used more and more.
The world is full of greedy individuals who think that they have all the answers and that they know best. That is the real danger, that people assume intelligence greater than you, over you, to take charge of your lives, to save you, they claim.
No it's not to save you, just merely to control you, your children and your children's children. There's money in power, more so than ever as they curtail big business and place windfall taxes on them so as to alleviate them of their profits. Money, there's never enough of it for politicians. They need everything you've got. They are avaricious beyond comprehension. But there is hope. They want to be re-elected and the people are waking up.
At the end of the day, a lie can become acceptable if you hear it often enough. It's the no smoke without fire principle. It works and has its roots in communism. Today, we see the same thing over and over in the West. Lies beget lies, lies to cover up lies previously told. When they start to change language and it's meaning, that is the time to worry.
It seems we're almost there.
This may be one of the reasons why France will be voting for the RN - a far right party - for the European elections in 2 weeks.
Pretty hard to listen to this. I mostly hear slogans of perseverance dripping with hopium. Barbara's words sound like "wash me, but don't get me wet". She wants to continue her business as usual on a sustainable basis.. drive around, travel and fly like before?? How's that supposed to happen? I'm totally convinced there's no way. Looks to me like you're reaching the limits of growth, and you're in the bargaining phase.
Net Zero is amusing, coming from a carbon based life form. CO2 is called the gas of life for a reason. The fact that it doesn't control temperature or climate has been known for a century.
All these speakers are ignorant and tone deaf
Is that all you’ve got ? Insults ?
Try grown up adult debate instead of playground childish insults.
Could you be a little more specific?
This forum is spreading misleading information.The reality is that net zero is possible, necessary and achievable.
The EU accelerated its shift away from fossil fuels in 2023, with record falls in coal, gas and emissions. Fossil fuels dropped by a record 19% to their lowest ever level at less than one third of the EU's electricity generation. Renewables rose to a record 44% share, surpassing 40% for the first time.