SOURCE: Climate Discussion Nexus
PHOTO: Frederic Koberl via Unsplash<\/p>\n\n\n\n
U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright recently told<\/a> the International Energy Agency that if it doesn\u2019t drop its obsession with Net Zero, rather than find some rhetorically marginally different way to be obsessed with it, his indispensable nation might well pull out. Now that is a climate policy, at once concrete and purposeful. Meanwhile Bjorn Lomborg said<\/a> in another forum that \u201cIn recent months, the once-unshakable European consensus in favor of aggressive net-zero climate policies has fractured under the weight of skyrocketing energy costs and economic reality. With the war in Iran driving up oil and natural gas prices, the pressure on Europe is now even higher.\u201d The continent is deindustrializing, its people are suffering, its geopolitical influence is waning, and the \u201cscience\u201d is unraveling. But what is to take its place? Cue the same old. Reuters<\/em> recently reported that<\/a> that: \u201cEuropean Union countries gave the final approval on Thursday to a new climate target to slash greenhouse gas emissions 90% by 2040, pressing ahead with the bloc\u2019s ambitious climate agenda despite political resistance.\u201d EU can\u2019t make this stuff up.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If the EU is a democracy or gathering of same, what business have governments \u201cpressing ahead\u201d with disastrous policies voters reject? Or is self-government different there than in the Anglosphere?<\/p>\n\n\n\n We must observe that here even Lomborg still has one hemisphere of his brain in green land:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe silver lining is that this consensus collapse opens the door to smarter climate action. Obsessing over expensive, low-impact policies diverts resources from real solutions like R&D into breakthrough technologies, adaptation and greater energy access for vulnerable nations, and boosting resilience and welfare in the poorest countries. Europe\u2019s green unraveling is a reminder that climate policy should meet the needs of people, not the other way around.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n But \u201cputting people first\u201d isn\u2019t a meaningful slogan, it\u2019s what a politician puts on their bus when they can\u2019t think of anything substantive to say. Plus if humanity is setting the planet on fire with our stinking \u201ccarbon pollution\u201d something drastic must be done, even if it\u2019s blowing up China\u2019s coal plants and hoping someone lives to talk about it. Noticing again that whether a given climate policy hurts has literally no bearing on whether it\u2019s needed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On the other hand, if we\u2019re not setting the planet on fire, only to put it out with all the floods, extreme rainfall and rising seas, why do we need \u201csmarter climate action\u201d or indeed any \u201cclimate action\u201d or \u201cclimate policy\u201d at all? Other than from inertia, mental as well as organizational.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n