Is it time to be rid of "net zero"?

The leader of a very right wing party with representation in Downunder's Senate is making a political move which may force the Coalition to make a much stronger commitment to the issue - one way or another.

Until now the Coalition has been on line with the issue. We need to get to "net zero". They committed to it in Paris and then elsewhere. How to get there was not described in any detail. It was just a commitment that a country of twenty-seven million people was agreeing to this policy. We were going to change the world by 2050 and most of it would be done by 2030. Our commitment would mean that rising sea levels would be halted and that our "Pacific neighbours" would be safe.

All this sounded good, very good. People were excited by the idea that we could do it. Nobody mentioned the miniscule contribution we make to those harmful "greenhouse gases" or any of the problems we might have in reaching the target. The cost of doing it was mentioned but not in a way which might cause alarm.

We had a power outage last night. I managed to recover most of what I had been doing. I apologised to the person on the other side of the world and we went back to what we were doing. Then it happened again and again. It was frustrating for both of us. Eventually my colleague sent a message, "I didn't think you lived in a third world country!"

No, I don't...but it might well become that. The "net zero" approach of the present government is not working. It is not likely to work. It is not taking into account our geography or our population numbers or the way we currently house that population. What is more our efforts are not going to make any difference at all. We could do more good and do it much more cheaply by planting more vegetation, particularly trees, which could also feed, clothe and house people as well as caring for the other living things on the planet. 

Of course doing it that way would require a great deal more hard work, hard physical work at that. The present government wants to do it in a way that seems "easy". You plant solar panels and windmills. That you need to import these and the food you can no longer grow on the ground you have covered with solar panels is not relevant to the "net zero" argument...or is it?  

I have said all this before but of course nobody is listening. Who wants to listen to anything that might actually require some work? Even if I had the time, the money and the energy I do not think I have it in me to launch another massive campaign. I did that once but the way the world works and communicates has changed. 

The reason for that power outage last night? A tree had fallen across power lines.