Foootsoldier Says…

Let us examine the present cult of Net Zero.

The term describes the suicidal intent to eliminate carbon dioxide from the world’s atmosphere despite its presence being the lowest it has been for millennia. Why then?

The proponents of Net Zero claim that the presence of carbon dioxide at a level of 0.04% (if actually that much) has caused and is causing global warming which, they say, is a catastrophe waiting to happen and all as a result of humans and fossil fuels (aka oil and gas).

Is this right?

The world is presently in the Quaternary Period of the Cenozoic Era which has lasted around 2.5 million years. We are actually in a warm interglacial of an ice age that began about 3 million years ago.

Presently the CO2 general level has risen to around 421 parts per million which is a far cry from the thousands of parts per million recorded by the Arctic and Antarctic cores millions of years ago.

The cores show that CO2 increases following a planetary rise in temperature. A consequence not a cause.

However it has risen in recent centuries from a recorded low around 280 parts per million.

What has this modest rise achieved?

According to NASA satellites the planet has greened in consequence of this modest rise. A warmer planet is a greener planet.

Why is that important?

The answer is photosynthesis. That is the method by which all plant life from Giant Sequoias to grass actually lives.

Plants take CO2, sunlight and water and process these 3 items into growth and Oxygen.

Without the element of CO2 there can be no photosynthesis and, it follows inexorably, no plant life.

So, what would be the effect of the death of plants from lack of CO2?

Clearly, as per NASA satellite records, the increase noted above has caused a greening of the planet. in other words plant life has flourished.

So more CO2 means more plant life. The corollary is that less CO2 means less plant life. And the lack of ANY plant life would inevitably mean the extinction of life on the planet save for bacteria and perhaps the odd moss.

The animals we eat are largely herbivores. Think cows, sheep, goats and the like. Some, like pigs and chickens are omnivores but even they will have nothing to eat in the absence of plant life on which herbivores graze. Even vegans and their ilk would starve alongside we omnivores.

Achieving, even if possible, Net Zero risks the wiping out of civilisation as we know it. Even lowering CO2 from its present modest level will only endanger plant life as demonstrated above. Why then seek it?

It is clear from the archeological record that the planet has undergone changes for all of its life. Climate changes naturally mostly influenced by the sun and the planet’s orbit around it. Anthropological interference by mankind has little to do with such elemental influences.

It follows from the above that the pursuit of Net Zero, mainly by Western civilisation (the East has more sense) is a route to oblivion which is probably why this absurd cult will die out of its own accord as more and more people realise the obvious inconsistencies and dangers within its basic parameters.

Rather Net Zero dies than the world itself.

Amen to that.