From the UK Column News and as it’s video (from 1hr 5 minutes), I’ve taken the liberty of some of their analysis. It goes like this as I couldn’t follow their maths. Happy to be corrected by anyone if I’ve got it wrong!.
1 Scotland aims to cut car use by creating 20 minute neighborhoods and a 20% reductions in car km by 2030 (to help with climate change of course).
2 Allegedly, transport is Scotland’s biggest contributor to climate change emitting over a quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions…
3 Of these emissions, 38% comes from cars.
4 The atmosphere composition has just 0.04% CO2.
5 Three percent of the CO2 is man made (therefore 0.0012% of CO2 in the air is man made)
9 Cars are 38% of transports total CO2 production (therefore 0.00096% of atmospheric CO2 is from cars)
So, reducing car use by 20%, you reduce the amount of CO2 in (Scotland’s) air by 0.000192%, reducing the 0.04% to 0.039808%.
In reality, what we’re seeing here, starting in places like Oxford and Scotland, and others, is the necessary process of reducing fuel demand - by reducing transportation demand. (Eurostar travel via the Chunnel is still seeing 30 percent less travellers right now than pre-March 2020 figures; surprise!)
Largely illusory AGW is the excuse, of course. But Peak Everything - most particularly Peak Energy - is the real reason.
We have no choice in this matter. The Peaks are all hoving up on the horizon. Peak Energy is already on its ‘bumpy plateau’ apogee right now, and arguably already starting into its - permanent - decline. Growth’n’PROGRESSforever!!! is a busted flush. The gics and their - more awake - technocrats know this, just as well as renegade commoners like me know it; and they feel an urgent need to do something about it that will - they think - give them a chance to preserve their WealthPowerStatus (WPS) through the times of upheaval, now already begun.
They’re delusional about that, btw; they have no chance; but they feel driven to try. I guesstimate that that’s why the gics brought forward the covid scam to 2020, rather than 2030 as originally imagined, because things are getting urgent.
There will be a certain grim hilarity in watching the gics’ vain attempts to preserve their privileges through these Interesting Times. And the endlessly-inventive ways that we common shlubs come up with to spoke-up the gics’ wheels are always good for a laff too! That will continue, in spades!
“Natural and Anthropogenic Contribution: This allows the measured warming over the last century to be reconciled in very good agreement with all other observations and calculations. It shows that the solar influence was contributing about two thirds and CO2 only one third to the warming over this period (Harde 2017b [11], Harde 2022 [12]). A very topical discussion on anthropogenic or natural influences is given in Connolly et al., 2021 [17].
Since only about 15% of the global CO2 increase is of anthropogenic origin, just 15% of 0.3°C, i.e., less than 0.05°C remains, which can be attributed to humans in the overall balance. In view of this vanishingly small contribution,
of which the Germans are only involved with 2.1%, it is absurd to assume that an exit from fossil fuels could even remotely have an impact on our climate. Changes of our climate can be traced back to natural interaction processes that exceed our human influence by orders of magnitude.”
cheers
PS i just noticed this TCW article from a fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society which questions whether we actually know climate change is actually taking place - if we can’t compare world temperatures then we can’t talk about “change” because there is no evidence of change!
Those numbers had my head spinning a bit too. But it’s self-evidently the case that this part of the agenda is to minimize petrol use and eke out the supply a bit longer. There’ll still be fuel for lorries laden with yummy cricket flour cookies, Learjets to Davos, Jo BIden’s Corvette, and Abrams tanks (0.25 miles per gallon apparently) but family jaunts to Scarborough: not so much. Try the council-run ball-park down the road.
The other bit of arithmetic UKC frequently shows us is that there are not enough of the elements used to make batteries for Tesla cars to replace every petrol-driven car in the UK. Not even a fraction. Let alone every other country in the world. So, logically, if there is every intention to reduce the car ‘fleet’ there is none whatsoever to replace them with Teslas. Bullet-proof limos for Sir Keith? Gosh, yes. For us: not so much. (So far UKC have not made this bit explicit though.)
Hi @CJ1 Thanks for the links. Just for clarity, I believe the whole ‘climate change’ scenario is nothing but a scam for all the other stuff being imposed on us by the WHO, WEF, UN etc. I was just trying to show that the 'reduction of CO2 emissions by 20% is a complete farce.
