Once you get beyond all the Duckspeak and “we’re all in this together”, it’s really just another form of government forcing the private sector to act in a certain manner
The Way The World Needs To Move Forward On Climate Action: Climate Alignment
To make fundamental breakthroughs in addressing the causes of climate change, we need to dramatically shift the way we think and act on climate. To date, the world has primarily — and understandably — tackled the issue as a project of nations, leaving countries to formulate their action plans in silos, sometimes even in secrecy. But business doesn’t stop at the border, and neither do emissions.
What’s this “we” stuff? Why don’t climate cultists practice what they preach themselves?
India, China, and the United States may appear as individual entities in the climate dialogue, but their steel, chemicals, and cement industries have a lot in common. To go far enough fast enough, we need the Paris Agreement’s nationally determined contributions, but we also need an equally strong focus on cross-cutting industrial transformation. The bottom line is that we won’t solve the climate crisis without solving industry, but our current approach is not enough.
It’s clear that if we are to have a future that avoids the worst-case climate scenarios while also being just and environmentally sustainable, and providing equitable access to opportunities for global citizens, we need to target net-zero emissions by 2050. But while 2050 sounds like it’s far away, we need to be on track for our 2050 goals by 2030. That means we only ten years (or nine and a half at this point) to drive past economic tipping points and cut emissions by half. Therefore, the 2020s have been referred to as “the decisive decade.â€
Dramatic change in these sectors is possible, but it requires engaging the real economy and working directly with the leaders in the most carbon-intensive sectors in a way that hasn’t been done before. In that spirit, the emerging concept of climate alignment is critical. Climate alignment focuses attention on the disciplined stewardship of the limited carbon budget we need to work within if we want to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees C.
A climate-aligned sector or company has specified a science-based transformation pathway to net zero emissions, the metrics needed to measure progress, and the range of stakeholder commitments from industry, finance, customers, suppliers, and governments needed to move down that pathway. It is a term that’s gained traction in the financial community where banks and investors are seeking to align near-term activities with technical and economic pathways that are needed to stay under the 1.5-degree target.
And it would really be government setting those metrics, and forcing the private sector to comply. Surprise? The question is, will this become one of the next things for the Cult of Climastrology?
Portland cement concrete is the world’s most versatile building material, with Portland cement patented by Joseph Aspdin in 1824. While there has been continual research to develop a new product, nothing else has come close, and while there have been a few modifications made, Portland cement remains virtually the same material as when first invented.
Produced by burning limestone and clay in high temperature kilns, and then ground to a fine powder, there has been no substitute developed for the manufacturing process. The only way to get to net zero emissions in the manufacture of Portland cement is to stop making it.
They said “Net zero”, not actual zero. In net zero, you can use estimates and imaginary offsets by paying off some green activist group. Global warming has always been about the payoffs and wealth transfers.