Net Zero has become like Rapture or the second coming of the prophet in certain religions. Like religion it sets us up to accept hardship. In my opinion things will be tough regardless due to looming significant depletion of oil and gas. We're headed for rationing so that for example you can have all the aircon you want at 35C but at 45C your aircon will be switched off remotely not that we could afford the electricity anyway. The great plagues of Egypt will have become the big switch-off.

Net Zero assumes we can plant enough trees to compensate for steel, cement etc. Don't think so. The high priests of the green sacrifice movement will fly around in kerosene burners while the rest of us take the (electric) bus. My guess is that 2050 will be like 1950 in affluence terms except we'll have internet.

The climate-change agenda is replete with myths and superstitions, including tall tales of islands being inundated; of unparallelled extreme weather; of the imminent destruction of the Great Barrier Reef. These imagined events have no basis in reality, along with the really big myth that a country can survive on wind and solar power generation.

And, 65,000 year old aboriginal myths are now being used to prevent and close down much of our mining wealth.

Not myths, but facts: there is no proof that CO2 is anything but vital plant food, and emissions are still rising, and our environment is being wrecked by ugly and dangerous windmills and solar panels.

Mamtimin Ala’s article is full of speculative and misleading claims that distort the true purpose and impact of NetZero policies.

The idea that NetZero policies are a tool for economic centralisation and social control is a baseless conspiracy theory. Suggesting that this is about controlling people is unhinged paranoia.

Yes, renewable energy infrastructure requires land; some of which is dual-purposed or not much good for anything else. Although, I have received some complaints from the possums who now have to step around the solar panels on my roof (which pump kilowatts of power back into the grid most days.) Either way, the overall environmental impact is far smaller than the alternatives.

NetZero policies are about making agriculture more sustainable by adopting more efficient practices and reducing methane emissions. The fearmongering about "destroying" agriculture is unfounded.

Ala’s claim that electric vehicles and renewable energy are more polluting than traditional technologies has been thoroughly debunked and is the sort of garbage that gets passed around in Facebook posts by bogans and baby boomers. Their overall lifecycle emissions are significantly lower than those of fossil fuels, and the gap here only widens as technology improves.

The use of technology to monitor and manage emissions is about improving efficiency and ensuring accountability. These technologies are subject to oversight to protect individual rights and freedoms in democratic societies.

But this was my favourite bit:

//However, claiming that climate change is a "science" while we must all "believe" in it is paradoxical, given that science must be a proven fact, not a belief.

No, climate change is a phenomenon. There are many fields of science that study it, however, and no one is saying we must “believe in” it; technically, science is never a “proven fact”, either.

//According to the Oxford Dictionary, "belief" means "accept that something is true, especially without proof."//

Oh, so NOW we’re getting the dictionary out? Where was it before?

It is unlikely that governments deliberately use "Net Zero" as a means to oppress their populations (I just don't think they are that smart): some of them may even naively believe that they are doing good things for the community, yet the scary effect of their actions is the same.

Yuyutsu,

What are these “scary” effects you speak of, and what do you think governments who may "naively believe" they are doing good are overlooking or misunderstanding about the impact of their actions?

They can't as yet produce solar panels in factories powered by solar panels. That's not what i'd call successful technology.
Solar panels are great for homes & for camping but large scale ? I'm not seeing any evidence of zero emission even being 50% by 2050 let alone reaching the dreamers goal !
To achieve any practical reduction we should already be mining with battery-powered excavators etc.
Use the money wasted on con merchants & bureaucratic idiots on housing & other more useful & needed infrastructure.