Indeed I do, TomBie.

//John Daysh tosses around many allegations.//

And I can support each and every one of them, too.

//Right now in many cases there are no substitutes, alternative sources or means of manufacture.//

Again, no one is proposing that solar panels and wind turbines directly manufacture plastics, or that lubricants for machinery can be extracted from sunlight and wind.

The debate is about reducing fossil fuel combustion for power and transport. Conflating that with petrochemical feedstocks is precisely the category error being criticised.

Concern is legitimate. Fatalism is not.

Meanwhile, proving all those naysayers who thought net-zero an impossible dream were wrong, Cuba has become the first country on earth to achieve the goal.

Strangely the people seem none too happy about it.

http://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2026-2-22-cuba-becomes-the-first-country-to-reach-net-zero-shouldnt-we-be-celebrating

Let's face it.
All we can do is try to minimise the use of fossil fuel.
But there are practical limits to this.
So it seems that long term we are on a one way trip to nowhere.

Actually John Daysh, the debate, such as it is, ignores the fact that most emissions come from non-electricity and transport uses, which is the point of the comment about windmills not producing "products for life as we know it".

I have personally made submissions to parliaments against mad environmentalist claims that we should shut down fossil fuel extraction immediately, which of course would lead to massive civilisational collapse if it were ever done. The Greens go to every election with this policy. The concept of NetZero by 2050 also embodies it.

If I were you I'd go back to using AI to write my stuff. At least it has coherence, even if it also gets a lot of the physics and facts wrong.

Graham,

Net Zero by 2050 is a staged trajectory, not an overnight extraction ban. If the objection is that deep decarbonisation is technically hard, that’s a serious debate. If the objection is to a version of it that no major policy framework actually proposes, that’s a different matter.

//If I were you I'd go back to using AI to write my stuff. At least it has coherence, even if it also gets a lot of the physics and facts wrong.//

Nice attempt at delegitimisation, but my points stand. If there’s a specific physics or factual error, identify it and I’ll address it.