Majority of Liberals wanted net zero gone
The shadow ministry met for about three hours on Thursday morning to set the path forward, a day after Liberal MPs and senators converged on Canberra for a mammoth net-zero-themed party room meeting.

Each of the 49 members present on Wednesday was offered five minutes to speak on the topic, and while there was no formal vote, Liberals all agreed that there were more people opposed to the target than in favour.

See - this is a serious problem: As a result of the party's shoddy stance on climate, despite the electorate making it crystal clear they want this, they're listening internally the few members who were elected - and not all the members who failed to be elected.

How can the party look at the success of the Teal movement, which is essentially 'Liberals who care about climate', and not see the picture being painted? Surely you should look at all the seats you didn't win and ask "why?"

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] 18107@aussie.zone 23 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The government has claimed that reaching net zero is impossible.

Meanwhile, South Australia is on track to reach net zero early, and other states are accelerating their uptake of renewable technologies.

This government is not compatible with reality.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Net zero includes products made from oil too, right? Like, plastic.

[–] 18107@aussie.zone 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)

For this specific case it means net zero carbon emissions into the atmosphere. Plastic isn't carbon in the atmosphere, so it isn't included in these figures.

Net zero is just the first step anyway. Once we reach net zero, we still need to work really hard to get to actual zero, then we still need to find a way to be significantly carbon negative if we want to try to slow the worsening rate of climate related disasters.

Hopefully, somewhere in that process, oil products will become non-viable.

[–] Tenderizer@aussie.zone 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Actual zero is impossible. "Actual net zero" is what we should aim for (climate accounting with offsets can get a bit freaky)

[–] 18107@aussie.zone 2 points 1 month ago

That's a much better way of phrasing it.

The current "net zero" targets fall a long way short of necessary, but I wasn't sure of a term for the correct target.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Plastic isn't carbon in the atmosphere, so it isn't included in these figures.

Sure is. Either by fire or by sun. Not yet, but in the same way that wood is only temporary bound CO~2~. With the difference that plastic is made from oil, not from already circulating C.

Edit: i should read the rest first, before answering, my bad.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 3 points 1 month ago

CO²

Just so you know, Lemmy actually supports subscript. Surround text with single tildes. CO~2~ gives CO~2~.