It seems Milliband and Starmer are at odds again.
So I asked Gemini the following question.
What difference to global emissions would it make if the UK met its net zero aim?
The nature of the answer surprised me.
It provided three headings:
- The Direct Math (The Tiny Impact)
- The Historical Context (The Moral Obligation)
- The Real Difference: The “Multiplier Effect”
When I challenged its answers, it conceded that answers 2 and 3 came from organisations which have a financial interest in reducing emissions. Only answer 1 was a “scientific” answer: the other two rested on dubious claims of a moral obligation and behavioural psychology.
Unsurprisingly, AI has an agenda!
I’m not suggesting it’s been rigged: I think it’s just how AI works.
I suspect it’s the GIGO effect.
2 Likes
This is a favourite one for the fossil fuel lobby - scientists who point out the dangers of climate change are dismissed as “having an interest” in promoting green energy and the reduction of emissions. While the oil companies etc are of course “totally objective” despite being massively invested in flogging us highly polluting chemicals.
We all “have a financial interest” in dealing with climate change - it’s called avoiding an increased number and severity of damaging weather events, the huge economic and human consequences of destroyed habitats and other impacts such as sea level rise and loss of polar ice caps, and benefiting from reduced energy costs by using cheaper renewable sources of energy.
The argument that the UK is only a small country so it doesn’t matter if we hit net zero or not is a specious one - if all nations adopt that attitude then nothing gets done and we are heading for the precipice like a bunch of lemmings. The UK and Europe can lead by example.
And whether climate change is real is not a debatable point - the evidence is overwhelming and the science has been incontrovertible for many years, except to those for whom tinfoil is acceptable headgear. 
1 Like
Following on from that in a way, George Monbiot in the Graun yesterday pointed out the flaw in Farage’s vow to support jobs in the North sea, etc. George says that far more jobs have been created in green industries, or depend on it, than the oil industry in recent years.
Yes indeed - and it’s the same in America, where the Orange Tyrant is cutting off his nose to spite his face by removing support for green technology to placate his oily buddies.
2 Likes
That’s why I wrote what I wrote. Tsk, tsk!
Organisations, not scientists. Bodies which get funding.
Organisations like the think tanks in Tufton Street that are frequently mentioned by the Beeb and others as if they’re experts, but are very cagey about their funding.
2 Likes
Well all scientists and their “organisations” get funding - otherwise they couldn’t do science. 
Are we to discount the findings of all scientific research except that carried out by rich amateurs?
1 Like
Given the UK is a small insignificant country in global energy terms then not surprising it would make little difference.
1 Like
Of course not, but they should be open about who’s funding them.
1 Like
The trouble is Jane, if every country adopts that “we’re too small to make a difference” attitude then nothing gets done, and it encourages big polluters like the US and China to do nothing as well.
We are all on this planet together.
There are also advantages in reducing fossil fuel use like improving air quality. It may or may not save money but it’s improved people’s health, especially children.
2 Likes
Absolutely, it’s a win-win all round so it baffles me why there is any debate about it.
1 Like
No, the fossil fuel lobby has the agenda and they are using their massive resources to misuse AI
1 Like
The present stupidity in Hormuz shows why we need an economy and energy infrastructure as independent as possible on imported fossil fuels.
2 Likes
And we need to be less dependent on Russia for oil and gas.
1 Like
Actually, it was very biased towards the renewable side!
I’m fairly neutral on the topic, in that I don’t doubt man’s effect on climate, but I’m sceptical about an inflexible approach.
It’s hugely expensive, too.
Green industries have created a lot of jobs though.
Not doing anything about climate change is even more expensive.
Extreme weather events such as hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts and heavy snowfalls are on the increase due to the way that a warmer atmosphere stores and moves around a lot more energy, and cause billions of dollars/euros/pounds in damage.
Then there is the effect on agriculture, especially in countries where it’s already marginal due to their natural climate.
And fossil fuel is a finite resource - it will get costlier to extract and distribute, leaving aside its vulnerability to wars and political nonsense as we are currently seeing in the Middle East.
Generating electricity from renewable sources at or near the point of consumption is just a better way of doing things. And the more such technology is adopted, the sooner the cost will come down to match or beat fossil fuel alternatives.
1 Like
Is “Tiny Math” smart people code for the cube root of sod all?
1 Like