Net zero policies are not realistic, viable alternatives to fossil fuels are not yet available. Forced transition from fossil fuels is economic vandalism.
If I word it myself, I shall say we can consider modifying its original target date if we really need to. As it progresses, we may come across issues and problems. If we let a target put too much pressure on people, the governments may take short cuts or make risky decisions, for the sake of meeting the deliverables (to look good).
It is no doubt challenging. But I have not read or heard a sound and rational argument about giving it up yet. The climate debate is only a debate in a select few Western countries. UK Conservatives do not even dispute it. I did not think we had the option of giving up without a significant cost to future habitability of the planet.
If we don't transition away from fossil fuels it will be economic suicide. The cost of environmental damage and damage to our infrastructure due to disasters will be massive. Properties will become uninsurable and no one will be able to afford insurance so the Government (tax payers) will need to help rebuild homes and infrastructure after floods, fires etc.
Renewables (with storage and upgraded transmission) are the cheapest form of new power generation (according to the CSIRO/AEMO), and the global climate will be eventually be incompatible with civilisation unless we decarbonise.
This content is created by the open source Your Priorities citizen engagement platform designed by the non profit Citizens Foundation