Thanks for posting a link to my Cliscep article. But I think I should point out that it's not 'science-driven'. I find that, as it’s possible to make an irrefutable case for abandoning net zero without going anywhere near the ghastly and highly emotional area of climate change science, it’s best to do just that. Otherwise you'll be dismissed as a 'denier' giving your opponents the perfect excuse for ignoring your views on the practicalities of the policy. And it's those views that matter: the overriding priority is to get rid of this disastrous policy.
Thanks for posting a link to my Cliscep article. But I think I should point out that it's not 'science-driven'. I find that, as it’s possible to make an irrefutable case for abandoning net zero without going anywhere near the ghastly and highly emotional area of climate change science, it’s best to do just that. Otherwise you'll be dismissed as a 'denier' giving your opponents the perfect excuse for ignoring your views on the practicalities of the policy. And it's those views that matter: the overriding priority is to get rid of this disastrous policy.