Numerous politicians have committed their constituents to “Net-Zero” (or carbon neutral) objectives. The transition is to be facilitated by various government interventions, including new or higher carbon taxes and renewable mandates; a capping of greenhouse gas emissions and new carbon trading schemes; a ban on new GHG-emitting vehicles; and significant support for the development of hitherto nonexistent transformative technologies. In parallel to these developments, many environmental activists and politicians have demonized synthetic products derived from fossil fuels, culminating in a 2019 pledge by representatives of 170 nations to “significantly reduce” the use of plastics. Needless to say, none of the so-called alternatives could even be built and maintained without massive amounts of carbon fuels. Much research has also established that banning plastic straws, bags, packaging, and other single use plastic products, to say nothing of more comprehensive future bans of synthetic materials, can only result in increased demand for biomass-based and other materials with greater overall environmental impacts. This essay briefly discusses one aspect of these controversies, i.e., the incidental environmental benefits of carbon fuels and synthetic products. As it will suggest, not only were they developed for good, practical reasons, but they also drastically reduced pressures on wild flora and fauna and contributed significantly to the gradual abandonment and eventual reforestation and potential rewilding of much marginal agricultural land. Banning them, especially when the world’s population is now much larger than when they first displaced other inputs and technologies, will only recreate and exacerbate the problems they once solved.
本站基于Calibre构建，感谢开源界的力量。所有资源搜集于互联网，如有侵权请邮件联系。
Github | Docker | Project
Numerous politicians have committed their constituents to “Net-Zero” (or carbon neutral) objectives. The transition is to be facilitated by various government interventions, including new or higher carbon taxes and renewable mandates; a capping of greenhouse gas emissions and new carbon trading schemes; a ban on new GHG-emitting vehicles; and significant support for the development of hitherto nonexistent transformative technologies. In parallel to these developments, many environmental activists and politicians have demonized synthetic products derived from fossil fuels, culminating in a 2019 pledge by representatives of 170 nations to “significantly reduce” the use of plastics. Needless to say, none of the so-called alternatives could even be built and maintained without massive amounts of carbon fuels. Much research has also established that banning plastic straws, bags, packaging, and other single use plastic products, to say nothing of more comprehensive future bans of synthetic materials, can only result in increased demand for biomass-based and other materials with greater overall environmental impacts. This essay briefly discusses one aspect of these controversies, i.e., the incidental environmental benefits of carbon fuels and synthetic products. As it will suggest, not only were they developed for good, practical reasons, but they also drastically reduced pressures on wild flora and fauna and contributed significantly to the gradual abandonment and eventual reforestation and potential rewilding of much marginal agricultural land. Banning them, especially when the world’s population is now much larger than when they first displaced other inputs and technologies, will only recreate and exacerbate the problems they once solved.