Read on Twitter
1/ Labour should drop it; it's a goal that can't be delivered. Labour should match Hackney's target of <45% decarbonisation against 2010 levels by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2040. This matches the higher confidence threshold of the IPCC's 1.5C report. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-net-zero-target-2030-labour-climate-change-a9586971.html
2/ I don't wish to diminish the achievements of the Labour GND people who managed to defeat the dinosaurs at Labour Conference, but the motion is a flawed exercise in tech utopianism that naively scopes-out aviation and land transport emissions, meaning it fails on its own terms.
3/ The 2030 target essentially came out of XR, which at the time was run by people like Roger Hallam (who I met at Hackney Town Hall) who are extremely anti-politics, and it's my suspicion that this target was more about showing that politics couldn't deliver than that it could.
4/ For a deeper dive into the flaws of Labour's current decarbonisation target and why it should be following the @HackneyLabour administration's lead, I've already written a detailed thread... https://twitter.com/jonburkeUK/status/1176982853810343936
5/ For the avoidance of doubt, what I mean by "can't be delivered" is that the 2030 target can't be delivered with the level of ambition expressed in the motion it was delivered under. We could do it, but not by scoping-out aviation, land transport, and resource depletion.
6/ The fact that 'the architect of Labour's Green New Deal' was permitted to go missing on the second Heathrow expansion vote perfectly illustrates the magical thinking going on in the Labour Party about decarbonisation. https://twitter.com/jonburkeUK/status/1206358204189495296
