Here’s what I don’t get about these attacks on ‘net zero’: what’s the alternative plan? Not ‘listen to the science’ or ‘real zero’, but an actual plan that’s better than striving to mobilise a portfolio of solutions to halve emissions by the 2030s before then getting to net zero.

Again, critiques of some of the strategies and technologies proposed to reach net zero are constructive, necessary, and understandable, but where is the upside for the environmental movement in a blanket attack on targets that are ultimately aiming to stabilise the climate ASAP?

You’ve managed to get most everyone in power to agree to the effective full decarbonisation of the economy within 30 years so that the only debate is about how to achieve that goal, and now you want to torch the concept that helped deliver that rare bit of progress?

There’s got to be better ways to guard against greenwash and bad actors than undermining the actual progress that you’ve made.

And perversely if attacks on ‘net zero’ by Greta et al are meant to help guard against greenwash, I can’t think of anyone who benefits more from confidence in the concept being undermined than fossil fuel majors with dubious net zero strategies. It’s like Sun Tzu gone haywire.