The purpose of setting the goals is to appear to be doing something, not to actually do anything. They need a crisis to scare people into accepting the costs and restrictions. When the unattainable goals are not met, there is only more reason to be more strident and draconian as a response.
Expect the demands to only become more strident.
There are two parts of the equation that are intertwined. Yes, there are problems with basing our goals on a finite and dwindling supply of fossil fuels for energy and chemical technologies that have negative environmental impacts. That is not the problematic part. If that were the case, we would not have any real technological issues that couldn't be overcome with present technology.
The real issue is that is in contention is the designation of who will be the winner and loser in providing the solution. All the competing technologies are more expensive at this point because they do not have an economy of scale. Whichever technology is adopted will drop in price as it becomes adopted at scale. The struggle is to be the one to provide a solution and also create a monopoly over it. A perfect example is seen with cordless power tools. They work hard to ensure that the batteries that power them are incompatible with any other brand so they have their entire market locked into a single source.
If they were actually interested in making electric vehicles replace fossil fuel run vehicles, all it would take would be to choose a single form factor for the power that was replaceable. Rather than sitting at a charging station for hours, you could swap out a battery in less time than it takes to pump in the equivalent amount of fuel. If technology changes to say, hydrogen fuel cells for example, you could just swap in a fuel cell with the same form factor and nothing else would need to be changed. As any new or more efficient technology developed, it could be similarly swapped in. The same technology could be adapted for home power storage such as storing energy from solar, wind, or any other power source.
If you wanted a vehicle that prioritized range instead of being able to crush your passengers into the seat with acceleration, it wouldn't need a different power source. If you had a need for handling large loads, it would just accept several of the same power sources.
Instead the fight is to lock you into a proprietary platform. They want to make sure that you continually upgrade your vehicle so they can sell a new one when they want. They want to be able to charge you a subscription for features that will keep you paying forever. They want to force you to be dependent on them for maintenance.
I believe carbon reduction is doing better than one might imagine...the die off rate and infertility rates of us carbon based humans has been quite successfully huge...and why should we want carbon reduction when carbon is Life on this planet??
Your final paragraph says it all but I would also like to point out that the UN, WEF, WHO, Bill Gates and friends are doing everything they can to implement the new world order that would enforce their dystopian visions. They will enslave us with digital ID, CBDC's, psychological warfare, and the rest of their toxic inhuman agenda unless we find a way to disempower them. Very sinister.
The purpose of setting the goals is to appear to be doing something, not to actually do anything. They need a crisis to scare people into accepting the costs and restrictions. When the unattainable goals are not met, there is only more reason to be more strident and draconian as a response.
Expect the demands to only become more strident.
There are two parts of the equation that are intertwined. Yes, there are problems with basing our goals on a finite and dwindling supply of fossil fuels for energy and chemical technologies that have negative environmental impacts. That is not the problematic part. If that were the case, we would not have any real technological issues that couldn't be overcome with present technology.
The real issue is that is in contention is the designation of who will be the winner and loser in providing the solution. All the competing technologies are more expensive at this point because they do not have an economy of scale. Whichever technology is adopted will drop in price as it becomes adopted at scale. The struggle is to be the one to provide a solution and also create a monopoly over it. A perfect example is seen with cordless power tools. They work hard to ensure that the batteries that power them are incompatible with any other brand so they have their entire market locked into a single source.
If they were actually interested in making electric vehicles replace fossil fuel run vehicles, all it would take would be to choose a single form factor for the power that was replaceable. Rather than sitting at a charging station for hours, you could swap out a battery in less time than it takes to pump in the equivalent amount of fuel. If technology changes to say, hydrogen fuel cells for example, you could just swap in a fuel cell with the same form factor and nothing else would need to be changed. As any new or more efficient technology developed, it could be similarly swapped in. The same technology could be adapted for home power storage such as storing energy from solar, wind, or any other power source.
If you wanted a vehicle that prioritized range instead of being able to crush your passengers into the seat with acceleration, it wouldn't need a different power source. If you had a need for handling large loads, it would just accept several of the same power sources.
Instead the fight is to lock you into a proprietary platform. They want to make sure that you continually upgrade your vehicle so they can sell a new one when they want. They want to be able to charge you a subscription for features that will keep you paying forever. They want to force you to be dependent on them for maintenance.
I believe carbon reduction is doing better than one might imagine...the die off rate and infertility rates of us carbon based humans has been quite successfully huge...and why should we want carbon reduction when carbon is Life on this planet??
Your final paragraph says it all but I would also like to point out that the UN, WEF, WHO, Bill Gates and friends are doing everything they can to implement the new world order that would enforce their dystopian visions. They will enslave us with digital ID, CBDC's, psychological warfare, and the rest of their toxic inhuman agenda unless we find a way to disempower them. Very sinister.
#DoNotComply
Lets' not forget the grift of making policy to benefit their friends, while not outright printing money to enrich them.
THAT is what it is all about!