Net Zero is economic suicide. It must go.

You looked pretty shell shocked when you interviewed me on the @triggerpod but I'm glad to see the message landed! Net zero is economic suicide. Claiming we're leading anyone is hubristic nonsense because nobody is following And while we might be cutting domestic production emissions, because we're offshoring our industry to countries with dirtier energy, global emissions rise as a result Literally lose lose

@KonstantinKisin The sheer volume of vitriolic hate aimed at you today is f**king wild, you seem to have hit Peterson levels. Congratulations, condolences and good luck mate 😂

@SwipeWright Based

I suspect that what you've said is the first time many people in the audience have been told about this trade-off. Well done.

Well said. I view energy policy and almost every other aspect of government and society through one lens: how will it impact the family? Anything that makes it harder for families to thrive, from energy policy to nutrition guidelines, should be rejected. The family is the fundamental unit of society.

And most people think co2 is a massive percentage of the atmosphere when it's only 0.04% And that nature is responsible for 97% , so man only 3% So it's destroying the UK for 1% of3% of 0.04% Ergo 0.04% = 0.0004 3% of 0.04% → 0.03 × 0.0004 = 0.000012 1% of that → 0.01 × 0.000012 = 0.00000012 ✅ Final answer: Decimal form: 0.00000012 Percentage form: 0.000012% And when co2 has never been shown to affect the climate especially temperature-just that it often increases post a temperature increase - and as keeps saying-logically to me that's Mother Nature greening the planet for more shade and shelter since co2 is plant food And the people that are destroying the U.K. for netzero Are the same people who think spraying sulphur en masse and aluminium into our skies in order to block the sun is a good idea Netzero is about taking the U.K. back to the year zero Nothing to do with nature or the benefit of the planet

There's a reason why new media hosts completely wipe the floor with politicians: because they actually talk to people outside of the greasy pole climbers, kleptogamists and public money parasites that make up the Westminster bubble.

Well said sir

Fantastically well said. 👏👏👏👏👏

Konstantin has no answers to the climate crisis whatsoever. He seems to believe he knows more about planetary physics than NASA. He totally disregards the views of NASA, Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard etc, and that - 2025 is the third hottest year recorded on earth. - Carbon dioxide levels are higher than in millions of years - the recent joint intelligence committee report warns of nuclear war in Asia, • Mass starvation as soils collapse, pollinators disappear, and fisheries implode • Freshwater breakdown leaving entire regions unviable • Cascading failures across ecosystems, triggering unstoppable chain reactions • Riots, state instability, and violent conflict sparked by food and resource scarcity • A national security threat on the scale of nuclear war — slower, harder to stop, and global

Great speech, but only polite applause that the end. ☹️ I’m starting to think we need more emotional arguments as the rational ones aren’t working.

Stop lying, Oxford Uni corrects you here

@RobertSole9 This is actual suicide

People rarely hear this level of rational intelligent thought anymore - I’m not sure they knew how to respond to such truths!

Spot on, here is a graph for global steel production by country which demonstrates that basically demonstrates this

The people not applauding are brain dead lemmings.

0,04% is our CO2 level now 0,01% is the CO2 rise since the Industrial revolution in 250 years 50 years to full energy transition in 2080 will add another 0,0025% CO2 0,2% is the level CO2 the forests of our planet want if they could vote 1,1 degrees is the temperature rise in 250 years. Another 50 years would add another 0,25 degrees 0 is the sea level rise since the start of the Industrial revolution 0 is the problem that CO2 causes to this planet 40% is the increase in crops and forest growth we would get if the forest got to vote for an increase to 0,2% CO2 CO2 is not a problem. It is an important nutrient

When anyone says “net zero” is too expensive, ask them “compared to what?”. Because “do nothing” is more expensive and “adaptation” will continue forever. Both are totally uncosted. And those saying net zero is too expensive won’t fund adaptation either.

Konstantin you preach. Eventually the majority will listen and understand. Gone are the days where citizens can think their politicians act in their best interests.

Russian supporter of Reform UK wants us to continue prioritising dirty fossil fuels over cheap clean renewables? What a surprise...

Britain is blessed to have you as a voice of reason over there.

Having watched a few clips it shows that when someone speaks sense and is based, they hardly get any applause when it comes to that program. I wonder why that is 🤔

I have no idea how anyone can disagree with any of that. 100% spot on common sense.

So. Are you going to share your communications with Saudi oil lobbyists?!?!? You know what I’m talking about!

Yes. Here's a photo of the last parcel they sent me:

You were brilliant!

What qualifications do you have that makes you a person worth listening to over actual climate scientists on the subject of Net Zero? As far as I know, you dropped out of Edinburgh University and didn't finish whatever degree programme you were studying for. Who's funding you?

Why @bbcquestiontime ? Why on earth would you give this vile excuse for a human being a platform to spew his garbage?

You agree with this

It's also moronic when there's countries building coal power stations galore and others just dumping waste in rivers like it magically disappears from there.

Just watched on catch up and I applaud you for being the only one speaking common sense. Disappointed that so many audience members are so gullible and brainwashed by the woke ideology. I fear for my grandchildren’s future.

Was this your audition tape for Reform, or are already onboard and doing their bidding the big oil & gas companies ? The economic damages of unmitigated climate change through infrastructure destruction, agricultural losses, health crises, and mass displacement are projected by institutions like the OECD and World Bank to far exceed the costs of a clean energy transition. You can make whatever claims and false statements you want - but It is the greatest economic opportunity of the 21st century! Investments in renewables, grid modernization, electric vehicles, and green tech are creating new industries, 10's of 1000's of jobs, and positions countries for strategic advantage in the future global economy. Moving away from volatile fossil fuel markets, which are subject to geopolitical shocks, toward domestically produced renewable energy can enhance long-term energy security and price stability for nations and consumers. The argument that renewables are too expensive is completely outdated. The cost of solar, wind, and batteries has fallen dramatically much cheaper than new fossil fuel plants, making the transition increasingly economically rational on its own terms. The transition must be managed fairly to support affected workers and communities, this is a better, more controlled pathway than the sudden, catastrophic economic disruptions caused by escalating climate impacts.

China is laughing at you. They have already transitioned. It's done. And they are now the world leaders. The UK arguing about how they might lead and inspire while still running the country with the equivalent of horse and buggy. The game is over and you lost.

We eagerly await your reappraisal of 200 years of climate science in a paper published in a peer reviewed journal. When do you expect to publish it? But you’ll need to explain what you think you know that every climate scientists & every national science academy have missed.