It is not about controlling but it is about reducing impact on climate change.
those two are the same thing
And based on what are you calling it fictitious? No bogus, misinterpreted science please.
try some facts
A 0.016% change in atmospheric composition does not drive climate change
And there is doubt how much of that minuscule change is due to mankind
the annual turnover of natural CO2 is 50 times greater than man made CO2
Cite some study or research by someone who has the credentials and who is peer reviewed on the subject to back up your claims.
climate science has been corrupted
peer review ???
July 8, 2004. From Phil Jones to Michael Mann.
“The other paper by MM is just garbage. [...] I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
that is not science, it is agenda driven fraud
you can not hide behind peer review
besides
you do understand that there is no peer reviewed paper that provides clear experimental evidence/ proof / conclusion of anthropogenic driven climate change?
Climate change is a problem that needs to be tackled.
access to clean drinking water is a real environmental problem
overfishing of the oceans is a real environmental problem
irresponsible forest management by govt and activist arson is a real environmental problem
But the "how" needs to be more balanced.
thus far the solutions proposed i.e. "Net zero' have been unachievable lunacy that will kill millions and push billions into poverty
how does one "balance" unachievable lunacy ?
climate change had been politicized and corrupted
expecting a workable 'solution" to emerge is naive and absurd
Doubt that. 5% of new vehicle registrations are EVs. 95% are not.
arguing about EV vehicle registrations is akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic
"net Zero" will suffer the same fate