My suggestions:
"By doing just a little every year, we gradually let the Nut Zero project completely overwhelm us."
or
"We have failed with the Nut Zero project, but we certainly admired the many problems that we discovered."
or
"The time for Nut Zero action is past: Now is the time for senseless bickering, finger pointing, and attributing blame!"
The next article is about an otherwise intelligent person discussing climate change after skipping the first two steps on the climate change assumption ladder.
Step one is the false assumption that climate change in the past 100 years was unusual, primarily man made, and is leading to a climate crisis of some kind. There is no ability to predict the future climate. The coming crisis is imaginary. The CLINTEL Prrsident quoted in the article admits the climate science is shaky, but that doesn't stop him from talking about an "energy transition".
Step two is the false assumption that a climate crisis is coming, so some significant energy (source) transition is needed. Energy sources would naturally change over time to be more efficient, less polluting and cheaper. But this assumption is the need for a government coerced transition, currently heading toward intermittent, unreliable more expensive wind and solar energy.
Nuclear power is recommended as a better transition in the article. But there is no consideration of whether an energy transition is actually needed, replacing an electric grid that works, at great expense, with whatever sounds good on paper. The current electric grid is not broken, but we must change it?
The next article starts by skipping the first two assumptions to discuss how an energy transition would be done.
Of course the author and the CLINTEL president he quotes do not consider opportunity cost: Alternative uses for the money and labor being used to replace an electric grid that works. Without having the intelligence to consider better uses for that money and labor, both men are supporting an unnecessary, expensive and potentially risky transition of an electric grid that currently works.
Do they fail to notice most nations with growing CO2 emissions, such as China, India, African nations, and every other developing nation, have no interest in Nut Zero. So even if Nut Zero was feasible, it could not accomplish its goals. (Not that there is a detailed Nut Zero plan, with timing and expenditures, that could be subject to an engineering, timing and financial feasibility study. And there are no successful small scale pilot projects. Just a Nut Zero vision statement and an arbitrary project completion year goal.). That's a big nothing burger, to quote the great orator Hillarty Clinton/
End of my Sunday afternoon ranting and raving.
I will now take my medications.
heh heh
Ye Editor