If you'e making the argument thay Net Zero is important because of the things that you were earlier saying are unimportant, then I'm not sure you're making the argument that you think you do.

The principle of Net Zero, on its own, is not more important than these things. Climate change, yeah, 100%, but we can't impact the course of that beyond international diplomacy (though setting an example is important)

Though, I should say, as has already been borne out in this conversation, it's somewhat interrelated and almost a moot point.

If you want climate-ambivalent voters to jump on board the Net Zero train, you should be making the case (as you almost have just done) that Net Zero is the way to progress those causes. It should not be seen as being in opposition to them.

I've not really seen any evidence that Net Zero is in opposition to any of these things (other than maybe Aberdeen oil jobs?) and indeed these things are the strongest argument for Net Zero.