Recent Posts1
Climate Change / The Case Against Net Zero
« Last post by rangerrebew on Today at 11:00:11 am »The Case Against Net Zero
BY ROBIN GUENIER 30 APRIL 2024 1:00 PM
In October 2008, Parliament passed the Climate Change Act requiring the U.K. Government to ensure that by 2050 “the net U.K. carbon account” was reduced to a level at least 80% lower than that of 1990. (“Carbon account’ refers to CO2 emissions and “other targeted greenhouse gas emissions”.) Only five MPs voted against it. Then in 2019, by secondary legislation and without serious debate, Parliament increased the 80% reduction requirement to 100% – thereby creating the Net Zero policy.
Unfortunately, it’s a policy that’s unachievable, disastrous and in any case pointless – and, importantly, that’s the case even if you accept that human carbon dioxide emissions are contributing to a rise in global temperature.
1. It’s unachievable.
Many vehicles and machines (used for example in mining, mineral processing, agriculture, construction, heavy transportation, commercial shipping and aviation, the military and emergency services) and products (for example concrete, steel, plastics – all needed for the construction of renewables – fertilisers, pharmaceuticals, anaesthetics, lubricants, solvents, paints, adhesives, insecticides, insulation, tyres and asphalt) essential to life and wellbeing require the combustion of fossil fuels or are made from oil derivatives. There are no easily deployable, commercially viable alternatives. Our civilisation is based on fossil fuels, something that’s unlikely to change for a long time.
Wind is the most effective source of renewable electricity in the U.K., but: (i) the substantial costs of building the huge numbers of turbines needed for Net Zero; (ii) the complex engineering and cost challenges of establishing a stable, reliable non-fossil fuel grid by 2035 (2030 for Labour) – not least the need to cope with a vast increase in high voltage grid capacity and local distribution; (iii) the enormous scale of what’s involved (immense amounts of space and of increasingly unavailable and expensive raw materials, such as so-called ‘rare earths’, required because, unlike fossil fuels, the ‘energy density’ of wind is so low); and (iv) the intermittency of renewable energy (see point 2 below), make it most unlikely that the U.K. will be able to generate sufficient electricity for current needs let alone for the mandated EVs and heat pumps plus industry’s requirements and other demands such as huge data centres the predicted growth of AI.
BY ROBIN GUENIER 30 APRIL 2024 1:00 PM
In October 2008, Parliament passed the Climate Change Act requiring the U.K. Government to ensure that by 2050 “the net U.K. carbon account” was reduced to a level at least 80% lower than that of 1990. (“Carbon account’ refers to CO2 emissions and “other targeted greenhouse gas emissions”.) Only five MPs voted against it. Then in 2019, by secondary legislation and without serious debate, Parliament increased the 80% reduction requirement to 100% – thereby creating the Net Zero policy.
Unfortunately, it’s a policy that’s unachievable, disastrous and in any case pointless – and, importantly, that’s the case even if you accept that human carbon dioxide emissions are contributing to a rise in global temperature.
1. It’s unachievable.
Many vehicles and machines (used for example in mining, mineral processing, agriculture, construction, heavy transportation, commercial shipping and aviation, the military and emergency services) and products (for example concrete, steel, plastics – all needed for the construction of renewables – fertilisers, pharmaceuticals, anaesthetics, lubricants, solvents, paints, adhesives, insecticides, insulation, tyres and asphalt) essential to life and wellbeing require the combustion of fossil fuels or are made from oil derivatives. There are no easily deployable, commercially viable alternatives. Our civilisation is based on fossil fuels, something that’s unlikely to change for a long time.
Wind is the most effective source of renewable electricity in the U.K., but: (i) the substantial costs of building the huge numbers of turbines needed for Net Zero; (ii) the complex engineering and cost challenges of establishing a stable, reliable non-fossil fuel grid by 2035 (2030 for Labour) – not least the need to cope with a vast increase in high voltage grid capacity and local distribution; (iii) the enormous scale of what’s involved (immense amounts of space and of increasingly unavailable and expensive raw materials, such as so-called ‘rare earths’, required because, unlike fossil fuels, the ‘energy density’ of wind is so low); and (iv) the intermittency of renewable energy (see point 2 below), make it most unlikely that the U.K. will be able to generate sufficient electricity for current needs let alone for the mandated EVs and heat pumps plus industry’s requirements and other demands such as huge data centres the predicted growth of AI.
