The Daily Sceptic, a go-to site for critical material about the climate change alarmist scam, has a nice summary of the reasons against net zero, or zero net, take your pick, carbon emissions. Although focussed upon the UK, it is relevant to Australia, as Australia is following exactly the same path that the UK is on. That stands to reason as the climate change ideology is globalist, designed to destroy Western industrialism, to allow China to rule the world, while the globalists rule China.
Even if one accepts the falsehood that carbon dioxide is responsible for a rise in global average temperatures since the start of the industrial age, it is totally unachievable to eliminate carbon production and still have an advanced civilisation. Fossil fuels are the foundation of this civilisation, not only for reliable energy, but in every manufacturing process you want to name, fertilisers, pharmaceuticals/medicines, anaesthetics, lubricants, solvents, paints, adhesives, insecticides, insulation, tyres and asphalt. There is simply no alternative to the use of fossil fuels.
The movement to renewables is a scam, since wind and solar require fossil fuel energy in manufacture to even get to first base in operating, and even then, these sources are unreliable and still need fossil fuels as a backup, which is a large proportion of the time.
And here is the kicker: "Most major non-Western countries – the source of over 75% of GHG emissions and home to 84% of humanity – don't regard emission reduction as a priority and, either exempt from (by international agreement) or ignoring any obligation to reduce their emissions, are focused instead on economic and social development, poverty eradication and energy security. As a result, global emissions are increasing (by 62% since 1990) and are set to continue to increase for the foreseeable future."
In short net zero is a policy of national suicide, and only an occupied government, one under globalist control, would pursue it.
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/04/30/the-case-against-net-zero/
"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.
In any case, the UK doesn't have enough skilled technical managers, electrical and other engineers, electricians, plumbers, welders, mechanics and other tradespeople (probably about a million are needed) to do the multitude of tasks essential to achieve Net Zero – a problem worsened by political demands for massively increased house building.
'Net Zero' means that there has to be a balance between the amount of any greenhouse gas emissions produced and the amount removed from the atmosphere. However there's no detailed, costed (or indeed any) plan for such removal, thereby invalidating the entire project.
2. It would be socially and economically disastrous.
Neither of the main political parties' all-renewable energy project includes a fully costed engineering plan for the provision of comprehensive grid-scale back-up when there's little or no wind or sun, a problem that's exacerbated by the pending retirement of fossil fuel and nuclear power plants. Both parties are now talking of building new gas-fired power plants – thereby undermining Net Zero – but they've not published any detail and, in any case, intend it seems to fit them with carbon capture and underground storage systems – an unproven, wasteful and expensive technology that hasn't been shown to be viable on a national scale. This issue is desperately important: without full back-up, electricity blackouts would be inevitable – ruining many businesses and causing dreadful problems for millions of people, including health consequences threatening everyone and in particular the poor and vulnerable.
Even more serious is the fact that, because there's no coherent plan for the project's delivery, little attention has been given to its overall cost. All that's clear is that it would almost certainly be completely unaffordable: for example, a recent National Infrastructure Commission projection of £1.3 trillion is probably far too low – estimates in excess of £3 trillion seem likely to be more accurate. The borrowing and taxes required for costs at this scale would destroy Britain's credit standing and put an impossible burden onto millions of households and businesses.
Net Zero would have two other dire consequences:
1.As China essentially controls the supply of key materials (for example, lithium, cobalt, aluminium, processed graphite and so-called rare earths) without which renewables cannot be manufactured, the U.K. would greatly increase its already damaging dependence on it, putting its energy and overall security at most serious risk.
2.The extensive mining and mineral processing operations required for renewables are already causing appalling environmental damage and dreadful human suffering throughout the world, affecting in particular fragile, unspoilt ecosystems and many of the world's poorest and most vulnerable people; the continued pursuit of Net Zero would make all this far worse.
3. In any case it's pointless.
For two reasons:
1.It's absurd to regard the closure of greenhouse gas (GHG) emitting plants in the U.K. and their 'export' mainly to SE Asian countries, commonly with poor environmental regulation and often powered by coal-fired electricity, as a positive step towards Net Zero. Yet efforts to 'decarbonise' the U.K. mean that's what's happening.
2.Most major non-Western countries – the source of over 75% of GHG emissions and home to 84% of humanity – don't regard emission reduction as a priority and, either exempt from (by international agreement) or ignoring any obligation to reduce their emissions, are focused instead on economic and social development, poverty eradication and energy security. As a result, global emissions are increasing (by 62% since 1990) and are set to continue to increase for the foreseeable future. The U.K. is the source of less than 1% of global emissions – so any further emission reduction it may achieve cannot have any impact on the global position.
In other words, the Net Zero policy means the UK is legally obliged to pursue an unachievable, disastrous and pointless policy – a policy that could result in Britain's economic destruction.