The core argument as I see it against the zero net carbon emissions ideology is that if it was true that here is an existential climate change crisis, then all of humanity should be moved to a war footing to deal with it. There would be no credibility given to the argument that, well, the non-White nations of the world have not had their bite of the development cherry, so they need to catch up. No, if the environmentalists were right, then this is just too bad. The supposed crisis over-rules everything. Or so the fairy tale goes.
However, we know that the zero net mania is base upon bs, as China is now the leading emitter of carbon dioxide, and has been given a free run to do this, as it is still classified as a "developing" country, even though it is number two in development in the world. As well, the Western elites are happy to close down coal-fired power stations in the West, but China id given a free run to build two new ones per week. Go figure!
"The reality is that most of the world – including powerhouse India and emerging economies – will continue to focus on becoming richer, often with fossil fuels. Russia and its ilk will ignore the fixation on climate change altogether. And China will make money from selling the West solar panels and electric cars, while only modestly curbing its own emissions."
There is indeed something fundamentally wrong, nowadays, with the wiring of the brains of Western ruling elites, to allow this destruction of all that has been built, and gives them their power, to occur.
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/07/24/net-zero-is-impoverishing-the-west-and-enriching-china/
"The West's headlong rush to jettison fossil fuels and hit 'Net Zero' carbon dioxide emissions is impoverishing us while enriching China, which is ramping up its coal-fired industry to sell us all the 'green' technology, says Bjorn Lomborg in the Telegraph. Here's an excerpt:
Starting in the 1990s, climate change has become a fixation for rich country politicians and elites. It emerged as the world had just seen the end of the Cold War. There was relative peace and trust across the world, broad economic growth and swift progress being made against poverty. In the capitals of Europe in particular, it felt like most of the planet's big problems were fixed, so climate change was the final frontier.
These proponents of climate action advocated with relish the goal of ending reliance on the very fossil fuels that had powered two centuries of astonishing growth. Sure, this would cost hundreds of trillions of dollars, but there would always be more growth.
What a naïve, narrow-minded world view. Time has not been kind to the foolish idea that climate change was humanity's sole remaining problem – or that the planet would unite to solve it. Geopolitics and economics mean a rapid global transition from fossil fuels is impossible.
As has long been clear for many, the majority of the world never shared this myopic focus on climate change. Despite immense progress, in some countries life remains a battle against poverty, hunger and disease. In many more countries including India, the top priority is to create more jobs and life-changing growth and development. Outside the most advanced economies, climate change has understandably always been a relatively low voter priority.
Leaders from Europe and the United States talk up "Net Zero" as though it has global support. But this unity is quickly revealed as a mirage. For one thing, the destabilising axis of Russia, Iran and North Korea are not about to support Western efforts to solve climate change. Indeed, according to McKinsey, achieving the Net Zero target would require Russian climate policies costing $273 billion every year – around three-times what Russia spent on its military last year. That won't happen.
The geopolitical challenges run even deeper. China's growth has relied on burning ever more coal. It is the world's preeminent greenhouse gas emitter, with the largest increase of any nation last year. Renewable energy made 40% of China's primary energy in 1971, reducing to 7% by 2011 as it ramped up coal use. Since then, renewables have inched up to 10%. Strong climate action could cost China nearly a trillion dollars annually, hurting its journey toward becoming a rich nation.
The reality is that most of the world – including powerhouse India and emerging economies – will continue to focus on becoming richer, often with fossil fuels. Russia and its ilk will ignore the fixation on climate change altogether. And China will make money from selling the West solar panels and electric cars, while only modestly curbing its own emissions.
As rich countries irresponsibly attempt to export the cost of climate policy to poor countries through carbon adjustment taxes, they will drive a further wedge into an already fractured world.