NO-NetZero.
It’s time for all governments to ask far more questions about the need for NetZero…..
Its very clear there are two opposing scientific factions suggesting climate policy action.
Climate alarmists…
They continue to communicate climate science with emergency rhetoric pushed by the UN IPCC and they demand that there is a so-called scientific consensus that the climate is an emergency and that government policies must follow a NetZero journey.
They publish scientific reports based far too much on unsubstantiated theories and climate models that continue to fail to correctly predict the future climate changes. Therefore, these reports continue to have significant risk level ambiguity. The political arm of these same organization’s virtue signal at COPs meetings about climate change being an “existential threat.”
In the past they convinced western governments to fund a climate emergency industrial complex that has ensnared most of the scientific community with funding subjugation.
Climate Realists ….
They have come to a far different conclusion from the Climate alarmists.
Their position is that NetZero is unnecessary, technologically unattainable, economically unviable and extremely foolish.
This group is growing with many significant scientific experts now joining their team.
They will be getting a lot more attention and support from new western governments that are fast running out of confidence with the NetZero approach, and who are decommitting from the IPCC and COPs extravaganzas.
These climate realists have a lot more historical facts and scientific logic on their side of the argument. They can demonstrate that on nearly every metric earths ecosystems are thriving and that this is accruing from a modest warming and an increase in CO2, and that the human condition continues to improve using the power of fossil fuels.
They agree that the climate is slightly warming, but that its not an emergency, and its not us. They have facts that show that our climate has warmed and then cooled 5 times in the last 10,000 years and has been warmer than now, and we flourished in times of warmth and suffered in times of cold.
They agree that CO2 has increased over the last few centuries , but there is no proof that all of the CO2 increase is caused by humans and that increased CO2 has caused all the temperature increase.
They show how long-range average adverse weather or environmental extremes are declining.
They have reports that show that disaster losses have been increasing but show how they are not directly due to climate change.
They explain that climate models have failed to correctly predict any future climate changes.
They provide a strong case for climate adaptation to be prioritized over any climate mitigation.
They explain that renewables such as Wind & Solar and EVs are not a future solution in terms of reliability, scalability and affordability, and will expose us to supply chains with high waste and pollution issues far worse than fossil fuels.
They make it clear that Fossil fuels must be utilized and developed across the globe for the rest of this century to support prosperity and must be driven by affordability.
They favor nuclear power and natural gas as the best outlook for affordable and reliable energy.
Their recommendation is that we need to refocus on prosperity through re-industrialization and technological innovation rather than continuing to waste our wealth on NetZero.
The future Action?
Its very clear that the scientific community is diverging on the level of risk and need for action. (Is it bad news that requires very expensive action like NetZero or mostly good news and all we need to do is a bit of adaptive housekeeping?)
If this was a business decision, we would pull all the experts into one room and listen to both sides of the argument… then make a balanced decision.
The problem is that the two factions refuse to do this constructively because the science has become politicized. No number of countervailing articles and books or extravaganzas like COPs is going to fix this.
The solution is for government policy makers to hold a very structured scientific/policy review process professionally facilitated to satisfactorily represent the diversity of scientific opinions to define a working outlook for policy.
Unfortunately, it is the UN IPCC that refuses to meet with the other climate reality factions who have already made many formal requests to do this. This implies that the Climate alarmist faction has something to hide or are not sure they have a strong case.
If this approach is followed…… then we will see some resolution…….. maybe.
References
https://nigelsouthway.substack.com/p/netzero-versus-prosperity
https://www.brainzmagazine.com/post/take-back-manufacturing-climate-realism
https://clintel.org
https://co2coalition.org
More about how to refocus on prosperity through re-industrialization in the TBM book.
Anybody with an ounce of engineering brain knows that Net Zero is a pure scam. The question is how to persuade the British government of this. We need to Marshall our forces and I am happy to be part of that effort.