“Net Zero” Has Been Revealed as an Anti-growth, Wealth Re-distribution Movement
As long as the right pockets get lined, the myth of “Net Zero” – or whatever it will be called next – will continue to be pushed.
When you’re getting this wealthy, just about anything can look “environmentally friendly.”
The ongoing trend among many in government leadership positions is “Net Zero” carbon emission laws and the setting of timing targets in the near future for compliance. The notion that modern economies can replace affordable natural gas and coal powered energy generation with that of inefficient and unreliable solar and wind is probably some of the worst policy making in history.
It is difficult to understand how anyone could believe that low-intensity, intermittent energy sources – wind and solar – could possibly replace or even act as an add-on to reliable and abundant carbon-based fuels that we have used for hundreds of years. It is also difficult to understand how anyone could expect entire populations of people to give up affordable energy sources and rely on sunshine and blowing wind to cook their food and heat their homes.
Reliability of Energy is Crucial in a Modern Society
Most energy grids aim for a reliability of 99.99 percent. A loss of reliability of just one percent means you’re without power for almost four days. Relying on wind and solar, which is only 40 percent reliable, presents a host of problems if power is lost. Dispatchability, or having a power source to step in if there is an interruption in service, is impossible with wind and solar since they have no backup response capability in the event of an emergency.
In other words, we will need traditional power generating capacity to fill in for the 60 percent power generation capability that wind and solar cannot deliver, even with battery backup. How is that economical, or practical, or even responsible?
We humans don’t use carbon-based fuels because we insist on murdering the Earth. We use them because these fuels are reliable, abundant, and have predictable cost structures. The entirety of our modern standard of living comes from affordable energy, and the evolution of technology has produced increasingly reliable, affordable, and plentiful energy that has gradually become cleaner and more sustainable. Adopting the unrealistic setting of “Net Zero” carbon emission rules against a completely arbitrary timetable turns this affordable and responsible energy scenario into an economically reckless and lifestyle destroying nightmare.
Energy costs have spiked in recent years due to “renewable energy” surcharges being paid by utility customers to finance wind and solar projects, plus government restrictions on natural gas leases and drilling permits that skyrocket the cost of energy. The intent here is to artificially inflate the price of carbon-based energy so that wind and solar energy appears to be “affordable” by comparison. Distortions in the market caused by bad policy rarely end well.
Scorched Land, Dead Birds, and Beached Whales. Cool, huh?
All of this pain has to have a benefit, right? If we reduce our energy demand, we’ll have a smaller impact on the environment. So we should “transition” to energy that has “Net Zero” carbon generation like wind and solar (I’ll make the case for 4th generation nuclear another time).
To insist that the deployment of wind and solar farms has a lesser impact on the Earth than other forms of energy is a flat-out lie. We all know this is a lie, yet it is framed as part of the delusion that humans must have a “Net Zero” impact on the Earth in order to achieve some clearly unattainable utopian existence that is moral and just.
Everything has an impact on the Earth. Humans, animals, trees, bodies of water, the Sun, erupting volcanos, clouds…everything. I would observe that glass solar panels containing 95 percent silicon semiconductor photovoltaic cells along with boron, gallium, phosphorous, and aluminum, covering millions of acres of land that will not have access to direct sunlight or moisture, has a much more negative impact on the Earth than a carbon-fueled power generating plant sitting on a few hundred acres. I would also observe that wind turbine farms similarly covering millions of acres of land and ocean have a very substantial impact on the Earth, as we can attest from the scores of migratory birds being killed and a startling increase in whales beaching themselves. Neither wind turbines nor solar panels can be recycled or disposed of in an ecologically friendly manner, never mind what proponents tell us.
The Color of Money
But this seems to be an acceptable trade-off to the proponents of “Net Zero.” The entire “green” movement that wants to hug the trees, love the planet, and save the whales has exposed itself as hypocritical and opportunistic, cashing in on the trillions of dollars being thrown at this fantasy while ordinary citizens are having their wealth seized and their standard of living decimated. “Net Zero” apparently is a label explaining how much money we’ll have left over after going “green.”
The rush into “Net Zero” is having immediate consequences with no short term solutions. Europe is a good example of hurriedly creating and adopting carbon reduction targets, shutting down affordable energy generating plants and replacing them with solar and wind farms. The result? Energy prices have tripled in the aggregate since mid-2021, and frequent energy rationing is underway across the continent.
The “Net Zero” movement is now facing the realities of public pushback, economic failure, unreliable technologies, environmental damage, societal abuse, and a credibility crisis as a result of decades of lies, deceit, and naked profiteering. As a result, a scaling back of various "Net Zero” programs is taking place throughout Europe due to the inability to ignore reality any longer.
Whether “Net Zero” is effective at curbing carbon emissions is beside the point. As long as the right pockets get lined, the myth of “Net Zero” will be pushed. That is, until the swindle becomes too obvious, at which time it will continue but under a different name. You can count on it.