Net Zero would be socially and economically disastrous.

From Climate Scepticism

BY ROBIN GUENIER

1. It’s unachievable. Many vehicles and machines (used for example in mining, agriculture, heavy transportation, emergencies, commercial shipping, aviation, the military and construction) and products (for example concrete, steel, plastics, fertiliser, pharmaceuticals, anaesthetics, lubricants, paints, adhesives, tyres and asphalt) essential to our lives and wellbeing require the combustion of fossil fuels or are made from oil derivatives; there are no easily deployable, commercially viable alternatives. Then (a) wind power (the only truly practical source of renewable energy in the UK) is becoming increasingly expensive; (b) the complex engineering and cost challenges of establishing a stable, reliable net zerogrid by 2035 (2030 for a Labour government) – not least the need for a huge increase in grid capacity and (c) the vast scale of what’s involved (immense amounts of space and of increasingly expensive material are required because the ‘energy density’ of wind and sun is so low) make it unlikely that the UK will be able to generate sufficient renewable electricity for current needs let alone the mandated electric vehicles and heat pumps. In any case, the UK doesn’t have enough skilled technical managers, electrical and other engineers, electricians, plumbers, mechanics and other tradespeople (probably about a million) to do the multitude of tasks that would be essential to achieve net zero.

2. It would be socially and economically disastrous. That’s especially so as neither the Government’s nor Labour’s all-renewable energy project includes a fully costed (or indeed any) engineering plan for the provision of comprehensive grid-scale back-up when there’s little or no wind or sun. Yet without such a plan, electricity blackouts would be inevitable – ruining many businesses and causing seriously damaging problems for millions of people, including dreadful health consequences threatening everyone but in particular the poor and vulnerable. And that’s not the only aspect of net zero for which costs have yet to be determined. All that’s clear is that the overall cost of the entire project would almost certainly be unaffordable: for example, a recent National Infrastructure Commission projection of £1.3 trillion is probably far too low. The borrowing and taxes required to pay costs in the trillions would destroy Britain’s credit record and/or put an impossible burden onto millions of households and businesses.

Net zero would have two other dire consequences: (i) as China essentially controls the supply of key materials (for example so-called rare earths) without which renewables cannot be manufactured, the UK would greatly increase its already damaging dependence on it, putting our energy and overall security at most serious risk and (ii) the vast mining and mineral processing operations required for renewables are already causing appalling environmental damage and dreadful human suffering, 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. Above all, it’s pointless. Most major non-Western countries – the source of over 75% of CO₂ emissions and home to 84% of humanity – don’t regard emission reduction as a priority and, either exempt from 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 and are set to continue to increase for the foreseeable future whatever the UK (the source of less than 1% of global emissions) may or may not do. It therefore makes absolutely no sense for Britain to pursue this unachievable and disastrous policy.

– October 2023