The Net Zero Follies

[fusion_dropcap boxed="no" boxed_radius="" class="" id="" color="" hue="" saturation="" lightness="" alpha="" text_color=""]M[/fusion_dropcap]y apologies for resorting to such a well-worn cliché right at the beginning of this article, but, in the context of this current election campaign, we are ignoring the giant elephant in the room – Net Zero by 2050.No, on second thoughts, let’s dispatch that ageing pachyderm to the legendary graveyard and let’s adopt a new antipodean analogy – the Dark Emu in the room. Yes, Net Zero by 2050 is on that scale of deception.

It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with preventing catastrophic warming, as I shall demonstrate here.Both sides of politics are obsessed with Net Zero by 2050. Our total energy debate is based upon it.



I can just hear the shades of Professor Julius Sumner-Miller saying, ‘Why is it so?’ As well he might, it being the most vacuous basis upon which to completely overturn our formerly robust energy system and destroy our economy.Net Zero by 2050 is not an end in itself. There is nothing intrinsically valuable about reducing CO2 emissions to zero.

Net Zero is a means to an end – to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels in order to stop catastrophic climate change. That supposedly is the end game.

And yet when was the last time you heard any Labor or Liberal politician mention ‘1.5C’?[fusion_dropcap boxed="no" boxed_radius="" class="" id="" color="" hue="" saturation="" lightness="" alpha="" text_color=""]S[/fusion_dropcap]et aside, for the purpose of this discussion, the fact that CAGW is not a proven scientific theory – it is merely projections from models built on self-serving assumptions by ersatz scientists. Here I am taking a Devil’s advocate role.

The Bowens, the Albaneses and the Bandts of this world will smugly tell you they are driven by "the science", specifically the series of Assessment Reports issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Delphic Oracle of our post-truth world.In fact, the IPCC is itself by no means as dogmatic as its selectively informed devotees. In particular, Net Zero by 2050 is not an artefact of the IPCC.

Certainly, they advocate net zero emissions, and they rely largely on a quasi-scientific methodology – to wit, modelling – to support their case. But nowhere in their ‘science’ do they associate the year 2050 with this aim.What they tell us in relation to limiting warming to 1.

5C is that, in order to achieve this, the world can only emit a certain amount, in total, of CO2. This they call a 'carbon budget'. It is based on a range of probabilities of limiting warming to either 1.

5C or 2C. The budget (GtCO2) starting from 2020, offers a range of probabilities, each associated with a specific quantity of CO2, of limiting warming to within the above-mentioned range.There is no timeframe associated with these projections.

Getting to net zero by 2050, makes no difference if we expend the carbon budget before we get there. As an example, the budget tells us that if we are content with only a 50% chance of limiting warming to 1.5C, then we can emit no more than a total of 500 GtCO2.

That is starting from 2020.So how are we doing? Let’s just look at the 83% option to limit warming to 1.5C.

After all, if we are going to replace our perfectly functional energy system as well as decimate our transport, farming and mining sectors, and wantonly destroy our natural environment, we would want at least an 83% chance of succeeding, wouldn’t we? That gives us a budget of 300GtCO2.I have examined this question in detail here. But, to summarize, since 2020, we, globally, have emitted on average 36 GtCO2 per year.

It went up from 37 to 37.4 in 2024. That is a total of about 180 GtCO2 or over half the 83% budget, in 5 years.

Even if we were to reduce emissions, starting today, to an average of, say, 20 GtCO2 (a herculean task) over the next decade we, the world, would have exhausted the remaining budget by 2031. Missed it by that much, Chief![fusion_dropcap boxed="no" boxed_radius="" class="" id="" color="" hue="" saturation="" lightness="" alpha="" text_color=""]L[/fusion_dropcap]et’s take a look at China. The latest commitment I can find is that China aims (claims) to reach net zero by 2060.

Using an, admittedly simplistic, linear annual reduction of 0.02GtCO2, I estimate that by 2036, China alone will have emitted 384GtCO2, totally blowing the ‘best case’ global budget (83%) well before the magical date of 2050. And by 2050 it will have emitted a further 225GtCO2 bringing its total to 609GtCO2 and blowing the 37% probability budget.

Add to that India, the US, Russia, Canada, and Japan, and 2C is out the window as well.So, what happens if we miss these 1.5C and 2C targets? The end of the world, according to the Bowens and Bandts.

Not so much according to the IPCC. I also address this in the article linked above.My conclusion was that it all sounds pretty ho-hum.

Nothing that human ingenuity could not tackle before breakfast.Which brings me to the critical point. Energy Minister Chris (Conger) Bowen and Opposition spokesman Ted O’Brien (to a lesser extent) are like Paddy and Seamus let loose in Las Vegas (I can get away with that given my Irish heritage) putting Uncle Sean’s bequest all on green zero.

If I had a farm, I would be willing to wager it on the fact that even the 50%/1.5C budget of 500GtCO2 will be exhausted by 2035. That may, or may not, coincide with warming of 1.

5C or even 2C. (Remember, according even to the IPCC, there is a natural component of this warming.) But here is another prediction.

The anticipated cataclysm won’t eventuate, and the goal posts will be shifted yet again – ‘Well we dodged a bullet there. But Gaia won’t give us another warning.’Where did Net Zero by 2050 come from, if not the IPCC? Well of course, it came from the vaunted rules-based order that President Trump is doing his damnedest to reform.

It is not about saving the planet but about redistributing wealth from the West to the developing world. The gnomes of Davos, epitomized by Ernst Stavro Schwab, realise that if they put too short a timeframe on the process – one that would conform with the IPCC ‘science’ – people will realize it’s just not achievable and will push back. The beauty of Net Zero by 2050 is that it lulls people into thinking we can reduce emissions incrementally over a long period of time and ease ourselves into the new world.

In fact, the IPCC is calling for deep and immediate cuts. That is totally at odds with Net Zero by 2050, which is nothing more than a marketing slogan. The Australian people are being led to believe that, if we can achieve zero emissions by 2050, we will have averted climate disaster.

They are effectively being deceived by these Ministers, Bowen in particular.If Chris Uhlmann (and kudos to him for how he handled Chris Bowen in the Sky News hosted debate) ever gets another crack at him, here is a question he might like to put: “Minister, what IPCC carbon budget is your Net Zero by 2050 plan based on?”To summarize, Labor and, to a lesser extent, the Coalition are bankrupting us to implement a strategy that has no chance of achieving its putative goal – even if you think that goal is worthwhile. Most conservative commentators, routinely point out that ‘we can’t get to net zero with renewables only’.

That is true, but it is also beside the point. Even if we get to net zero by 2050, with or without nuclear, it will be too late. According to the IPCC ‘science’, we will have missed our chance to limit warming to 1.

5C – it will be irreversible according to them – and therefore its malign effects, whatever they are, will be unstoppable. In the worst case, which country is going to fare better? One with a secure coal/gas/nuclear grid or one with a nationwide network of poles, wires, soalr panels and wind turbines?Ministers of the Crown have an overarching duty to protect the interests of Australia. In no way does Net Zero by 2050 serve that interest.

In fact, it works against it, impoverishing us at the same time enriching China. In my view, the deception being perpetrated about Net Zero is a clear example of misfeasance in public office.I don’t know if Dutton and Ted O’Brien know they are advcancing a Marxist agenda.

I accept they have to play the hand dealt them, and a complete push-back at this stage is likely to be counterproductive. Much of the damage is already in the pipeline. I presume they believe that once nuclear is also in the pipeline, it will eventually predominate.

But they would have been in a better position to prosecute their case if they hadn’t had Net Zero by 2050 hung around their collective neck by Scott Morrison. Thanks a lot, Scott.Conservative commentators seem content to push the line that (a) CAGW is a scam, (b) what Australia does won’t make a difference to the climate, and (c) we can’t get to net zero with renewables alone.

But not everyone is buying that. There is the lingering acceptance that climate change might be real and we should be doing something.That something, Net Zero by 2050, is, as I have explained, a sham to begin with.

It staggers me that I am the only one calling this out.The post The Net Zero Follies first appeared on Quadrant..