The Net Zero Strategy: An Unaffordable And Needless Expense
Getting emissions down to net zero by 2050, where no more CO2 is emitted––no problem. It will only cost a modest $275 trillion. That's a trillion with a 't'. How will we pay for it? Don't worry; it will all work out. McKinsey & Company, a global future planning group, has projected the cost data.
Now, what are we getting for that $275 trillion? Well, we're going to lower the planet's temperature. If you believe the climate change alarmists, we have no choice because the earth is in a dire situation. The warming will result in glaciers melting and the polar ice caps disappearing. We have heard this scenario for many decades, and it's become tiresome. In the early 1970s, it was the scaremongering of an impending new Ice Age. When that didn't sell, it was on to global warming and climate change.
We have also been told that to deny this 'reality' is akin to being an anti-vaxer or a Holocaust denier. In other words, you're a climate change denier. You're one of the 'others'. We are also told that the science is settled with no room for dissent. If you are a scientist and take the counter-narrative road, you are unlikely to get funding for your research. We are told that except for a few crackpots, all the scientists are on board with the climate change mantra.
They fail to tell you that costs will go up a lot. Who will pay? The average working man will bear the brunt. But don't worry, it's all for the good of the planet. Yes, those WEF globalists who lecture us still fly on their jets to conferences emitting CO2 and implore us to get on the net zero train.
The rationale for spending many trillions is that with green energy, as much CO2 will be absorbed as is emitted, and in theory, the world's temperature will drop. But even in the experts' own scenario, there is much uncertainty, as evident in the chart below.
Mbpd - Thousands of barrels per day
Well, not all the scientists are on board. In 2008, 31,487 U.S. scientists signed the Global Warming Petition Project. This was their purpose statement:
"The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of "settled science" and an overwhelming "consensus" in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very largenumber of American scientists reject this hypothesis.
Publicists at the United Nations, Mr. Al Gore, and their supporters frequently claim that only a few "skeptics"remain – skeptics who are still unconvinced about the existence of a catastrophic human-caused global warming emergency.
It is evident that 31,487 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,029 PhDs, are not "a few."Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,487 American scientists are not "skeptics."
These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth."
Many scientists rationally agree with this conclusion. World-renowned atmospheric Physicist Richard Lindzen said in 2023 that climate change isn't "particularly dangerous." Alarmism based on fears of an impending catastrophe is irrational and wastes trillions of dollars that could be used more wisely.
The reality is that emissions will naturally drop by the end of this century. Why? The population will start to decline, and then the real catastrophe may occur unless we change our ways.
If we continue with current trends, the global population will peak at 9.7 billion around 2064, according to a new study in the Lancet, and by 2100, it will drop to 8.8 billion. Some two dozen countries will see their populations drop 50% by 2100. So
After 2100, if fertility rates continue on the track we're on, it will be disastrous for the human race. Climate change will be the least of our concerns. The trillions spent on net zero would be better served to give couples significant monetary incentives to have children, not to overpopulate the world, but to stall our downward slide into oblivion. We need a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to slash climate change infrastructure. Bureaucrats are making careers out of the climate industry and the race to net zero by 2050. It's an absolute waste of money.
https://futurism.com/global-birth-rates-falling-precipitiously