The U.K. Net Zero Carbon policy (UK NZC) is a Government policy offered as a solution to a problem that involves a range of academic disciplines. As well as being complex, the science of anthropogenic carbon-based global warming is controversial. Although some climate scientists insist that it is ‘settled’, there are many dissenters, as an internet search or a trip to a good bookshop will confirm.
The multi-disciplinary nature of climate science coupled with differing views among experts makes it almost impossible for a layman to follow the arguments, let alone assess the evidence and come to an informed opinion. Despite these apparent difficulties, I’ll argue that it is possible to establish a simple framework that can clarify complex questions – in this case, “How likely is it that UK NZC will be an effective response to global warming? – without requiring specialist knowledge. I also show how the approach can be used to identify, measure and illustrate differences of opinion.
Start from a small number of statements that make up the Net Zero commitment.
- The Earth must actually be warming.
- The warming must pose a genuine and serious threat to life on Earth.
- The warming must be man-made. Specifically, it must be caused by excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere arising from human activity.
- The U.K.’s NZC policy must bring about a meaningful global reduction of atmospheric carbon. That is, it must either make a significant reduction in its own right, or it must set an example that persuades other countries to reduce their own carbon emissions, to a degree sufficient to stop the warming.
For UK NZC to be effective, statements 1-4 must all be correct. If any one of them is false, the policy will fail, either because it doesn’t lead to sufficient carbon reduction, or because the policy wasn’t necessary in the first place.
The next step is to define a view (with respect to statements 1-4) as a set of probabilities p1, p2, p3, p4, which represent the respective degrees of belief placed in those statements. For example, the view of a particular climate scientist, Expert A, might be expressed as:
(p1, p2, p3, p4)= (0.8, 0.5, 0.2, 0.2), which means that Expert A is:
- 80% sure that statement 1 – the Earth is warming – is true;
- 50% sure that the warming is life-threatening (statement 2);
- 20% sure that statement 3 is correct – warming is the result of human activity;
- 20% sure that UK NZC will bring about a meaningful global reduction of atmospheric carbon one way or another.
Expert A rates the likelihood of all four statements being correct, i.e., UK NZC being effective, as:
P=p1 × p2 × p3 × p4 = 0.8 × 0.5 × 0.2 × 0.2 = 0.016.
If the view of a second expert, Expert B, with respect to statements 1-4, is:
(q1, q2, q3, q4) = (0.9, 0.5, 0.8, 0.3)
then a comparison with Expert A’s view shows that:
- Expert B has a stronger overall belief than Expert A that UK NZC will be effective (Q=q1 × q2 × q3 × q4 = 0.9 × 0.5 × 0.8 × 0.2 = 0.108, versus P=0.016;
- Both A and B agree that the Earth is warming (p1=0.8; q1=0.9);
- Both of them are equally unsure whether that poses a significant threat to life on Earth (p2=0.5; q2=0.5);
- They differ on the cause of the warming. Expert A doubts that it is man-made, whereas Expert B believes strongly that it is (p3=0.2; q3=0.8);
- Both experts are fairly sceptical that UK NZC will lead to a significant reduction in global atmospheric carbon (p4=0.2; q4=0.3).
Neither expert is all that confident that UK NZC will achieve its aims, with Expert A being particularly pessimistic, seeing the likelihood as just 1.6% compared to 10.8% for Expert B. The main reason is that both of them are doubtful that unilateral U.K. action will have much influence on the choices of other countries.
The chart below represents the view of each expert on each requirement, and highlights statement 3, the one area of significant disagreement.
Summary:
- Defining a view with respect to a set of statements in terms of the respective degrees of confidence associated with each individual statement provides a convenient means of summarising, comparing and illustrating a variety of opinions on the subject to which the statements refer. It also serves as a natural starting point for a cost-benefit analysis of any proposed action.
- It isn’t necessary to be an expert (in this case on climate science) to make a reasonable assessment of the conditions that must apply if an argument or an assertion (such as “There is no alternative to UK NZC”) is to be persuasive.
- It isn’t too much to expect someone – expert or otherwise – who advocates a particular course of action to be able to give rough estimates of the likelihood that the conditions essential to the success of that action will be met.
- Long chains of necessary conditions lead quickly to low probabilities of overall success. The longer the set of plausible conditions that must hold if an assertion is to be true, the less likely the truth of that assertion. With 15 independent requirements, each of which has a 95% probability of success, for example, the probability of overall success is less than 50%. Complex policy issues like those associated with climate change typically have many requirements and much uncertainty.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
My gut feel is that a lot of people believe 1-3 because of the saturation propaganda that starts when people are young and has been going on for many years. I suspect a lot of those people realise 4 is unrealistic but would argue it’s the right thing to do anyway, even if it is a futile gesture. I also suspect those people are mainly the middle class who can afford expensive electric cars, increased heating bills, have comfortable jobs and lives.
It seems that in western democracies the servility of the professional and managerial classes is as essential in driving forward Net Zero as is the servility of the officer class in a successful second or third world military coup.
Indeed. I find the self employed seem to be more sceptical, and people who live in more rural areas vs. cities.
As mentioned in another forum (Notalotofpeopleknowthat) the “Net Zero” goal is what you’d expect from El Presidente for life in a 3rd world country.
I think answers to question 4 are also biased systematically by human optimism. We always think tasks will take less time and be easier than they actually are – witness the massive overruns on projects such as Cross-rail. People who want to ‘Stop Oil’ may or may not realise that they also need to ‘Stop Cement’, ‘Stop Fertiliser’ and find a cost-effective way to store electricity, but they almost certainly cannot imagine the size (known and unknown) of the challenge.
Indeed, good point. Everything is very interconnected and complex. Joe Public may not really understand this, but I bet plenty of those pushing “net zero” are quite aware of this but simply don’t care. It suits them, for various reasons.
I’m not entirely convinced that all of those pushing Net Zero actually think it’s logical or care about the planet or anything else except their own power and profit, or opportunity to virtue signal. Just another bandwagon to jump on.
If those pushing Net Zero believed it was necessary for survival, they wouldn’t be flying around the world to meetings and off on exotic holidays.
.
Guido, April 2019
Posh Eco-Loon: No Holidays… Except For Me
https://order-order.com/2019/04/17/posh-eco-loon-no-holidays-except/
.
All the while Kwis Packham was pushing the climate change story, he was running Travel With Chris Packham, a company flying people worried about the loss of the environment to exotic places around the world, not least his luxury Polar Cruises, with vessels boasting of heated pools and saunas.
.
https://www.steppestravel.com/people/chris-packham/#
https://www.steppestravel.com/cruise-types/polar-cruises/
All this despite:-
Transport and Environment, June 2016
Luxury cruise giant emits 10 times more air pollution (SOx) than all of Europe’s cars – study
https://www.transportenvironment.org/press/luxury-cruise-giant-emits-10-times-more-air-pollution-sox-all-europe%E2%80%99s-cars-%E2%80%93-study
.
Obama banged on about rising oceans, then bought another multi-million dollar home, this time, right down on the beach.
.
WhatsUpWithThat?, 24 August 2019
Sea Level Rise? President Obama Just Bought a Beachside Property
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/24/sea-level-rise-president-obama-just-bought-a-beachside-property/
.
Marvellous stuff. Thanks
I can provide one example after another of these Eco Hypocrites. Here’s just one more, someone who was banging on about curbing our lifestyle just a few days ago.
.
The Argus, November 2019
Caroline Lucas admits to using planes when asked about lifestyle
ENVIRONMENTALIST and politician Caroline Lucas has admitted she still takes long-haul flights
The Green party parliamentary candidate said she “occasionally” flies to visit family living abroad.
https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/18027403.caroline-lucas-admits-using-planes-asked-lifestyle/
.
Lucas is a horrible woman.
Who stated that anyone who took their family to Spain for a holiday was no better than someone stabbing a stranger in the street.
The problem with “experts” is that they are human beings like the rest of us with mortgages and families to feed. It is unlikely to get an “expert” to disagree with something when his livelihood depends entirely on agreeing with it. So, he then becomes a “designated expert”, and those who don’t agree are never heard from again. The “designated expert” will then proceed to speak for all of science and will talk of the “risk of using fossil fuels”, but never about the risk of “not using them”, and since 90% of the world’s energy comes from fossil fuels this risk is very high. Currently 2 billion people have only enough electricity to power your average fridge, and another 1 billion have no electricity at all. They are discouraged from using fossil fuels even though it would bring them out of their miserable life of back breaking labour and dying young of preventable disease. But if the “designated experts” are not correct that there will be a climate catastrophe unless we eliminate fossil fuels then the biggest catastrophe would be leaving poor people in abject misery when it could so easily be otherwise. So, if no one is allowed to question or present the case for there not being a climate apocalypse about to occur, how can we be sure there is going to be one? ———–We can’t.— Yet certainty, where none exists, is the order of the day from “designated experts” speaking on behalf of political agendas around the world’s wealth and resources and then claiming it is all based on “science”. But science is a genuine search for truth, not a group think exercise where “designated experts” decide what is true. ———–That is “official science”, not “science”. ————So based on this “official science”, the UK, responsible for less than 1% of the worlds carbon emissions, has decided to implement a NET ZERO carbon policy at astronomical cost and with no idea how it can ever be achieved, and even whether it is remotely possible, that will impoverish its citizens with no effect on climate whatsoever. —————If something will have no effect , then why do it? —-The answer to that is simple. It is and never was about the climate in the first place.
I’ve slowly come to that realization over the past years concerning the renewable energy industry. The burning question should be no longer “What is the logic, if any, behind net zero”, but rather “How do we stop it happening?”
Brilliant.
As confirmation of those influences:-
Confessions of a Computer Modeler
“Any model, including those predicting climate doom, can be tweaked to yield a desired result. I should know.”
After three iterations [of remodeling] I finally blurted out, “What number are you looking for?” He didn’t miss a beat: He told me that he needed to show $2 billion of benefits to get the program renewed.
I finally turned enough knobs to get the answer he wanted, and everyone was happy.
Was the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] official asking me to lie?
I have to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he believed
in the value of continuing the program. (Congress ended the grants in 1990.)
Robert J. Caprara, “Confessions of a Computer Modeler,”
The Wall Street Journal, 9 July 2014
https://www.wsj.com/articles/confessions-of-a-computer-modeler-1404861351
.
And as further evidence of the financial influences:-
.
Forbes, 2013
Blood And Gore: Making A Killing On Anti-Carbon Investment Hype
Al Gore partnered with David Blood for an investment trust in biomass, Generation Investment Management (GIM), before his environment film “An Inconvenient Truth” was made.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/11/03/blood-and-gore-making-a-killing-on-anti-carbon-investment-hype/
.
Incidentally, the film had some of its own inconvenient truths highlighted by The Telegraph.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/3310137/Al-Gores-nine-Inconvenient-Untruths.html
.
Simple question: Even if hypothetically we were to achieve “net zero” today, would it stop the climate from changing?
Answer: no.
Case closed.
I’m pinching that. Great question – however the warmist responds, they are immediately on the back foot.
It doesn’t matter that the net zero policies are illogical. Net zero is a global initiative spearheaded by the UN (as in Agenda 2030), to which all nations are signed up, and by the WEF. It’s purpose is to facilitate the introduction of a one world government, which by its very nature has to be totalitarian. It also depends on the removal from people, as far as possible, of the ability to survive and prosper through our own efforts. Look at the destruction being wrought on Dutch agriculture by the Rutte government for evidence of what is happening, not to mention the energy catastrophe that affects everyone in the developed West.
And look what has happened to Sri Lanka.
That about sums it up.
It’s more to do with political fashion, certain peoples emotions, and the financial prospects involved in it Those that want to try it out will no doubt argue that it is reasonable to “do something”, rather than doing nothing tangible. It seems to me that any proper analysis of the statements quoted is out of line with the normal political timeframe, or even human life expectancy for an individual, in such a way as to prove the effect of any policy to do with global climate changes.
That’s not the same thing as considering environmental matters, such as air quality in urban areas, or efficient agriculture etc. It is a common trick to mix one with the other. E.g. local changes to do with urban development rather than the overall global variations.
I think that is absolutely true.
And few people recognise that even issues that have a bit of truth and logic (air pollution, plastic waste), are when carefully considered, hugely exaggerated.
It is a commonplace to say that 40,000 people die every year from air pollution.
This turns out to be a computerised prognosis that 40,000 people ‘may’ die early. In theory. And not one can be named.
Not even to point out that if the computer model in question was even a bit accurate, humanity would be seeing sharply reduced life expectancy in places like Delhi, Mandalay, Peking. Whereas the reverse is true. Steps have, quite rightly, been taken to improve air quality. But Khan’s restrictions in London have little effect on air quality.
I always remember a comment by either Mogwai or RW to the effect that if there are 400 molecules of CO2 per million in the atmosphere and manmade CO2 is 4%, then that is 16 man made made molecules per million and if the UK produces 1% of all man made CO2 that is less than 1 molecule per million…that’s the difference net zero will make while millions suffer…apologies to Mogwai or RW if I misquoted you
For 25 years we’ve had by far the highest immigration in our history, with the vast majority of immigrants coming from countries where per capita CO2 emissions are lower, often very much lower, than here.
That tells me that our politicians don’t believe that there is a climate crisis but instead the lie is being used to achieve other objectives.
Yes indeed as I posted the other day, why hasn’t Greta Thunberg moved to Africa from Sweden. Her mere existence in Sweden consumes huge amounts of energy to keep her warm, make her warm clothes, keep the roads clear, keep utilities running.
Per capita CO2 emissions are a nonsense quantity politically designed to make countries with huge, CO2-efficient economies and relatively small populations look bad when compared to countries with much smaller and very CO2-dirty economies but huge populations (like India). Humans only emit CO2 because they breathe it out. Most of the human-generated CO2 comes from burning stuff (gross oversimplification) and most stuff is burnt during industrial production of other stuff. Because of this, something like CO2 emissions per trillion dollar of the GDP is a much more sensible measure. OTOH, that would make Germany (and the UK even more as the UK economy relies less on manufacturing) look good and India look bad. And that’s not what the climate apostles want because India isn’t going to give them loads and loads of money.
The trouble is the global agenda drivers have manoeuvred the subject into the absolutist religious territory of having to pledge fealty to nonsense concepts. And we end up with “Are you a climate denier?”. Which is like asking someone if they’re a spoon denier. What’s the answer to that? “No, no, I don’t deny the climate.”.
“Do you deny climate change?”
“Erm..no, of course not, I definitely believe the climate is changing.”
“How about carbon? Do you deny that we need to reduce carbon?”
“What? The element?”
“Answer the question.”
“Erm..Yes yes carbon, of course we need to stop carbon from floating past schools and causing erm the climate to emergency.”
One of the best ways I’ve found of canning this nonsense for anyone who hasn’t bothered to get their head around it is to highlight that human beings live in places as diverse as Tromsø and Kuala Lumpur which experience an average temperature differential of around 23C, sometimes over 60C. And nobody is ‘dying of climate change’.
If you’re talking to an avowed ‘green’ though, this conversation normally leads to frantic abnormal hand waving and something like: “But.. but.. there’s too many people on the planet! We need to get rid of capitalism!”
And lo, we see the Emperor’s junk in all it’s glory..
Climate change is a thing that generally affluent urban types that have all but detached themselves from the natural world believe in viscerally.
They look around thenselves and conclude there are just too many of us.
The rest is just rationalisation.
The climate changes cyclicly and always has. Climate Change is just the name of their cult.
2016 was a year when the World’s Establishment realised that the World’s peasants were getting restless.
We had to be put back in our box, at all costs.
Nail. Head.
Well, having a very limited understanding of sums and fings, that has gone right over my head.
Unfortunately, it seems that you and I are not alone. Too many climate modellers appear to be in the same situation.
.
Why is it that climate activists always demonstrate against cars, power stations and aircraft for their carbon footprint, but seem entirely ignorant of the impact of their own favourite activity, the method they use to organise their protests, their smart phones and swish laptops?
.
ClimateCare, 22 April 2021
Infographic: The Carbon Footprint of the Internet
“The carbon footprint of our gadgets, the internet and the systems supporting them
accounts for 3.7% of global greenhouse emissions, similar to the airline industry.
These emissions are predicted to double by 2025.”
https://www.climatecare.org/resources/news/infographic-carbon-footprint-internet/
.
Royal Society of Chemistry,
Elements in danger
Did you know that your mobile phone contains at least 30 different naturally-occurring elements?
Natural sources of six of these are set to run out within the next 100 years, with several more under rising threat from increased use.
We commissioned an Ipsos MORI survey of 2,353 people, which found that 51% of UK households have at least one unused electronic device
– such as mobile phones, computers, smart TVs, MP3 players or e-readers –
and 45% have up to five. Of these 82% have no plans to recycle or sell on their devices after they fall out of use.
And the problem could be set to grow, with young people owning more items of technology than anyone else, with 52% of 16–24 year olds having 10 or more gadgets in their home.
By comparison, 39% of 35–44 year olds have 10 or more devices, as do 30% of 55–75 year olds.
https://www.rsc.org/new-perspectives/sustainability/elements-in-danger/
.
Why bother. It’s already too late, apparently. We’ve supposedly gone well beyond the Tipping Point – many times (dunno how many of these I dare post).
.
Sky News, 21 February 2021
Attenborough’s stark warning on climate change: ‘It’s already too late’
https://news.sky.com/story/attenboroughs-stark-warning-on-climate-change-its-already-too-late-12226694
.
Matt McGrath, BBC, July 2019
Climate change: 12 years to save the planet? Make that 18 months
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48964736
.
Andrew Simms, The Guardian, August, 2008
The final countdown
“We have only 100 months to avoid disaster.
Because in just 100 months’ time, if we are lucky, and based on a quite conservative estimate, we could reach a tipping point for the beginnings of runaway climate change.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/aug/01/climatechange.carbonemissions
.
GeoEngineering Watch, May, 2014
“500 Days Till Climate Chaos”
https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/500-days-till-climate-chaos/
.
Guardian, Jan 2009
President ‘has four years to save Earth’
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/jan/18/jim-hansen-obama
.
Guardian, Nov 2009
We only have months, not years, to save civilisation from climate change
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/cif-green/2009/nov/03/lester-brown-copenhagen
.
Telegraph, May 2008
Prince Charles: Eighteen months to stop climate change disaster
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/1961719/Prince-Charles-Eighteen-months-to-stop-climate-change-disaster.html
.
“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
George Wald, Harvard biologist, 1970
.
“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable:
by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa.
By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions.
By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
Peter Gunter, North Texas State University, 1970.
.
Ecology: A Cause Becomes A mass Movement
Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support each of the following predictions:
In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution.
In the early 1980s air pollution combined with a temperature inversion will kill Thousands in some U.S. city.
by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.
In the 1980s a major ecological system – soil or water – will break down somewhere in the U.S. New diseases that humans cannot resist will reach plague proportions.
Increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will affect the earth’s temperature, leading to mass flooding or a new ice age.
Life, 30 January, 1970
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bFAEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA3&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false
.
CO2 is a trace gas. It is not a pollutant. It is the food of life.
I had posted with a list of about ten predictions since 2008 of scientists telling us that the science was settled and that the Tipping Point for the climate was imminent.
These scientific predictions put the Tipping Point between one hundred months (made in August 2008) and eighteen months (made in July 2019) after the prediction.
I think because I’d attached all the links to the cited predictions, the moderators felt it too much, and have not published my comment.
.
Since we have just entered the Modern Grand Solar Minimum all this will be blown out of the water in the next 5-10 years. The Ice-Man cometh.
Bravo. What an excellent framework for articulating the folly of net zero.