The West’s headlong rush to jettison fossil fuels and hit ‘Net Zero’ carbon dioxide emissions is impoverishing us while enriching China, which is ramping up its coal-fired industry to sell us all the ‘green’ technology, says Bjorn Lomborg in the Telegraph. Here’s an excerpt:
Starting in the 1990s, climate change has become a fixation for rich country politicians and elites. It emerged as the world had just seen the end of the Cold War. There was relative peace and trust across the world, broad economic growth and swift progress being made against poverty. In the capitals of Europe in particular, it felt like most of the planet’s big problems were fixed, so climate change was the final frontier.
These proponents of climate action advocated with relish the goal of ending reliance on the very fossil fuels that had powered two centuries of astonishing growth. Sure, this would cost hundreds of trillions of dollars, but there would always be more growth.
What a naïve, narrow-minded world view. Time has not been kind to the foolish idea that climate change was humanity’s sole remaining problem – or that the planet would unite to solve it. Geopolitics and economics mean a rapid global transition from fossil fuels is impossible.
As has long been clear for many, the majority of the world never shared this myopic focus on climate change. Despite immense progress, in some countries life remains a battle against poverty, hunger and disease. In many more countries including India, the top priority is to create more jobs and life-changing growth and development. Outside the most advanced economies, climate change has understandably always been a relatively low voter priority.
Leaders from Europe and the United States talk up “Net Zero” as though it has global support. But this unity is quickly revealed as a mirage. For one thing, the destabilising axis of Russia, Iran and North Korea are not about to support Western efforts to solve climate change. Indeed, according to McKinsey, achieving the Net Zero target would require Russian climate policies costing $273 billion every year – around three-times what Russia spent on its military last year. That won’t happen.
The geopolitical challenges run even deeper. China’s growth has relied on burning ever more coal. It is the world’s preeminent greenhouse gas emitter, with the largest increase of any nation last year. Renewable energy made 40% of China’s primary energy in 1971, reducing to 7% by 2011 as it ramped up coal use. Since then, renewables have inched up to 10%. Strong climate action could cost China nearly a trillion dollars annually, hurting its journey toward becoming a rich nation.
The reality is that most of the world – including powerhouse India and emerging economies – will continue to focus on becoming richer, often with fossil fuels. Russia and its ilk will ignore the fixation on climate change altogether. And China will make money from selling the West solar panels and electric cars, while only modestly curbing its own emissions.
As rich countries irresponsibly attempt to export the cost of climate policy to poor countries through carbon adjustment taxes, they will drive a further wedge into an already fractured world.
Worth reading in full.
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.
“The West’s headlong rush to jettison fossil fuels and hit ‘Net Zero’ carbon dioxide emissions is impoverishing us while enriching China… “
This is an oxymoron
For China to become ‘enriched’ – presumably by the transfer of manufacturing from West to East – then the product of that manufacture must be sold to somebody for that ‘enrichment’ to occur.
If the West is impoverished, then Westerners will not be able to buy from China, so how will they be enriched?
We shall destroy ourselves but that won’t make China richer, in fact worse off as they have lost a source of imports.
Exports are a cost. An exporter Country uses capital, labour, other resources to produce something which provides no benefit to consumers domestically – the benefit is to consumers in importing Countries.
Exports are the way a Country gets foreign currency in order to buy imports. And any Country running a trade deficit, is enjoying the benefits of a net capital inflow/inward investment.
Net Zero will mean we cannot make what we desire (or even need) ourselves, nor will we be able to produce for export to get the money to buy from others. That makes us poorer, but it will enrich nobody else.
“If the west is impoverished, then westerners will not be able to buy from China….” You are taking things too literally. ——–When this article says “impoverished” it means “relatively impoverished”, it does not mean “totally impoverished”.
True.
As the West becomes more impoverished expect China to shift its export focus to developing nations. They will happily sell them stuff in exchange for their relatively untapped hydrocarbon and mineral wealth.
“Net Zero is Impoverishing the West and Enriching China”
There must be group behind this, promoting ideas that are completely contrary to the Laws of Physics, Chemistry, in fact contrary to Scientific endeavour.
I wonder who it can be 🙂
Isn’t Net Zero just an agenda of aggregating power and control over people and the transfer of money to rich individuals and corporations?
“ Outside the most advanced economies, climate change has understandably always been a relatively low voter priority.”. Outside of the “elite”, I suspect that it’s pretty low down the list of priorities of most people in the advanced economies too.
Outside of the Globalist Elite (and their brainwashed legions of middle-class eco-warriors in the west) I doubt if most people in the world give a flying fcuk about it.
Well solar panels are not net zero for starters due to the sulphar hexaflouride:-
https://www.epa.gov/eps-partnership/sulfur-hexafluoride-sf6-basics
This is a way more potent greenhouse gas and pollutant (can you call co2 a pollutant???)- although it is non toxic. They are also used in windmills. Renewables need more switching gear, so more SF6 where it is used:-
https://theconversation.com/why-sf-emissions-from-the-renewable-energy-sector-should-not-be-considered-a-dirty-secret-130734
It also makes you wonder how much c02 and real pollutants is produced by windmill things when they catch fire!
As well as which wind turbines need oil for lubrication (PAO synthetic oil based on crude), about 350 litres or more annually for each windmill. Given the number of windmills in the UK at the moment that is getting on for 4 million litres of lubricating oil per annum in he UK, this is not an insignificant amount of oil and needs factoring in to the net zero figures.
Besides concrete, steel, copper, molybenium, chromium, nickel, manganese for construction (lots of co2), not to mention the toxic chemicals bisphenol A, gallium arsenide, lead, cadmium and other toxic chemicals when they are dumped into landfill.
https://truth613.substack.com/p/exposing-the-climate-change-scam
A couple of extremely worthwhile articles on the climate change scam. As we on here know the scam is all about one government control.
https://open.substack.com/pub/truth613/p/the-rockefellers-created-990-climate
And another excellent article on the climate scam.
Yes . This is quite common. Many experts and scientists not dependent on government funding and even many who are but who are honest individuals rather than parasites arrive at the conclusion that the climate change narrative is POLITICS not SCIENCE.
—– I don’t know about you but I find that anything I might say out with the groupthink that people are pressurised into accepting on the issue of climate is frowned upon. Once an idea becomes entrenched in peoples mind it is very difficult to dislodge. I find often people will become embarrassed that at the age of 50 or 60 years old eg, that something that they have long accepted as some kind of ultimate truth is maybe not as clear cut as they thought. This can often make them feel silly and they simply do not like it. Some will become hostile and refuse to enter into any discussion as it makes them uncomfortable. It is the same kind of thing I get when people say to me that Man never landed on the Moon.
“…I find that anything I might say out with the groupthink that people are pressurised into accepting on the issue of climate is frowned up.”
Absolutely. Including one firkin idiot who I work with occasionally who has a Physics degree but still believes in AGW. Absolutely pisses me off.
If your “firkin idiot” has a Physics degree and you don’t, then he won’t take kindly to you telling him he might be wrong. He will feel superior to you, and it would be humiliating to have an inferior person maybe know something that they don’t or something they have never considered. But unfortunately for him there are huge uncertainties in the issue of climate change and it is not a black and white issue. Also it is not just about science. It a political, economic, social and moral issue as well. But the science aspect of it is really more modelling than actual science, and your “firkin idiot” would be very surprised to discover that all of the expensive models that government rely on to make their absurd energy policies have all be wrong so far. Not just wrong but VERY wrong.
Most Physicists I meet are curious, usually attempting to connect the Mathematics with Reality.
Ed Miliband has an A level in Physics, but his Dad was a Marxist. 🙂
But for the Milibands of this world it has nothing to do with Physics. It is about Climate Justice , fairness, equality, and wealth redistribution. —-Sustainable Development is Marxism with climate as the excuse.
The BBC decided on the Green Agenda, in 2006, well before the 2008 Climate Change Act.
Motor vehicles kill people. —Yes that is true. But not even the families of those killed by vehicles would suggest or demand that vehicles be eliminated. Because motor vehicles overall are a huge benefit to them and to society. It is exactly the same with fossil fuels. Overall they provide enormous benefit. Curiously the Progressive Left that demand the end of fossil fuels normally speak of the “greater good”. Their mentality is that everything should benefit us all, not just individuals. So how then is that they totally ignore the greater good that comes from the use of fossil fuels? That good includes, better health, longer lifespan, freedom from preventable diseases and from back breaking labour, more leisure time and a standard of living generations from 200 years ago could never imagine.
—–Yet, getting rid of fossil fuels lowers that standard of living. Now if there were truly a climate emergency maybe the greater good would be served by removing fossil fuels, but ofcourse the alleged climate crisis is a global one.
—–For most ordinary people the climate change issue may be about protecting nature, recycling, stopping the planet warming and causing dangerous changes to climate etc etc. This all sounds reasonable, and the solutions like wind power and solar energy seem like plausible and necessary solutions to a problem. So people accept that “Sustainable Development” is simply something that has to be done. But “Sustainable Development” to its proponents at the UN and WEF means something very different. They speak of “equity and fairness”, “social and climate justice”, “ending capitalism”. Environmental and Social Governance (ESG) is the way ahead to repair the world and reset the economic system of the world. ———Climate Change then has one meaning for ordinary people and another for those seeking to control the world and its resources.
It’s funny – just reading this sat in darkness – 3rd power failure in 2 months, this time 4000 houses out and 2 hours indicated to try and fix it… large city location
Don’t worry, it is coming to everyone soon. We do not have enough generating capacity, but much worse we do not have enough distribution capacity. Fred down the road plugs in his electric car to charge and uses the supply for 7 houses! When 10 people do it the fuses in the substation will blow and everyone loses the supply. This simple fact cannot be changed by Government dictat, but strangely they haven’t noticed this fact yet. Fuse makers are doing well!
Indeed – last nights failure turned out to impact 6000 homes due to an underground HV cable fault – the engineers did well to get it back for most in less than an hour, with some switching in/out along the way as they tried to bypass the faulty route
This morning Sir Kneel has given a speech about the Gummint’s plans for Net Zero to stop the weather changing. He says that the race is ON to get to Net Zero and with ‘his’ Gummint, the UK is now IN the race and he wants the UK to WIN the race??
Who is he racing against? Why is there a ‘race’? More and more countries are realising that they cannot get to Net Zero at all either because the cost is impossible to meet or it would require closing down millions of businesses so they are not ‘racing’. The EU says it will continue with its ‘Green Deal’, which hopefully will result in millions of people across Europe demonstrating against it. So the UK is racing to get to somewhere impossible on its own.