Net Zero Treatment Better Than Climate Change Diseases – Watt Better?

Eigenvalue replacement from David Turner

I talk about the holy cattle, killing the net zero net myth and government's approach to climate change.

David Turver

Last week, the government responded to the petition, calling for the repeal of the Climate Change Act and demanding the withdrawal of zero targets. This reaction may have been written by a mere stopping oil activist and can be summed up as “the earth is warming, building more windmills.” I'm going to draft an article that refutes their claims, but luckily, the video of my speech to the Holy Cow last month is now available and more detailed than in one article. I would appreciate it if you could share this post and video in a wide range.

share

The slideshow that comes with the conversation can be downloaded on the link below.

Sacred Cow: Net Zero is 1.21MB worse than climate change ∙pdf file

What if zero net treatment is worse than climate change disease?

My arguments can be summarized as follows.

Although people like Antonio Guterres have made stupid claims that we have entered a global boiling era, we must admit that the world has been a little warm since the pre-industrial era. The alarmist’s response to this is net zero, an example of a so-called mitigation strategy that requires everyone to reduce their CO2 emissions to preserve the planet’s emissions.

The trouble with this approach is that it only works if two conditions are met. First, mitigation measures can only work when collaboratively₂ It is the only climate control knob. But we know this is wrong, because the first IPCC report shows that when CO, the first IPCC report shows that temperature fluctuations on time scales of thousands, one thousand and million fluctuate significantly.₂ The levels in the atmosphere are very stable. Second, mitigation can only work if everyone else follows the same strategy. But we know that even if our gases are insignificant, global greenhouse gas emissions have risen sharply. Global consumption of coal, oil and gas is at record levels. Neither situation can be met, so the UK’s net mitigation strategy will never work.

Still, this has not stopped politicians and policymakers from rushing into net zero policies that have resulted in the most expensive industrial electricity costs in the UK, about 4 times, about 4 times the U.S. price and 2.6 times the South Korean price. This has resulted in a 23% drop in UK primary energy consumption since 1990, while global energy consumption increased by 72% during the same period. Our national energy system operator, NESO, hopes to double the energy tightening policy and cut our per capita energy consumption from 2023 to 2050 levels.

High energy prices combined with energy tightening have led to economic stagnation. There is a strong correlation between lower energy use and slow growth, with EU27 and the United States growing faster than the United Kingdom because of their smaller energy use. South Korea, India, China and the rest of the world are all utilizing more energy and their economy is moving forward.

Despite the obvious economic and social costs of cleanliness, a series of myths have been created to support the renewable energy agenda. They claim renewable energy is cheap, but we paid £11 billion per year for renewable energy subsidies, grid balanced £2.5 billion, and another £1 billion in capacity market. State Grid has announced a £11.2 billion spending on grid expansion by 2035, which will also find our bill. Additionally, the cost of renewable energy is rising, with projects such as Norfolk Boreas and Hornsea projects being cancelled because developers can’t make money at the price they agree to. Ed Miliband hopes to spend £26-290 billion on his clean energy program by 2030 to save just £7 billion/year we spend on the gas generation.

The second myth is that net zero will create jobs and growth. But the truth is that expensive energy costs are destroying highly productive industries such as chemicals, petrochemicals, ceramics and steel, which are growing more slowly or completely shrinking than other economies. Instead, we are developing fewer energy-intensive low productivity sectors that damage productivity and growth across the economy. Green energy jobs are destroying actual jobs, and each job costs about £250,000 per year.

The third myth is that renewable energy improves energy security. However, intermittent sources such as wind and solar energy can never provide safety because we can’t control the weather. As a result, we were close to a power outage as NESO suffered a margin call. We can't rely on interconnectors, either, because the Norwegian government has fallen due to the impact of interconnections on electricity prices.

Finally, wind and solar renewables are said to be green and environmentally friendly. But both have high mineral strength, which means large-scale mines will scare in the landscape to produce copper, silver, cobalt and rare earth metals. They also occupy a lot of land that can better utilize this land to grow food.

By contrast, adaptation is a far superior strategy. The death toll from natural disasters and weather events has dropped by more than 10 times over the past century because we use cheap, abundant energy to tame nature. Global life expectancy has doubled since 1850, and since 1961, grain production has tripled. Despite rising temperatures and global CO, these significant achievements have emerged.₂ level.

Now go to the answer. In order for humanity to flourish, we need cheap, rich and reliable energy. This will provide us with the surplus energy that needs to continue to adapt by establishing flood control, improving the irrigation of new crop varieties, etc. Adaptation has a great advantage that it works whether it is global warming or climate change causes. The only technology that has been proven to work at a large scale is nuclear energy. This will take time, so we need gasoline as a transition technology. Nuclear power has the added advantage of being energy-intensive, reliable and requires little mining, so the overall environmental footprint is minimal. We need nuclear power every time.

In short, net zero is ineffective in achieving its main goals and can never stop the weather from changing. The impact of net zero policy is a devastating impact on the economy and high productivity, especially energy-intensive industries. Renewables are not environmentally friendly and the lies told to promote them are untenable. Zero net treatment is worse than climate change disease.

Thank you very much to Will and Sacred Cows team for providing me with the opportunity to speak. The venue was sold out, and judging from my subsequent conversations, the event went very smoothly that night.

Now, speeches are also available as podcasts on Spotify.

Related