Net Zero

Climate change is incredibly scientifically complex and the proper analysis of where the climate will be in say ten or twenty years time is still beyond the wit of humanity and all their computers. Politicians are incredibly simple and once they have thought of an idea they are afraid of the political consequences of changing their minds. It is therefore, I suppose, unsurprising that politicians come up with policies to combat climate change which are no more than slogans and which can often cause more damage than the harm the policies re intended to prevent.

Readers of this blog will have seen my arguments against such policies as wood burning power stations, subsidising diesel car engines, using crops to create biofuels. I believe that my arguments made before the policies were put in effect, have been proved correct and the policies should have never been put into effect.

So it is with the present policy of achieving net zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. For a start you cannot measure emissions and those things that counter emissions of carbon dioxide with enough certainty to know whether net zero has been achieved, so ultimately the achievement will be an estimate. Then I understand the purpose of net zero is to protect humanity from the effects of rapid (relatively speaking) climate change. Of course ,humanity must be protected from the effects of rapid climate change but it is wrong to protect humanity if the “cure” has more deleterious effects than the disease. You do not protect humanity by impoverishing it or enacting policies that put lives at risk.