The Danger of "Net Zero" & Zero-Sum

There seems to be a bit of confusion on the part of many regarding the push to "Net Zero" by 2050 and what that actually means for them. This confusion is both intentional and unfortunate as it breeds a "zero sum" mentality in many who have decided they wholeheartedly support what we will call the NZ50 goals for the remainder of this article.

To many, "Net Zero" means that carbon emissions will stop or effectively go to zero (0). They have been told that carbon (CO2) is killing the planet and that CO2 emissions must stop to save the planet for our children and grandchildren. A noble cause indeed. I too, want my children and grandchildren to have a cleaner, healthier planet. I would wager that almost every single human being on this earth shares that desire to one degree or another. Why wouldn't they? This is the sentiment and raw emotional trigger that the founders of the "net zero" movement use to manipulate the masses into thinking that supporting "net zero" will actually accomplish this most desirable goal. They truly have no idea. They only know for sure that fully enacted polices they support offer total control of consumption and production. Remember that.

Before we go further, we have to understand that "net zero" as it is being implemented is NOT necessarily synonymous with actually reducing carbon emissions. It is more of a tax on carbon emitting industries and soon directly on consumer behaviors ( CBA announces Australian banking first carbon tracking feature (commbank.com.au ) . So how does this work? How does "net zero" as a scheme really work? Simplistically, a company that produces CO2 with its activities buys "carbon credits" to offset the CO2 they have released into the atmosphere. IF they buy enough credits to cancel out the amount of CO2 they are responsible for they are now achieving "net zero". If we are talking about industrial sources, the companies can engineer solutions to capture their CO2 emissions and sequester (store) said CO2 in underground storage. The latter solution IS actually a reduction in CO2 emissions. The problem is that this solution is VERY expensive and has never been tried at the scale we are talking about (HELLO UNITNEDED CONSEQUESNCES).

Now that we understand (at least a simplified version) the nature of the two paths to "net zero" it seems simple. Path number two is what has to be done to save the planet. Not so fast. The projects and their associated costs are phenomenal, so companies (People that make up the shareholders) are not going to move forward unless the external funding is there or the alternative carbon credits are mandated (KEY WORD) and become so expensive that it is cheaper to build the capture and sequestration assets. Again, to the ardent supporter of "net zero" this seems more than palatable. "Reduce emissions at all costs" has become the rallying cry of millions that lead the movement. Glue yourself to the road. Who cares what it costs XOM or any other company to capture their emissions and pump them down a hole?

The answer? We should all care what the cost is because all these costs are born by consumers &/or tax-payers. They can have a devastating impact on large swaths of our society by inducing poverty, financial hardship, homelessness, and poorer living conditions on the most vulnerable of our society

It is this zero-sum mentality that has been exposed more and more of late in the climate movement in general that needs to stop. It is most troubling. The adoption of this mentality by those that lead government entities, major banks, investment groups, and insurance companies has created an energy crisis that threatens the very consequences noted above. Some of them are waking up which is why the leaders of Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (gfanzero.com) are becoming increasingly frustrated. As much as we all want the world to be greener, cleaner, and healthier it cannot come at the expense of starving people or freezing them to death.

People alive and breathing air on this planet today cannot and must not be sacrificed for the possible livelihood of those born tomorrow without having a say in it. That, however, is exactly what the Zero-Sum leaders of the NZ50 initiatives are prepared to do. This totalitarian zero-sum mindset must be extinguished. Some the citizens of Western Europe, Canada, and The United States have been lulled to sleep on these issues while others have been coopted into a movement that in many ways mirrors the types of psychology that led to deaths of tens of millions in Russia and China for the sake of "progress" under communist dictators. Indeed, even Hitler's atrocities were sold to his followers and the people of Germany as being for the "greater good".

A zero-sum, effectually totalitarian, mindset regarding the push to "Net Zero" is not only unnecessary, but it is dangerous. Science & the scientific age that has ushered in untold prosperity and increases in our standard of living were birthed on the ability to question that which we believe and test it. Until the leaders of the NZ50 movement allow dialogue that questions their assertions and their methods while engaging in open minded debate they should be held at arm's length.

A zero-sum mind set on energy policy, decarbonization, electrification, and their impacts on people should be utterly unacceptable to those of us living in free societies. We should not allow ourselves to be FOR or AGAINST "net zero", "fossil fuels", "renewable energy", or any other new contrived term/technology. We should first, be for protecting the least among us and preserving our ability to do so. That should be the guiding principle by which we judge the merit of change or inaction. The energy needs of tomorrow and our pollution prevention goals must be balanced against the impacts on the people of today. I can think of nothing more inhumane than punishing the most vulnerable of humanity today for a "possible" unknown benefit tomorrow. Giving up our humanity to preserve the place that it dwells in would be a sad, ultimate, irony.