Much of the chatter in mainstream media these days revolves around achieving 'net zero', completing the transition to a clean, green, prosperity free world in order to 'save the planet.' Whether the planet needs saving or not is moot, the powers that be have decided there is big money to be made from 'net zero' and the switch to 'sustainable' energy and also that granting themselves powers to ban freedom to travel, the right to refuse untested and potentially dangerous medication, and the right to speak our minds, criticise the government's policies, call out the pseudo - scientific bollocks cited by certain minorities in support of ideologies that deny basic scientific truths offers a path to establishing the authoritarian, technocratic world government they have craved for almost a century.
All around the world politicians, banks, global corporations, electricity producers and healthcare providers have merged into a unified machine around the idea that the new, clean, green economy can be achieved via a just transition to a global energy system free of carbon emissions.
Unfortunately there can be no energy transition without critical minerals: no batteries, no electric cars, no wind turbines and no solar panels. The sun provides raw energy, but electricity flows most economically through copper. Wind turbines need manganese, platinum and rare earth magnets. Nuclear power requires uranium. Electric vehicles require batteries made with lithium, cobalt and nickel and magnets. Indium and tellurium are integral to solar panel manufacturing.” And the mining and refining of these minerals is a series of environmentally disastrous processes involving the release of vast amounts of substances among the most toxic known to science being released into the environment. And the manufacturing processes involved in making the products these materials are needed for are even more damaging.
But hey, we're not talking about measures to eliminate nasty toxic shite from the environment, the real enemy, according to academics, politicians and all manner of experts is Carbon Dioxide. OK, it may be a trace gas in the atmosphere, the presence of which is essential to the continuance of life on earth. The Science has declared CO2 the enemy and so we must strive to eliminate CO2 emissions from all human activity to create a clean, green, brave new world and never again dare to be so arrogant as to question The Science.
But exactly how clean and green is the net-zero economic strategy? A commentary by veteran Canadian environmental journalist Andrew Nikiforuk. Writing in The Tyee, a Vancouver-based online publication, Nikiforuk reviews the work of academics and a “rising chorus of renewable energy sceptics” who believe that the great transition to a renewable energy future is a green pipe-dream that is “vastly destructive.”
He is not the only one thinking along these lines. The International Energy Agency (IEA) published a special report recently, setting out its proposals for achieving ‘Net Zero’ carbon emissions. One of its headline demands is that gas-fired domestic boilers should no longer be sold after 2025. This echoes one of the main policies in the UK government’s Net Zero plan. This is no coincidence. National governments, including the UK, draw all of their climate policies from faceless global agencies like the IEA (as well as domestic quangos like the Climate Change Committee). This process leaves out one important constituency: the public.
A ban on gas boilers will impose serious costs on ordinary people. A backlash is highly likely. You might think the practicalities of the policy would be of interest to journalists and the media. But journalists have taken the IEA’s proposals at face value, and have mainly reported them without scrutiny.
Nikiforuk is not writing for NetZeroWatch. Nor is he in the same camp as anti-renewable author Alex Epstein, whose book, Fossil Future, rips the renewable alternatives and champions oil and gas. At The Tyee, Nikiforuk continues his work as an anti-fossil-fuel environmental writer whose books include Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent, and The Energy of Slaves: Oil and the New Servitude.
In his new commentary, which has received far too little attention in the media and among policy-makers, Nikiforuk spares no one and pulls no punches. “For largely ideological reasons,” he writes, “many greens and ‘transitionists’ have presented the transition to renewables as a smooth road with no potholes.” Drawing on the work of an array of analysts and scientists, Nikiforuk describes the destructive forces that will be unleashed by the global push to replace fossil fuels.
Even If The Climate Threat Was Real And Not Grossly Overstated, Net Zero Is Unaffordable
Trillions of dollars need to be spent every year for almost three decades to hit net zero targets, according to consultancy McKinsey. On top of current spending, the equivalent of half of all corporate profits will have to be invested to tackle global warming, it says. McKinsey highlights that gaining acceptance will be tough, especially from those paying energy bills.
But the alternative is more extreme weather, scarmongering experts warn. Such warnings have been debunked many times of course, statistics show there are no more extreme weather events now than the annual average going back to the beginning of reliable records. The difference is that run of the mill local disasters are sensationalised by media to make them seem like global crises.
The McKinsey report estimated that the annual cost of getting to net zero - when carbon dioxide emissions are completely reduced or offset - will be $9.2tn (£6.8tn).
The world is already spending $5.7tn a year to lower the impact of fossil fuels and use alternatives.
However, an extra $3.5tn, every year from 2021 to 2050, will need to be put towards alternative energy sources and land use including agriculture to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees, it said.
Much of the impact of the renewable crusade should be obvious. Solar panels, windmills or electric cars cannot be built without mining more copper, lithium, iron and aluminium. “That means vastly more destructive scraping and digging of ocean floors, rainforests and tundras on a scale inconceivable to most environmentalists.”
Nikiforuk then highlights the inconceivable scale of the taskes involved in replacing current infrasructure with 'net zero' compatible systems, citing various sources, including Simon Michaux at Finland’s Geological Society. Michaux calculates that to replace 46,423 power stations run by oil, coal, gas and nuclear energy would require the construction of 586,000 power stations run by wind, solar and hydrogen.
Another example: “Every electric vehicle contains about 75 kilograms of copper or three times more than a conventional vehicle. A single wind turbine generally contains 500 kilograms of nickel. That nickel requires 100 tonnes of steelmaking coal to be refined. And every crystalline silicon solar panel contains 20 grams of silver paste. It takes 80 metric tons of silver to generate approximately a gigawatt of solar power.”
On copper, Michaux states that current copper reserves at 880 million tonnes are equal to approximately 30 years of production. “But industry will need 4.5 billion tonnes of copper to manufacture just one generation of renewable technologies,” he estimates. “That’s six times the volume of copper mined throughout history.”
When the cost of keeping supply chains stable during the energy transition, as well as broad energy investment is accounted for, calculation of how much the transition to a CO2 neutral energy system is much higher than estimates quoted by economists working for governments.
In spite of these realities more than 130 countries have pledged net zero emissions by 2050. However most of these are socially developed nations that have de-industrialised over the past 30 years because it is cheaper to manufacture in low labour cost nations and ship goods half way round the world (on ships that emit Carbon Dioxide every inch of the way.) Others are small, economically undeveloped nations with small economies. Large carbon dioxide emitters such as China and India aren't part of the group.
There are also concerns thatof developed countries may shut down even more their energy-intensive industries, and import these goods from other countries.
That means even if they get to net-zero, the world's emissions will not be reduced in the process. The whole farrago is so ridiculous it could be the script for a surreal comedy.
RELATED:
Climate Scaremongers Have Taken Over Where COVID Scaremongers Left Off
Boggart Blog can announce that the winners of our coveted Scaremongering Bollocks of The Month award goes this month to BBC News. Not only did the BBC report in one of their regular climate catastrophe scare stories that river levels across the UK have been at record lows, they broadcast that news story on the same day as The London Weather Centre announced that March 2023 was set to be the wettest March since records began.
Eminent Oxford Scientist Says Wind Power "Fails On Every Count"
It could be argued that the basic arithmetic showing wind power is an economic and societal disaster in the making should be clear to a bright primary school child. Now the Oxford University mathematician and physicist, Professor Wade Allison has done the sums. “Wind power fails on every count,” he says, adding that governments are ignoring “overwhelming evidence and resorting to bluster rather than reasoned analysis”.
Europes Tractor Protests Spread To Germany And Now Include Fishing Trawlers
Hundreds of farmers have descended in their tractors on a small German coastal town to protest measures imposed by the European Union as part of the bid to 'save the planet' by reducing CO2 emissions from cow farts. 400 tractors reportedly gathered in Büsum on Wednesday to protest what is probably the most insane environmentalist policy dreamed up by the EU idealogues to date ...
Germany haemorrhaging cash to keep country running on as ‘net zero’ becomes zeroeconomic activity
Germany was so desperate to achieve 'net zero' CO2 emissions that for years the country's government closed its fossil fuel-fired and nuclear power plants,replacing those plants with wind and solar power — as well as impoorting huge volumes of natural gas and oil from Russia.
After the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, when NATO (aka the U.S.A.) mandated that the West impose retaliatory sanctions on Russia, including a ban on importation of Russian gas and oil, Germany found itself in a hole:
Europe's Cold Spell Exposes Green Energy Policy Failure
So far the autumn of 2022 has been unusually mild which has had eco-warriors getting worked up and gluing their arses to motorways and airport runways to demand that we stop using oil. However winter temperatures across Europe predictably dropped sharply in late November and through most of December to date have been positively arctic. Scientists have offered the opinion that the cold weather spell the ongoing European gas crisis is now “likely” to worsen significantly as usual seasonal weather spreads across the northern half of the continent, bringing with it an increased need for domestic heating.
Minister's Claim That 40% UK Energy Comes From Renewables Is Technically Illiterate
Britain's newly installed Secretary of State for Energy, Grant Shapps, is still learning the job so perhaps we should cut him some slack, but even so a statement he made on our energy supply today shows astounding ignorance of technical details relating to his portfolio.
Answering a question in Parliament this morning about Britain's ability to reach its target of getting 40% of our energy needs from sustainable sources, Shapps sneered that it was not possible for us to reach 40% now as we already get 43% from wind. Unfortunately the sneering sarcasm was misplaced but served to reveal the man in charge of energy policy does not know the difference between energy and electricity.
Amazing Increase in Global Sea Ice Confounds the Net Zero Warmageddonists
Europe's Depleted Gas Storage Might Not Get Refilled Ahead Of Next Winter
While mainstream news reporting of the conflict in Ukraine continues to pump out a torrent of anri - Russia, pro - war propaganda the catastropic effects of this war that could so easily have been avoided are not mentioned. Well why would warmongering governments admit they have inflicted an energy crisis, food shortages and soaring living costs on their people for no good reason ...
Has Biden's Afghan Surrender Handed The Future To China
5 September: The abrupt and ill - considered withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan ordered by President Joe (Dementia Man) Biden and the susequent return to power of Islamic fundamentalist The Taliban hands control of the vast Afghan litium reserves to China and is a blow to the green agenda of the G7 nations
Recommended posts
An Energy Crisis In Tandem With A Food Crisis On Top Of An Economic Crisis And A War. This Cannot End Well
As politicians in North America and Europe try to deflect from their own failure that have contributed to the current plethora of crises by blaming Russia and Vladmir Putin for all the current problems, while the war in Ukraine is a contributory factor in each, the real blame lies closer to home.
Swedish Media Outlet Publishes Leaked U.S. Document On How to CRUSH Europe Economy via Ukraine War Effort
Swedish news organisation Nya Dagbladet has published a leaked top secret US plans to use the war in Ukraine and an induced energy crisis to destroy European economies.
The report claims the RAND Corporation a defence and foreign policy think tank founded by military aircraft maker Douglas has the official aim of improving policies and decision-making, is the source of its evidence.
Has Putin Has Pushed Europe Into Economic Depression, Hyperrinflation and Currency Collapse?
Though it was entirely predictable and indeed had been expected for some time, the news over the weekend that the Nord Stream 1 pipeline which feeds gas from Russia to northern Europe via The Baltic route had been shut down completely by The Kremlin in retaliation for the continued financial and military support given by NATO and EU member states to Ukraine in the conflict with Russia. The European Commission, governing body of the EU, immediately put the community on something close to a war footing, ...
Continue reading >>>
The True Cost Of The Green Energy Boom Is Now Being Realized
For four decades we have been fed a constant stream of propaganda assuring us that green energy was the only way forward if we wanted to secure supplies of the energy essential to a modern society while preventing the environmental catastrophes that would be the inevitable consequence of climate change caused by the Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emitted by human industrial, commercial and social activity. ... Continue reading >>>
Green Energy & Net Zero: A Herd Of Elephants In The Room
The Cuadrilla Lancashire gas exploration wells yielded very high-quality natural gas from just a few fractures [ ... ]Claims that less than 1\100th of the gas resource of 37.6 trillion m3 could be extracted has been shown to be false, no actual UK data on gas recovery is available the claim was based on pre-2010 US data. Just 10% gas recovery from Bowland shale could supply 50 years’ worth of current UK gas demand.
Just When We Need It Most, Renewable Energy Disappears
In an encouraging sign of a great awakening, million of people in the UK are now, after a week of brutally cold, absolutely windless weather asking "Why have we wasted so much money on wind turbines and harvesting solar energy."
Yet when politicians are asked directly: "How do we keep the lights on and our homes warm when the wind does not blow and the sun is too low in the sky to make much impression on photovoltaic cells that do the business in solar panels?
SunEdison Plummets On Imminent Bankruptcy; Axiom Sees "The Beginning Of The End" And 85% More Downside
Another item in the 'legacy' Barack Hussein Obama plannede to leave the world looks like going down the pan as a solar energy hedge fund he backed with $$$hugenumbers of taxpayers money prepares for bankruptcy.IMF Attempts to Hide True Cost of Renewables
A new report ffrom the International Monetary Fund (IMF) claims Fossil fuel companies are benefiting from a global subsidy of £3.4 trillion a year. The figure dwarfs that of government handouts aimed at encouraging investors to put money into unprofitable renewable energy sources such as wind turbines. Total subsidies for renewables are stated to amount to £77 billion a year.
House battery to store energy will 'change entire infrastructure of the world' - or maybe not
Another costly new product hailed as a breakthough in technology, this time a clutching-at-straws exercise from the failing electric car company Tesla, completely fails to live up to the hype under scrutiny. Hailed as a super battery, a mjor advance in battery technology that will change the world to store power for a household, it turns out to be nothing more than a streamined car battery. It will run the average home for about 2 hours.
Researchers Discover How to Use Living Plants to Generate Electricity.
Most of the hyped green energy solutions to generate electricity from wind or sunshine are so obviously flawed the only thing that makes them economically viable is that governments offer huge subsidies to generators. This in turn makes the sustainables so expensive that consumers cannot afford the intermittent energy they produce.
Renewable Energy: So Useless That Even Green Loons At Google Have Given up on it
The sandal wearing, tree hugging, bearded puritans call it "renewable energy", the zealots of the Church Of Scienceology call it sustainable energy, those with smarter heads on their shoulder call it "alternative energy" because that's what it really is: an alternative to energy that actually works (eg nuclear and anything made from cabon-rich fuel from organic matter laid down in pre-history and left to brew for a few hundred million years.)
If you look at a weather forecast for five hours hence it makes its predictions in the form of statistical probabilities but often even those turn out to be substantially wrong. So how can there possibly be a 'climate crisis' based on forecasts of what will be happening decades hence?
The whole carbon story treats the world as a simple system where you take a couple of data points and join them up with a straight line. Already it is clear to any sane observer that it doesn't behave like that at all. Based on the predictions of a couple of decades ago the academics who started this bandwaggon were assuring us that Britain would be a flaming desert by now. How can they keep taking their fat grants and live with themselves?
Any forecasts based on existing facts (and presumably they do and are not pure fiction) exhibit something called variance and this increases the further ahead in time you push your prediction. By the time you get to 20 years hence the range of possible outcomes covers a huge range. So precise predictions are nonsense, however big the computer is which churns them out. The grounds therefore for economically damaging the country are based on the flimsiest basis. The science is not remotely 'settled' although certain charlatans claim that it is. No-one thinks 'pollution' to be a good thing but impoverishing the nation for one relatively unimportant component of it is rank folly.