Home Climate Change How Dare People Be This Damn Stupid About Net Zero Emissions?

How Dare People Be This Damn Stupid About Net Zero Emissions?



Assume that climate change is a problem, that we’re causing it, that something must be done. OK, so, the aim must be to reduce emissions to where they’re not a problem, that’s obvious enough.

Emissions are a net problem. That is, the only thing that matters is the net emissions over the whole society. It cannot, for example, ever be true that an individual may have no gross emissions – that would ban breathing out. It must be that it is the net amount that matters. And it’s net over everything because the CO2 emissions from transport are not different from those of agriculture, or from planes are different from the extra energy used to cycle.

It’s the net number that matters. So, this is ghastly stupidity:

The science of net zero is simple: every sector of every country in the world needs to be, on average, zero emissions. We know how to do this for electricity, cars, buildings and even a lot of heavy industry. But in certain areas, including air travel and some agricultural emissions, there is no prospect of getting to zero emissions in the near future. For these residual emissions, greenhouse gasses will need to be sucked out of the atmosphere at the same rate as they are added, so that, on average, there are net zero emissions.

It’s that “every sector” that is the gross stupidity. For of course by the end of the paragraph he’s entirely contradicted the point. What matters is net emissions, not emissions from any one country, sector or activity.

This is important too. Take this idea that commercial air travel must stop. Yes, people are indeed insisting that this must be so. Because of that insistence that each sector must become zero emissions. As it’s gonna be difficult to have jet planes without emissions therefore no commercial aviation.

But aviation is currently 2% of emissions. -ish. So, we don’t in fact need to have zero emissions aviation – as the end of the paragraph says we don’t. We need to have some other process having negative emissions in order to be able to have aviation. We have such processes too – properly managed soil can suck up that amount, no problem.

That is, even if we go with net zero then it’s the net which is the important bit. Meaning that each sector doesn’t need to go to zero, but that we can have cross sector positive and negative.

Of course, the way to do this is just to have a carbon tax so that all prices reflect the costs but then actual solutions aren’t what people are looking for.



Comments are closed.


in British English
expunct (ɪkˈspʌŋkt)
VERB (transitive)
1. to delete or erase; blot out; obliterate
2. to wipe out or destroy

Support Us

Recent posts

Agatha has been published.

Aunt Agatha has been published (the money came from an anonymous donor). It was £2500+ If you'd like a copy, donate £10+ and you'll get...

American Hyperconsumerism Is Killing Fewer People!

This report does not say what the Guardian headline writers think it does: Three Americans create enough carbon emissions to kill one person, study finds The...

Contracts Often Lag New Revenue Streams

I've been - vaguely and not with any great interest - anticipating a story like this: Scarlett Johansson sues Walt Disney over Marvel’s Black Widow...

Richard Murphy Rediscovers Monetarism

We have a delightful example of how Richard Murphy simply doesn't understand the basic nuts and bolts of the economics he wants to impose...

Vox Is Missing The Point About Having A Constitution

Not that we should be all that surprised by this from the progressives at Vox. No government- well, no one not controlled by...

Recent comments