Net zero emissions are the worst idea governments and global institutions have ever had. Here’s why such policies must be stopped, NOW
By Chere Di Boscio
I’m writing this after being in my house, with no way to go out, on and off, for well over a month now. Protests in the country I live in, Peru, have led to extreme shortages of fuel and cooking gas. To the point where few can fuel up their cars, and almost everyone I know is now cooking with firewood.
It got me thinking about groups like Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion. These self-proclaimed greenies claim that it’s essential to stop using fossil fuels. Now. Some have even glued themselves to buildings and highways in protest.
Yet, whenever I ask them: what’s the alternative? Or implore them to explore the real-life consequences of such a move, I get blocked. Or accused of working for the oil industry. Which, of course, makes me LOL.
So, why are these presumably intelligent people not willing or able to answer those two basic questions? Why can they only attack their opponents with ad hominem or straw man arguments?
To that, I’d say: either they’ve not thought through about why net zero emissions is a bad idea, or they’re simply ignorant.
A bit about my life today
First, I’d like to state my position on the environment. I’m a huge greenie myself. I live almost completely off grid, am vegan, never had kids, and grow my own food. Perhaps surprisingly, I don’t know how to drive. I rescue animals from the street, and plant trees. I’ve not bought new clothing in years. I frequently organise plastic waste pickups in my area. I’m greener than most people I know.
Yet, while nobody likes pollution, I recognise it’s a fact that at the moment, fossil fuels drive our economies, and rule our lives. And without it, here’s what happens.
In Peru, because protestors are blocking the PanAmerican highway. Here is what life is like without oil for transport:
- Most of us are stuck inside our houses. Some use bikes, but because villages are several kilometers apart, friends are separated, and our ability to travel and get essential goods is limited.
- If there were an emergency and we had to leave the country, without fuel for a car to get to the airport, escape would be impossible.
- Garbage trucks are no longer functioning, resulting in a sanitary crisis.
- More trees are being cut for firewood, as no one has access to gas.
- The chemicals necessary for purifying the water aren’t getting through, so people are drinking dirty water.
- There’s no or very limited access to hospitals. Not even most ambulances have fuel. From what I’ve heard so far, there have been 16 people who died as a result of not getting emergency medical care.
- Farmers are not able to get to market to sell their food. Customers are not able to get to markets to buy. Food shortages are everywhere.
- Prices of available food, fuel, gas, water, medicine – everything – have skyrocketed.
- Farm animals and animals in jungle sanctuaries are starving to death for lack of food
- Unemployment is off the charts
It seems these well-intentioned Peruvian protestors are shooting themselves in the foot, much the same way those posh kids crying out for net zero emissions are.
Some would say, too bad. That’s exactly why we need to push for green energy – specifically solar and wind power. However, here in Peru, some people I know do have solar panels. But guess what? It’s the rainy season, and they don’t work well. They also break down frequently, and now, no electricians can get through to fix them.
On a larger scale, as Germany now knows well, these two sources are fickle and can’t power cities. Without constant sun and wind being generated, grids go down. No wonder Germany’s ambitious green energy policy is now reverting back to coal.
And even if there were continuous winds and sunshine, there are issues. Solar means we need to create solar panels and batteries, both of which don’t last long (a few years at most). The batteries destroy the Earth with lithium mining. And they and solar panels are highly contaminating when disposed of.
One viable alternative for powering large cities is nuclear. But of course, that comes with its own serious risks.
So, what are the current alternatives to fossil fuels, if we wish to keep our current style of life going?
The honest answer is: there are none that we know of.
Despite that fact, many countries and globalist institutions, like the UN, WEF and EU, are committed to the very, very bad idea of net zero emissions.
What is net zero, anyway?
You might be wondering: what’s meant by ‘net zero emissions’, anyway?
Well, there’s one booklet that describes it pretty well.
“Absolute Zero: Delivering the UK’s climate change commitment with
incremental changes to today’s technologies” was produced in 2019 by UK FIRES. UK FIRES is a collaboration between the universities of Cambridge, Oxford, Nottingham, Bath and Imperial College London that is “aiming to reveal and stimulate industrial growth in the UK compatible with a rapid transition to zero emissions.”
“Absolute Zero” is a reference to the UK’s commitment to reach “zero emissions”. In other words, a state in which there is no net emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. So, how do we get there?
The Executive Summary of the report tells us how. It states that:
- Air traffic will end by the year 2050 entirely. Which means no more holidays abroad for most. And hard times for anyone with friends and family abroad.
- Existing forms of blast-furnace and cement production will be totally halted by the year 2050. Meaning: no new buildings.
- Shipping will end by 2050. Some shipping may resume “beyond 2050” if freight ships are equipped with onboard nuclear power. In any case, all importing/exporting will be greatly reduced.
- All consumption of beef, pork and lamb will cease by the year 2050. We will be encouraged to eat fake meat and bugs for protein, instead.
- Every kind of foreign food that is not imported by rail will no longer exist in your country by 2050.
- All non-renewable energy production will cease by 2050.
Those are just the highlights, but there’s much, much more as well.
Is net zero emissions even possible?
All items listed above are activities that will be illegal in 2050 due to the Climate Change Act. In short, our lives will be very difficult. No more travelling or working abroad. No more eating ‘foreign’ foods we take for granted, like rice and bananas. And how we will heat our homes and find the energy needed to grow food is not determined.
That’s thanks to former Prime Minister Theresa May’s 2019 amendment to the 2008 Act. She aimed to “put the UK on the path to become the first major economy to set net zero emissions target in law.”
The amendment itself—formally the “Climate Change Act 2008 (2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019“—consists of a single clause, changing the original act’s stipulation that “the net UK carbon account for the year 2050 is at least 80% lower than the 1990 baseline” to read “100% lower.”
But the UK isn’t alone in these goals. Already, farmers in Canada, Sri Lanka and the Netherlands are being told they have to dramatically cut their nitrogen fertiliser use to reduce ’emissions’. This change will not only put most of them out of business, but will certainly cause global hunger, too.
No wonder they’re fiercely protesting these ridiculous rules.
Spain just passed a law saying heat in winter can’t go over 19 C degrees, and air conditioning can no longer be set at lower than 27 C degrees in summer. That includes in hotels, too. To put that in perspective, in the UK, 27 would be considered a ‘heatwave’. But Spain’s summer temps can reach 45 C. Thank goodness the President of Madrid says she will not comply.
A move towards neo-colonialism?
Non compliance is the only solution to insanity.
In a recently published paper, Dr. Wallace Manheimer said net zero emissions would literally be the end of modern civilisation. Writing about wind and solar power, he argued: “not only will this new infrastructure fail, but will cost trillions, trash large portions of the environment, and be entirely unnecessary”. The stakes, he added, “are enormous”.
Manheimer points out that before fossil fuel became widely used, energy was provided by people and animals. Because so little energy was produced, “civilisation was a thin veneer atop a vast mountain of human squalor and misery, a veneer maintained by such institutions as slavery, colonialism and tyranny”.
This argument hints at why so many rich, virtue-signalling celebrities argue not just for Net Zero but ‘Real’ Zero, with the banning of all fossil fuel use. King Charles said in 2009 that the age of consumerism and convenience was over, although the multi-mansion owning monarch presumably doesn’t think such desperate restrictions apply to himself.
In other words, with net zero emissions rules, the ultra-elite will rule over the masses. Just like in the days of colonialism. And feudalism. No wonder it’s the ultra-elite who are coming up with ways to enforce net zero emissions.
So, how will they do so, you may ask?
Well, one way might be the Climate TRACE System. TRACE is an acronym for Tracking Real Time Atmospheric Carbon Emissions.
It’s the brainchild of Al Gore and multi billionaire transhumanist advocate, Eric Schmidt of Google. (Given that Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth, was determined by a UK court to contain at least nine critical scientific errors, it’s a wonder he has any eco-cred whatsoever. But I digress.)
The Climate TRACE system involves the monitoring of greenhouse gases from countries and businesses via hundreds of satellites (which are not at all eco-friendly, of course!).
Institutions that go over their (rather arbitrarily determined) carbon allotment will then be ‘held to account.’ Translation: fined.
How paying money to billionaires will stop pollution is unclear. But what is clear is this:
- The rich will become richer, and the poor will become poorer as a result of this or any ‘carbon tax’
- The wealthiest offenders will just pay the tax and continue polluting
- Climate TRACE may start with countries. But then it will go down to big businesses. Then small businesses. Then us.
In fact, one of the founders of Climate TRACE, Gavin McCormack, said: ‘One area [we are] still struggling with and looking for additional organisational support for is detecting indoor fossil fuel use and emissions from things like cooktops and hot water heaters, which are understandably hard to track via satellites.’
In other words, they ultimately want to monitor your greenhouse gas emissions. And hold you accountable.
It’s totally possible to do so, via smart meters, and the individualised carbon tracker being developed by Alibaba.
This will basically usher in a social crediting system. Like China’s. Who wants to live in that kind of dystopia?
The dire consequences of net zero
While some might think reaching net zero isn’t possible, know this. The UK government has already moved to enshrine into law a 78% reduction in emissions (from 1990 levels) by 2035. And that’s a scary thing. Here’s why:
- Pretty much anything you did today involved greenhouse gases. The food you ate was transported thanks to them. The device you’re reading this on was powered by them, made with them, and reached you thanks to transport using them.
- Most of us heat and cool our homes with them.
- Travelling over large distances would be very difficult without them.
Basically, everything we eat, wear, and use involves fossil fuels. Our whole economy is based on their use. Yet, net zero proponents want us to stop using them. Totally. Now.
Incredibly, they don’t seem to realise that this would result in the deaths of billions, due to:
- Freezing to death
- Heat exhaustion
- Lack of access to medical care
- Severe impoverishment due to economic collapse
- A lack of sanitation due to a lack of garbage trucks collecting waste
…and many other causes.
Sure, there are some net zero advocates who simply haven’t really thought this through. They think green energy can seamlessly replace fossil fuel use at its current level with solar and wind. But that’s incorrect, as the example of Germany shows.
Others truly believe we only have 10, 12 or whatever number of years to save the planet before something dire happens. To them, I say: those predictions have been made since the 70’s. And all of them, without exception, have been wrong.
Hidden financial goals
Despite the mortal harms of moving quickly into net zero, some countries are still hurling themselves in that direction, as mentioned above. But while the destruction of food production is being justified by reducing pollution, there’s something we must note. There’s actually a large monetary incentive behind this.
For example, the Climate TRACE program will surely generate more billions for Gore and his gang. Let’s not forget that Gore became the first ‘carbon billionaire.’ That happened after his (factually flawed) film pressured people into buying into cap and trade schemes. (Which don’t actually reduce emissions significantly, by the way).
And is anyone else suspicious about recent huge acquisitions of farmland by very dodgy entities?
Ukrainian President Zelensky just changed his country’s laws prohibiting the sale of farmland to foreigners. He then sold 30% of all arable land totalling 17m hectares to the likes of Cargill, Bayer/Monsanto and DuPont. All hugely destructive, polluting corporations.
Isn’t it odd that Bill Gates – who never graduated university, yet is somehow considered an expert in both epistemology and the environment – is now the largest holder of farmland in the USA? Here’s why that matters.
Why landholding matters
It seems the real goal of corporations snapping up arable land from smaller farmers is multifold.
Firstly, and most profitably, they aim to eliminate naturally-grown foods and replace them with patented, synthetic ‘foods’. Like the fake meats climate change fanatic Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos have invested in so heavily.
And speaking of Gates, his Foundation was the biggest shareholder in Monsanto. The maker of GMO seeds and cancer-causing weed killer, glyphosate. So you can pretty much bet he’ll be using plenty of those planet-killers on his massive farms. Whilst cashing in, too, of course.
So, while the Green Agenda sounds honorable and beneficial on the surface, the end goal is anything but.
After all, if it were truly the environment that governments are so concerned about, why wouldn’t they instead end activities that are not as essential as food production, yet cause massive pollution? Like launching thousands of satellites into space, for example? Or ramping up mining lithium for batteries or copper for electronic devices? Why wouldn’t they halt the use of chemical pesticides and GMOs, which kill bees, birds and insects, instead of nitrogen fertilisers?
Who runs the show?
By now, you’re probably thinking: who’s behind net zero emissions policies? What kind of politician would advocate for a policy that’s going to destroy his or her base through starvation, slow poisoning and poverty?
Many still believe that national governments are run by corrupt but not malignant politicians. If not for the benefit of the nation, then for the benefit of the nation’s business and industrial interests. But this is simply not true.
As the recent pandemic has shown, national governments are increasingly working toward an international agenda that has been set by intergovernmental bodies such as the World Economic Forum, the United Nations and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
In fact, many politicians are trained and/or funded by these institutions.They wield great influence over the media, universities, corporations and elected leaders. And it is they who are calling the shots on global climate change and pandemic policies.
What this ultimately means for you
It is this group of the global ultra-elite who really do want you to:
- Stop eating meat. And instead, start eating fake meats grown in their labs.
- Stop buying new homes and constructing new buildings. And instead, become perpetual renters on the real estate market that they are now monopolising.
- End all commercial air travel. And instead, keep the skies clear for their private jets.
- Own nothing. Not cars, not furniture, not clothing, not houses. Instead, rent everything from them.
All in the noble name of ‘reducing emissions’, of course.
This is the agenda that that the net zero proponents have become ‘useful idiots’ for. They’re pushing for an agenda that will, essentially, enslave and impoverish all but the most powerful. But these naive ecologists think they’re saving the planet. Ha!
Questions to ask
As inhumane as reaching net zero emissions ultimately is, we can turn this around.
All we need to do is show people what a scam this is. It’s a scam to force most of us to accept severe austerity, whilst the elitists continue to live lives of unimaginable comfort and wealth.
Those who truly believe the sincerity of the green agenda should ask themselves these questions:
- If our leaders are so concerned about net zero emissions, why do they continue to support wars, like the ones in Ukraine or Yemen? Wars and militaries cause astounding environmental destruction and emit vast amounts of greenhouse gases. The US military emits more CO2 in peacetime than most countries do, in fact.
- Even if the entire West achieved net zero emissions, what difference would it really make if China, the Middle East, India and other developing economies carried on as usual? (Which they will).
- Where will the billions – or even trillions – raised by carbon taxes go? Who will manage that money? How traceable will the accounting for it be?
- While billions are spent on reducing carbon, why is there never a parallel global action plan to clean up ocean plastic, stop animal poaching, ban harmful chemicals, monitor rainforest destruction, etc? Why are these issues basically ignored?
- Why hasn’t the environmental impact of emissions reducing infrastructure been accounted for? For example: the launching of emissions-monitoring satellites; the destruction of petrol-fuelled cars and service stations, to be replaced with electric car charging stations; the safe disposal of solar panels and lithium batteries, etc?
- Given that our global leaders have continuously lied about everything from weapons of mass destruction to the health benefits of locking us in our homes, why should we trust them about anything again, ever?
- Will CO2 really kill the planet? All I’m seeing are theoretical models, which are notoriously wrong.
- Why can’t we just plant more trees and stop deforestation to reduce carbon? Why do all the net zero emissions solutions always seem to involve expensive schemes that will enrich a few, and impoverish most?
Our planet is facing some huge environmental issues. But by focusing on net zero emissions, we’re ignoring almost all of them.
According to the IPCC’s own data, man-made CO2 output levels are 3% of 3% of 0.1% of the total Earth’s atmosphere. That’s only 0.000009%! That is to say, 9 millionths. In other words – practically nothing.
In other words: turning your heater down to 19 degrees will not save the planet.
And plus, let’s not forget the Earth is constantly changing its climate. Yet life still continues to thrive. During the era of the dinosaurs, for example, there were no ice caps. Carbon levels were much higher, and temps were around a whopping 6 degrees higher than today. The planet was brimming with life – enough to support the dinosaurs, which were able to grow to enormous size. No wonder 500 eminent scientists have written to the United Nations to firmly state that there is no ‘climate emergency’.
Are there any solutions?
Yes, oil is polluting. But guess what? So is lithium mining for electric cars. Living in South America, I know this well. The region I live in is a battleground for mining companies. In fact, I wonder if they’re not the ones supporting these protests? But I digress.
Electric cars will need to be plugged into the grid. Which usually runs on coal or nuclear energy. So in other words, electric cars still pollute, but from a distance.
So, what can we do?
- We can try to reduce emissions from cars and planes with better filters and cleaner fuels. And we can offset emissions by planting more trees.
- We can hold oil companies responsible for upholding environmental regulations. And for cleaning up any spills they created.
- We can see if nuclear is a cleaner alternative.
But for now, we cannot survive without oil.
It’s time to call out net zero emissions strategies for what they are: a means of putting more money in the elites’ pockets, and less in ours, based on nonsense science. They’re a way of throwing us back into the dark ages of feudalism. A form of greenwashing and control that distracts us from focusing energy on real – rather than ‘predicted’ or ‘modelled’ environmental issues.
I, for one, am not falling for it.
Do you think net zero emissions is a bad idea? Let us know in the comments below.