A new paper published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation reviews the negative impacts and societal consequences of Western demands for developing countries to adopt Net Zero policies. [emphasis, links added]
Western governments increasingly demand that poor and developing countries switch to renewable energy to achieve Net Zero economies.
Pressure is exerted through numerous mechanisms, including trade barriers, which directly affect these countries’ already struggling populations and economies.
The paper reveals that forcing developing countries to repeat the costly mistakes of Western decarbonization policies threatens the well-being and livelihoods of billions of people worldwide.
The author of the report, Canadian professor Ismet Ugursal, said:
“The poor in the developing and developed world urgently need access to more and cheaper energy to improve their standard of living. To reduce and eradicate poverty, economic growth and increased energy use are necessary, not optional.”
In most developed countries, governments provide grants and subsidies for renewable energy that are uneconomic and unsustainable without billions in handouts.
Since poor households can rarely afford these renewable energy systems, they don’t benefit from them, yet perversely, it is their taxes and subsidies that fund these initiatives.
Professor Ugursal said:
“Objectives such as Net Zero and degrowth are therefore not credible. They are misguided follies, which will be discarded sooner rather than later, as the harms they cause to everyone, but especially the very poor, become clear. At this point in technological advancement, the only light at the end of the tunnel seems to be increased utilization of nuclear energy.”
Ismet Ugursal: The Ethics of Decarbonization for the Poor (pdf)
Forcing net zero on developing clearly shows the hypocrisy of the climate change movement. They claim to make a big deal of climate justice. However, this is only an issue when it serves the movement’s goals. Denying the developing world affordable energy is clearly a climate injustice.
See the above. Complete analysis is contained in the above paper. Complete with references and authors’ biographies. Hope this is OK.
Net Zero Policies Will Have a Trivial Effect on Temperature, But Disastrous Effects on People Worldwide.
Oct. 13, 2024.
References.
(1)“Net Zero Averted Temperature Increase”: by Drs. R. Lindzen, W. Happer and W. A. van Wijngaarden, Dated June 11, 20
(2) Methane and Climate by Drs. W. A. van Wijngaarden and W, Happer.
(3) co2 coalition: Expert Opinion prepared for The Foundation of: “The Environment and Man” The Court of Appeals, The Hague, Netherlands.
(4) Nearly 140 Scientific Papers Detail The Minuscule Effect CO2 Has On Earth’s Temperature. By Kenneth Richard on 13. January 2022.
(5) Hurricane Climatology. Wikipedia: There are three main components critical to the formation of a hurricane. They are warm water, moist warm air and light upper winds. A hurricane begins when large masses of warm water and moist warm air come in contact with cooler air. This collision prompts the warm water vapor to cool down very fast and condense, eventually forming dense storm clouds and emptying out as heavy rain. The annual number of tropical cyclones worldwide remains about 87 ± 10.
About the Authors.
Dr. Richard Lindzen Professor of Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Dr. William Happer, Professor Emeritus in the Department of Physics at Princeton University. He is a specialist in modern optics, optical radiofrequency spectroscopy of atoms and molecules, radiation propagation in the atmosphere, and spin-polarized atoms and nuclei.
Dr. W. A. Van Wijngaarden is a full professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at York. His research specialties are: high-precision laser spectroscopy, laser cooling and atom trapping, ultracold atoms, Bose-Einstein condensation. pollutant monitoring, and climate change.
Dr. Steven Koonin, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute
at Stanford. Before joining Hoover in 2024, he was a professor at New York University, with appointments in the Stern School of Business, the Tandon School of Engineering, and the Department of Physics. He founded NYU’s Center for Urban Science and Progress, which focuses research and education on the acquisition, integration, and analysis of big data for big cities.
Approximately 140 Independent Scientific Teams (Sponsored by the NO TRICKS ZONE BLOG) – Detailing The Minuscule Effect CO2 Has On Earth’s Temperature. An update of a previous paper: “Extremely Low CO2 Climate Sensitivity”.by Pierre Gosselin. Associate Degree in Civil Engineering. Vermont Technical College and a BS Degree in Mechanical Engineering at the University of Arizona in Tucson.
Nota Bene. This paper has been prepared to ensure Governments and Citizens are fully informed of this important Scientific Analysis and its consequences.
The Issue. The issue is the assumption that climate change and extreme weather are caused by CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels by humans. This however is contradicted by the “scientific method” and only supported by the unscientific methods of government opinions, consensus, peer review, and cherry-picked or falsified data. Mainly by the UN.
Carbon dioxide’s ability to warm the planet is determined by its ability to absorb heat, which decreases rapidly as CO2’s concentration in the atmosphere increases. This scientific fact about CO2 changes everything about the common view of CO2 and climate change. It means that the common assumption that carbon dioxide is the “main driver of climate change” is scientifically false.
Currently, carbon dioxide is a weak Greenhouse Gas. At today’s concentration in the atmosphere of approximately 420 parts per million, additional amounts of CO2 have little ability to absorb heat and therefore is now a weak greenhouse gas. At higher concentrations in the future, the ability of future increases to warm the planet will be will be even smaller. Thus, to repeat, the common assumption that carbon dioxide is the main driver of climate change” is scientifically false.
In short, more carbon dioxide cannot cause catastrophic global warming or more extreme weather. Neither can greenhouse gases of methane or nitrous oxide, the levels of which are so small that they are Irrelevant to climate.
In addition, referring to additional atmospheric CO2 as “carbon pollution” is complete nonsense. Quite the contrary it does two beneficial things for humanity .(1) it provides a slight increase in temperature, much less than natural fluctuations. (2) it creates more food for people worldwide.
What Does All This Mean?
First – Net Zero Efforts Will Have a Trivial Effect on Temperature. More of the atmospheric greenhouse gas CO2 will increase temperature, but only slightly. How changes in atmospheric greenhouse gases affect radiation transfer are described by precise physical equations that have never failed to describe observations of the real world. Application of these formulas to the massive efforts by the US and worldwide to reduce CO2 emissions to Net Zero by 2050 are contained in a paper that is recommend to those with a technical background. They show that all efforts to achieve Net Zero emissions of carbon dioxide, if fully implemented, will have a trivial effect on temperature.
For North America, it only avoids a temperature increase of 0.02 deg. F with no positive feedback and only 0.06 deg. F with positive feedback of 4 that is typically built into the models of the United Nations international Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Worldwide, it only avoids a temperature increase of 0.13 deg. F or 0.50 deg. F with a factor of 4 positive feedback.
Second – Net Zero Policies will Be Disastrous for People Worldwide. In Canada, the United States and worldwide, Net Zero regulations and subsidies will have disastrous effects. Chief among them would be the proposed elimination of fossil fuels which would mean doing away with internal combustion engines for transportation and other uses, the power plants that provide most of the world’s electricity, gas space heaters, furnaces, cooking stoves and the feedstocks for nitrogen fertilizers that enable the feeding of nearly half the global population. The resulting economic devastation would include massive job losses, which already has occurred in places where Net Zero subsidies and regulations have diverted capital away from investments into productive assets and into ineffective technologies such as wind and solar energy as has already been indicated by the Governor of the Bank of Canada.
Those hostile to fossil fuels ignore overwhelming evidence that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from their combustion has significantly greened the Earth and boosted crop production.
In addition, various countries will require electric vehicles (EV’s). heat pumps and electric appliances be purchased. They will require companies to report information on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. However, since more carbon dioxide causes trivial and beneficial warming, this data is immaterial, misleading and very expensive in managerial time and dollars. It should not be required.
Third- More CO2 Means More Food. Contrary to common reporting, more carbon dioxide increases the amount of food available to people worldwide, and is particularly helpful in drought-stricken areas. Doubling carbon dioxide to 800 ppm for example will increase global food supplies by approximately 60%.
Thus, carbon dioxide emissions should not be reduced, but increased to provide more food worldwide. Moreover, there is no risk of catastrophic global warming or extreme weather because carbon dioxide is now a weak greenhouse gas. Reducing carbon dioxide emissions will reduce the amount of food available to people worldwide and produce no benefit to the climate.
Fourth – Fossil fuels must not be eliminated. Net Zero requires that fossil fuels be eliminated because they account for 90% of human-induced CO2 emissions. However, the elimination of fossil fuels will have no effect on the climate since carbon dioxide is now a weak greenhouse gas. The use of fossil fuels must not be eliminated. Rather it should be expanded because they (1) provide more carbon dioxide which makes more food (2) are used to make nitrogen fertilizer that enables the feeding of about half of the world’s population, and (3) provide reliable and inexpensive energy for people everywhere, especially for the two-thirds of the world’s population without access to electricity.
Conclusion – All Net Zero carbon dioxide regulations and subsidies in the United States, Canada and worldwide must be stopped immediately to avoid disastrous effects on North Americans and people throughout the world especially in developing countries.
—30—
Alastair Allan, Former Assistant Deputy Minister, Federal Government, Science and Engineering, Military Procurement (Retired).
Net Zero is for Nit-Wits we cant do without the United Nations Period