Cutting greenhouse gas emissions was going to save the planet at no cost. Turns out it’s an economy wrecker, which is more feature than a bug for many a climate alarmist. [emphasis, links added]
Kallum Pickering, chief economist at Peel Hunt, a London-based investment bank, took on the claim of Labour Party British Chancellor Rachel Reeves, who said that pursuing net zero greenhouse gas emissions didn’t require a deceleration of economic growth.
What he found was “sad to say,” but he stands by the facts.
“The result of the UK’s decarbonization efforts appears to be weak economic growth, stalling living standards, high energy prices and deindustrialization – without denting rising global emissions,” he wrote last week in the Telegraph.
“Net zero is strangling our economy,” says the headline over Pickering’s column, because “limiting available electricity has stifled productivity.”
Bluntly put, without cheap and reliable energy, which is what we get from fossil fuels, an economy turns sclerotic.
On the Peel Hunt website, Pickering explained that data from 189 countries indicated there is “a strong positive correlation between living standards and energy consumption – showing a clear link between falling energy capacity and weak productivity in the UK.”
He notes that “the decline in UK electricity supply, which started in 2006, coincided with the start of structural weakness in productivity growth.”
Bluntly put, without cheap and reliable energy, which is what we get from fossil fuels, an economy turns sclerotic.
This is why the political left works so feverishly to end gas and oil.
As we have said so many times before, the agenda behind cutting greenhouse gases is in actuality an assault on capitalism which, as the legendary Milton Friedman famously said, is the only economic system that has enabled the masses to escape from “grinding poverty.”
There’s no better example than Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s New Green Deal, which her office called a “jobs and justice-centered plan to decarbonize the U.S. economy within 10 years.”
But that was merely a cover for a much more sinister objective.
“It wasn’t originally a climate thing at all,” according to the New York congresswoman’s former chief of staff, it was a “how-do-you-change-the-entire economy thing.”
Read rest at Issues & Insights
What is not surprising is that trying to reduce CO2 emissions by using wind and solar will cause major issues with grid reliability and costs. What is surprising is that the politicians actually believed (and too many still do) that doing this will cause the economy to soar and costs will go down Now that they see this isn’t happening is there a course correction? Seems that they either don’t see it or don’t want to see it so it’s full steam ahead (or is that full sail ahead because we can’t use steam powered by fossil fuels!)
Net Zero for Nit-Wits this w hole thing is based upon Politics and Junk Science which is what the entire modern day enviromentalists Movement is based upon