Net Zero Is a Pie in the Sky Solution That Is Far From Being Zero-Cost

Fighting climate change has been all the rage, especially from activists and politicians on the Left. According to this narrative, an increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is causing a surge of natural phenomenon that threaten our way of life. If we do not do something fast to lower GHG emissions, our planet will either be destroyed or severely damaged. We need to act fast or else, say the climate change activists. 

That is where the Net Zero debate comes in. Net Zero refers to a balance between the amount of GHG emissions that are produced and the amount that are removed from the atmosphere. It is a goalpost to make sure that we do not go above 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. This 1.5°C threshold is what many climate scientists believe is acceptable before crossing to a "point of no return" in terms of there being catastrophic and irreversible events. 

My questioning of the premise goes beyond my generally skeptical and inquisitive behavior. It certainly would not be the first time the environmental movement has cried wolf. The media has exaggerated climate change's effect on such phenomena as hurricanes or heat waves to peddle climate change sensationalism. As a matter of fact, I have enough skepticism of the apocalyptic view where I would state that climate change is not a crisis because the worst-case scenarios are based on low-probability climate modeling that makes unrealistic assumptions. This is why I view climate change as a manageable phenomenon to which we can adapt. For argument's sake, let's assume that climate change is a threat to all of mankind and that we need to cut emissions like mad if we want to survive. 

What would it actually take to reach Net Zero? Last week, the Institute for Energy Research (IER) released a study entitled The Challenges and Costs of Net-Zero and the Future of Energy answering that question. Here are some actions that would need to take place in a U.S. context (p. 16-17):

• Eliminate coal usage by 2030. While coal consumption has been decreasing since 2007, coal still accounts for 19.5 percent of U.S. energy consumption. This ignores an elephant in the room. China is the world's largest consumer and producer of coal. Even the Left-leaning New York Times admits that this is a challenge to climate change goals. 
• Renewable energy supply 100 percent in primary energy by 2050. In 1991, fossil fuels made up 85.6 percent of U.S. energy consumption. In 2021, that figure went down to 78.7 percent. While renewables grew by 5.6 quadrillion BTUs between 1990 and 2022, fossil fuels grew by an even higher 6.8 quadrillion BTUs. To replace the increase in fossil fuel consumption, renewable energy consumption would have to increase by sixfold over the next thirty years. That would include wind and solar needing to increase by fourteen-fold. Given the land use required for solar and wind, it presents considerable challenges (more on that in a moment). 
• Between 210 and 330 million light-duty electric vehicles (EV) by 2050. Last April, I criticized Biden's emissions standards that encouraged EVs too quickly. As of 2022, less than one percent of all vehicles are EVs. According to a report from Princeton University, anywhere between 6 and 17 percent of the vehicle stock would need to be EVs by 2030. To do that, the U.S. would need to triple its EV production to reach the lower end of that range. Seeing how EV manufacturers are struggling to produce enough EVs without going bankrupt, this seems too lofty of a goal. 
• 2-5 times more electricity infrastructure. To reach this goal, you would need 1.3-5.9TW of wind and solar to do it. To reach the low-bound 1.3TW, wind and solar farms would need to take up 260,000 square kilometers. To put that into perspective, that is larger than the size of Oregon, Wyoming, Michigan, or New England (IER, p. 21-22). 
• Going back to my EV emissions critique from last April, the United States already has a strained electric grid system. It would be a huge amount of change. You expect that we can quintuple the grid size by 2050?

This only gets into the scenarios needed for it to work. We would also need to increase the mining of lithium, graphite, cobalt, nickel and rare earth metals (IER, p. 35). If by some miracle we could make it halfway to Net Zero, it would still cost a decline in GDP of $7.7 trillion, 1.2 million jobs, an increase of household electric bills to $840 [in 2017 dollars], and gasoline prices increasing 236 percent (IER, p. 5). 

If you are looking for additional reading on Net Zero scenarios, the Energy Policy Research Foundation published a report in June 2023 showing how ridiculous and rosy the assumptions the International Energy Agency made in its Net Zero projections.

Net zero is as delusional as zero-COVID or the quixotic dream of chasing windmills. The truth is that fossil fuels still have a major role in energy portfolios. I believe that we should move to greener energy. The problem is that much of the environmentalist movement is anti-nuclear. Without nuclear power as a major part of the energy portfolio, we have de facto shut down the only viable path towards Net Zero that can meet energy demands. 

It sounds like an environmentalist wet dream to envision a world without fossil fuels. Doing so without nuclear at the forefront would be like holding a coal in your hand and expecting it to burn someone else. As long as the anti-nuclear crowd is driving the green agenda, activists and politicians will go after everything, whether it is our cars, stoves, or water heaters. We need to keep our guard up and remain skeptical of such environmental ploys, especially if the environmental movement continues to make such radical proposals under such tenuous assumptions.