A moment of hope flickered into existence when the headline Time to walk away from the ‘proven fantasy’ of Net Zero 2050 came across the news feed.
Could it be that the mining industry had finally come to its senses? Might the government consider refunding the Australian people for the tens of billions of dollars poured into this ‘fantasy’ Net Zero industry? Would the koalas be safe from ‘green energy’?
No such luck.
At best, it was a click-bait headline from CNBC based on a mediocre sound grab buried in the 24-hour news cycle.
Instead of denouncing Net Zero as a fantasy, what transpired was a marketing pitch for the next generation of green buzzwords in the mining industry (where various companies compete for virtue instead of minerals).
While calling Net Zero 2050 a ‘con to maintain fossil fuel’, one mining giant borrowed a bit of flamboyance from that UN bloke who likes to wade out into the tide for Time photo-shoots.
The longer text of Fortescue’s founder and executive chair Andrew ‘Twiggy’ Forrest’s interview reads (emphasis added):
‘Quite simply, “real zero” is the ability of this planet to use the technology it has right now – it’s evolving, it’s getting better very quickly – to use the technology we have right now to stop burning all fossil fuels by 2040.
‘If we did that by 2030, we’ve got a 50-50 chance of avoiding the worst ravages of global warming. That’s not going to happen. Fortescue is going to make it happen. We’re a huge industrial company, massive polluter. We’ll go “real zero”. We’ll stop burning fossil fuels easily this decade. Not next decade. This decade.
‘We’re saying to the world, if you want to hold that planetary boundary to a future which is inheritable, tolerable for your kids – then we must go “real zero”.
‘We must stop burning fossil fuels by 2040. I say this because I am watching… I’ve switched from business to science, the global carbon absorption [is] beginning to break down across the planet which we’ve always relied on to mitigate some of the worst effects of our artificial carbon dioxide emissions.
‘With that breaking down and our carbon dioxide pollution going through the roof – record every year – thank you, “Net Zero 2050” you’re completely failing organic life, you’re completely failing humanity. Now is the time to walk away from Net Zero 2050 as being really anything but a con to maintain fossil fuel.’
It would be interesting to hear Professor Ian Plimer ‘fact-check’ the parts about ‘holding planetary boundaries’ and the ‘breakdown of carbon absorption’.
These phrases have been kicking around the climate ecosystem for a few years. The first link that appeared when typing in ‘carbon planetary boundaries’ was a thesis on carbon pricing that talked about the last stable 10,000 years of climate, but its discussion neglected the previous 4.5 billion years along with the recent 100,000 in which the sea level has changed by more than 100 metres. Unstable climates were fundamental to human migration patterns as land bridges emerged and retreated like doors into new worlds but never mind…
The idea of ‘planetary boundaries’ seems to have arisen in addition to a list of ‘nine Earth system processes’ necessary for a ‘stable global environment’.
It will be obvious to those with a passing knowledge of geology and evolution that adherence to a ‘stable’ and unchanging world would have prevented the creation of life. Earth is not a museum. Humans are not unique in altering the climate through their existence. Our world changes and, in an upsetting reality for the doe-eyed generation of environmentalists, the planet frequently kills off its creations in a cyclic fashion. Mother Earth is a butcher whose Spring Cleaning is done with flood basalts, asteroids, and ice ages. Adapt or die, it won’t matter a jot when the sun runs out of fuel. Elon Musk is right when he says space is the future.
Returning to the interview. Politicians love to talk about carbon offsets. When asked about these ‘offsets’, Mr Forrest replied:
‘Offsets just don’t work. Carbon sequestration is really an old lie waiting for the next idiot politician to come along to believe it.’
Gosh. If offsets don’t work, can we drag Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen in for a chat? He has been busy expanding the carbon credit scheme calling it a ‘big step forward’. Mr Bowen also said that these ‘play a critical role’ in Australia’s de-carbonisation efforts.
Is Mr Bowen the ‘idiot politician’ who believed the lie?
‘It doesn’t work. It hasn’t worked. Only for 60 years – when it’s been tried in Australia and around the world, it works maybe one-in-twenty times. That’s an absolute failure. You wouldn’t put the future of the planet on something which is an absolute failure. Failed nineteen-out-of-twenty times. That’s carbon sequestration.
‘Carbon offsets well… You really want to know? It’s a cosy relationship between the fossil fuel sector and the big banking and finance sector. There’s lots of trade there. There’s lots of commissions to be made. There’s lots of money changing hands. Hasn’t done anything for global warming. Hasn’t stopped it one dot. Not a bit. Has it made money for bankers and fossil fuel companies? Buckets. Congratulations on that, but that’s not going to help the planet.
‘Helping the planet, we need to go ‘Real Zero’ by 2040 … our company, big heavy industrial company – a billion litres of diesel being burned a year – if we fully abate that, fully get rid of that entirely with green electricity and green hydrogen which is tech which is already here now by 2030… The rest of the world can do it by 2040.’
If any of these claims are true, there needs to a Royal Commission into Net Zero.
Net Zero is re-drafting the fabric of society, culture, and the economy toward dangerous collectivist principles that have so far wrecked Australia’s energy independence and stability, become a drain on public money, and caused the collapse of farming and industry on a scale never seen before. The true extent of Net Zero’s scythe will not be known while politicians base their popularity on green slogans and capitalism hides behind marketing campaigns that look awfully like saviour cults.
‘Real Zero’ is part of the evolution of language in which each sequel to the apocalypse has to have a catchier name to hold the attention of the crowd. From climate neutral to carbon neutral to carbon positive to Net Zero to True Zero and finally Real Zero. You’ve seen other works of fiction in this apocalyptic series (global cooling, global warming, climate change, climate catastrophe, global boiling etc).
Most of this hyperbolic language is meaningless.
In one document, a company promised to ‘supply its customers with a carbon free product’. A doubtful promise, given carbon is the building block of most things. As soon as a human within that product chain exhales, it is no longer a ‘carbon free’ product. It’s like those brands that promise ‘100% Real Meat*’ only for customers to discover that the * links to a message that says, 100% Real Meat is a trademark, not a description.
The truth is, while we are still allowed to print it, that ‘Net Zero’ is effectively meaningless and about as well defined as the word ‘harm’ in the Misinformation and Disinformation Bill. It can be whatever a company or politician needs it to be.
My question is this, where does the marketing pitch go after ‘Real Zero’? Absolute Zero? Infinite Zero? Limitless Zero? Omnipresent Carbon Neutrality? Neutral Ultra Terrestrial Stupidity?