GWPF Webinar: The Net Zero Threat to Economic Recovery

Joining the GWPF’s Harry Wilkinson are Rupert Darwall, Dr John Constable and Lord Lilley.

— In what now seems like a different era, the EU and a few other governments announced radical plans to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions to zero. Today, in a global coronavirus-induced recession, attention is turning to how policymakers can assist economic recovery once the pandemic is over.

The European Commission and environmental activists are demanding that we need to see a ‘green recovery’. But what does this actually mean? Can and should ‘Net Zero’ ambitions be sustained in the face of deepening economic hardship, or could they stifle a rapid recovery?

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Patrick MJD
May 15, 2020 10:13 pm

They should all read the fourth article back at this site to understand the drop in emissions of CO2 from our activity during this pandemic have had no effect on total concentrations as measured. So not only has the EU destroyed their economies (Like the rest of most of the world) they want to make sure it can never be revived.

May 15, 2020 10:29 pm

“Can and should ‘Net Zero’ ambitions be sustained in the face of deepening economic hardship?”

To reach zero emissions is an ambition surely but to reach net zero is not an ambition. It is a copout. Because it assumes that summation of carbon flows in fossil fuel emissions with those in the carbon cycle makes some kind of mathematical sense. The reality is that it is mathematical nonsense. Pls see

Also to be considered is the unregulated and unregulatable wild-wild-west state of the carbon credits market.

David Hoffer
Reply to  Chaamjamal
May 15, 2020 11:01 pm

Yup , as soon as you see the words “net zero ” you know you’re talking about a) virtue signalling and b) a system by which crony politicians skim money into the pockets of the crony capitalists who keep them in power.

Reply to  David Hoffer
May 16, 2020 4:56 am

DH, in the use of that peculiar phrase, I agree certainly with your characterization of these people — as virtue signaling and crony [profiteers] — but I prefer to use the mocking phrase of “religious cultists” … especially, in their blinded zeal, they are among the most un-self-aware of people.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Johnny Cuyana
May 16, 2020 10:07 am

Are they sincerely religious zealots lacking in self-awareness Johnny? Or are they bad actors (in both senses of the phrase) pandering to religious zealots in order to position themselves for financial gain and greater power?

I am deeply skeptical that there are many national politicians in any country who hold any sort of sincere religious belief, but history is replete with hypocrites who obtained power and wealth by pretending to hold and defend strong religious views.

It seems abundantly obvious to me that the current crop of politicians professing their faith in the green religion are giving a very unconvincing performance. (Their theatrical acting is bad). Their intention is to gain power and wealth at the expense of everyone else—they are bad actors in society. Bad actors who are bad actors.

There’s no doubt that the religious zealots exist among the rank and file, but I’m convinced that they are being played by the hypocrites they tend to elect.

May 15, 2020 11:15 pm

Never let a crisis go to waste? Or rather is it waste your economy for the sake of a crisis? Those pushing counterproductive ideologies are criminals of the highest order!

May 15, 2020 11:20 pm

The preposterous ‘Net Zero’ emissions ambition is an assured path to increased and deepening economic hardship. People have seem two months or so of that already and are fearful of the future and are fed up to the teeth with it.

Phil Rae
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
May 16, 2020 12:05 am

Agreed, Nicholas!

Unfortunately, the climate lunatics are still shrieking about impending doom if we don’t mend our ways. They seem to have no idea of the economic damage that has been inflicted on the world because everybody has still been able to spend their day on social media, their heating/hot water, lights and streamed movies have continued and many in Europe & America have had their paychecks protected in some way. In other words, for many, this has been a vacation with a few minor inconveniences!

We can only hope these people will wake up and realise that we can’t waste ANY more money on this CAGW nonsense and the “renewable energy” scam…….but I suspect their whining and sense of entitlement is set to increase yet again!

John Edmondson
May 16, 2020 1:27 am

How many times does the obvious (bleeding) have to stated:-

The electricity grid will not not work on weather dependent generation.

However it gets worse.

The cost of this insanity is as large if not larger the the short term crisis we face due to Covid19.

If this madness continues the only place with a viable grid will be Iceland (or similar).

For any weather dependent generation fans, answer the question.

How do you balance supply and demand at night when there is no wind?

John Edmondson

Reply to  John Edmondson
May 16, 2020 2:29 am

The other question to answer is: what difference will getting your country to net zero make to temperatures? If China and India and Indonesia keep on building as many coal fired generating stations as they can possibly manage?

These guys don’t understand, or at least don’t admit, that the developed countries and the West are not the problem any more. Reducing 25% of current emissions while the other 75% emitters add as much as they can as fast as they can is going to have no effect at all.

I guess the specific quick way to deal with this is ask as follows. Current global emissions are about 37.5 billion tons a year. What will they be after your proposed reductions?

Reply to  michel
May 16, 2020 5:07 am

Michel, you and Edmonson ask legitimate questions — of which there are others, equally compelling — however, IMO, such questions are of minimal interest to the true cultist believers, that is, the true enviro-whackos; because, underneath it all, their ultimate motivation — although only few will speak it publicly — is, in order to achieve their false Utopia, to reduce the human population … DRASTICALLY.

IMO, these cultists are essentially fascists … and worse.

Reply to  Johnny Cuyana
May 16, 2020 10:10 am


This is true for a small fraction of those pushing this insanity, but the majority of people on the climate stupidity bandwagon don’t know any better then what the MSM spoon feeds them. As a result, they’re horribly misinformed and think it’s necessary to save the world. The main reason the MSM performs this disservice to humanity is because of political bias and not because they want to reduce the population.

The political left chose the wrong side of the climate debate in order to attract the green vote and is too self serving to admit its error. By choosing sides of the politics, the MSM stopped applying due diligence to politically divisive issues. Climate science turned from a scientific issue into a divisive political one decades ago upon the inception of the IPCC.

This “fill in the blank” fiasco is the consequence of bad judgement supported by a cascade of errors and fueled by divisiveness driven by a political left that’s gone completely nuts whose insanity is reinforced by a clueless, compliant media.

Ian W
Reply to  michel
May 25, 2020 8:11 am

The intent is not to stop worldwide emissions, it is to deindustrialize the developed nations helped by virtue signalling politicians in those developed countries.

Note that China and India consider themselves developing nations and are attempting to dominate the world economy.

Reply to  John Edmondson
May 16, 2020 10:01 am

Another question is what support is there for this belief that a 1.5C increase in temperature over the bottom of the Little Ice Age will cause untold death and destruction.
Especially considering the fact that about 90% of the last 10,000 years temperatures have been warmer than that.

Ron Long
May 16, 2020 3:24 am

Amazing, isn’t it, that the CAGW crowd needed a pandemic, which has destroyed modern economies, to see that their proposed net carbon zero plans were ill-conceived. Reminds me of the US soldier who remarked to a TV reporter, in reference to re-taking Hue from the North Vietnamese during the TET offensive: “We had to destroy the city to save it”.

Bruce Cobb
May 16, 2020 4:04 am

Clearly, net-zero policies are economy-destroying and totally nutty, so the goal should instead be “nut-zero”.

May 16, 2020 4:14 am

If these “low carbon experts” really knew the future gneration technology of small modular molten salt nuclear reactors, they would wait a few years for them to commercialize and would cost little and produce a reliable electric grid , neither of which renewables can.

Rich Davis
Reply to  ColMosby
May 16, 2020 11:33 am

What is your evidence Col, that MSR will be commercially viable in a few years?

Kindly define “few”.

Reply to  Rich Davis
May 16, 2020 10:54 pm

Col can’t.

Ian W
Reply to  Rich Davis
May 25, 2020 8:27 am

MSR production prototype in 4 years and in theory operable commercial systems in 10 years. Built as modular systems then taken to sites for cheapness and reliability.

Of course small modular reactors are already available many naval ships use them, but they have had considerable and continuous propaganda against them despite their ability to provide safe cheap baseload power. Nuclear power is the safest power generation there is even the current ‘light water’ reactors.

But then the ‘greens’ are not interested in maintaining life as normal, their intent is to deindustrialize the developed economies while allowing China and India to industrialize using whatever power systems that they want. So expect even thorium liquid salt and pebble bed reactors to have a wave of bad press as they approach commercial status.

Rich Davis
Reply to  ColMosby
May 17, 2020 3:01 pm


Stephen Skinner
May 16, 2020 6:04 am

“how policymakers can assist economic recovery”
Are you kidding? Who are these ‘policy makers’ and what is their track record for running economies? How did they get to such high positions where it is assumed they can assist economic recovery? Such individuals do not have the mental faculties to know when what they are doing is destructive. Ask those who run businesses and absolutley do not ask shareholders.

May 16, 2020 7:20 am

Let the EU be stupid. It serves them right for putting idiots in power. As long as we stay sane, it will be to our advantage. We just need to stay away from the same kind of socialist leadership that thinks polices reverting civilization back to the stone age are for the ‘greater good’.

This ideology based on a false greater good rears its ugly head with the China virus as well. Ignoring the bill of rights is not for the greater good as claimed by the left, but mostly for the good the same 1% of the population for whom the flu or even a common cold would be fatal. The trillions the US has spent so far work out to 10’s of thousands of dollars per citizen of new debt or millions per vulnerable individual. Protecting the vulnerable without harming the rest of the population would be far more cost effective.

Walt D.
May 16, 2020 7:54 am

“Net Zero Carbon Emissions” is not possible. Michael Moore blew the whistle on this.
“Net Zero Carbon Emissions” = “Net Zero GNP”
The whole thing is B ogus.

William Astley
May 16, 2020 9:37 am

Net Zero carbon emissions the idea is impossible to sell to the public when there is 30% unemployment and our economies are not restarting. …

And the green scam solutions do not work and damage the environment. So there is no money to spend and spending money on the stuff is a complete waste.

Ignoring the fact that humans did not cause the CO2 rise and the CO2 rise did not cause the temperature rise.

CAGW is only one of a long list, of special interests.

Special interest groups now control what we think about, discuss, and believe.

The Left wing (Democrats in the US) has become a brainless, anti-American out of control mess of ideologies that is controlled by special interest groups.

And China is the most powerful, organized, media controlling, and richest special interest in the world. They control and influence both governments and companies.

Nancy Pulaski is going for voting by mail, so we will have fake voting in addition to fake science, fake news, and so on. This will allow special interest groups to take over and paralyze the US.

John Robertson
May 16, 2020 1:42 pm

I love the term and the timing.
Net Zero.
Well why not.
Given the parasitic class has successfully shut down the economy and lack any ability or plan to start what they stopped.
Their reward should be Net Zero.
I will given them nothing,for that is what they have proven themselves to be worth to me.
In fact their negative value is such that I should find a way to collect from them,for the rest of my days.

Unfortunately they are worthless and thus have no value.
Well maybe as fish food?

Now the biggest obstacle to reestablishing trade,supply routes and the flow of wealth,is government.
Maybe they need to be shutdown indefinitely ,until the economy is functioning again?

For all the high priced help and abuse of power has amounted to Shakespeare’s
“Out, out, brief candle! Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
Why would you continue to support such?

Patrick MJD
May 16, 2020 5:45 pm

Net Zero emissions is basically creative accounting like the emissions from DRAX are counted as zero because it burns renewable sources of fuel, wood. What isn’t counted are the emissions of the various trucks and ships that brings that source from the US to the UK.

%d bloggers like this: