By Vijay Jayaraj
The grand vision of “Net Zero” initiatives – by which emissions of carbon dioxide magically balance with expensive and futile capture and storage systems – have long been sold as the redemption arc for humanity’s profligate modern ways. Yet, like a poorly scripted dystopian thriller, the holes in this plot are glaring.
Net Zero was always a fragile concept. It rested on shaky and illogical assumptions: that wind turbines, solar panels and “green” hydrogen could reliably replace fossil fuels, that governments could redesign economies without unintended consequences, that voters would accept higher costs for daily necessities, and that developing countries would sacrifice growth for climate targets they had no hand in creating.
None of those fantasies held. Countries did not decarbonize nearly at the speed promised, even though climate bureaucracies clung to the illusion. Long-range targets, five-year reviews and international pledges lacked common sense and defied physical and economic realities. The result? An unaccountable machine pushing impractical policies that most people never voted for and are now beginning to reject.
If Net Zero were a serious endeavor, its architects would confront the undeniable: China and India are more than delaying their decarbonization timelines – they’re burying them. Why has this been ignored?
China and India – responsible for more than 40 percent of global CO2 emissions in the last two decades – are accelerating fossil fuel use, not phasing it out. In Southeast Asia, coal, oil and natural gas continue to dominate. Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines are building new electric generating power plants using those fuels. These countries understand that economic growth comes first.
Africa, too, is pushing back. Leaders in Nigeria, Ghana and Senegal have criticized Western attempts to block fossil fuel financing. African nations are investing in exploitation of the oil and gas reserves.
If Asia represents the global rejection of Net Zero, Germany and the U.K. are poster children of the West’s self-inflicted wounds. Both nations, once hailed as Net Zero pioneers, are grappling with the harsh realities of their green ambitions. The transition to “renewables” has been plagued by economic pain, energy insecurity and political backlash, exposing the folly of policies divorced from facts. When the war in Ukraine cut off energy supplies, Germany panicked. Suddenly, coal plants were back online. The Green Dream died a quiet death.
Trump funding cuts likely will accelerate the fall of Net Zero’s house of cards. The president’s decisions to slash financing for international and domestic green programs has severed the lifeline for global climate initiatives, including the United Nations Environment Program. Trump also vowed to redirect billions from the Inflation Reduction Act – Biden’s misnomered climate law – toward fossil fuel infrastructure.
The retreat of Net Zero interrupts the flow of trillions of dollars into an agenda with questionable motives and false promises. Climate finance had developed the fever of a gold rush. Banks, asset managers and consulting firms hurried to brand themselves as “green.” ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) investing promised to reward “climate-friendly” firms and punish alleged polluters.
The fallout was massive market distortions. Companies shifted resources to meet ESG checklists at the expense of fiduciary obligations. Now the tide is turning. The Net Zero Banking Alliance comprising top firms globally has been abandoned by America’s leading institutions. Similarly, a Net Zero investors alliance collapsed after Blackrock’s exit.
Perhaps the fundamental failure of Net Zero was political. Permission was never sought from taxpayers and consumers who would pay the costs and suffer the consequences of an always ill-fated enterprise. Climate goals were set behind closed doors. Policies were imposed from above. Higher utility bills, job losses and diminished economic opportunity became the burdens of ordinary families. All while elites flew private jets to international summits and lectured about the need to sacrifice.
A certain lesson in the slow passing of Net Zero is this: Energy policy must serve people, not ideology. That truth was always obvious and remains so. Yet, some political leaders, legacy media and industry “yes-men” continue to blather on about a “green” utopia. How long the delusion persists remains to be seen.
This commentary was first published at Townhall on May 9, 2025.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO₂ Coalition, Arlington, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India.
Deep down, consumers were skeptical about the Net Zero concept from the outset; but when it initially received under-the-table backing from those who stood to profit from it, and plenty of leftist media publicity, they gave it a grudging try. Then it became obvious the whole exercise was just a gimmick for governments to generate revenue from carbon pricing as well as green product manufacturers to have their products mandated at inflated and often exorbitant prices, the populace smelled more than one rat. And when they kept hearing that the really big emitters were increasing their fossil fuel use because they didn’t want unreliable renewables to interfere with economic growth, and when they saw there wasn’t any climate crisis, just phony alarmism, they no longer tolerated planet-saving arguments by governments, environmentalists and academics. So now the majority of citizens has recognized another big lie and are refusing to support it and it’s about time.
I think Covid is the best thing that has happened to “The Science” revealing it for the political/ideological propaganda it really is, and what charletans those “experts” peddling it are.
Read more on the Covid “conspiracy”
https://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-biden-administration-detail-mandate-of-covid-19-vaccinations-for-17-million-health-care-workers/
Actual documentation legally obtained.
Wuhan lab leak is not some conspiracy theory as detailed by the documentation.
I am truly astounded how many stupid gullible people still believe in the ‘climate emergency’ and need for ‘net zero’.
Net Zero was always the equivalent of a cult. Like Nixon’s War on Cancer, it was a mad conjecture that was bought into by Our Fearless Leaders. I can argue that they never really understood the details of what they were selling, but World Saving was siren call.
And its current spawn – improving physiological health… whatever that is.
At least the War on Cancer had a visible social benefit, if it accomplished what it was supposed to.
That it ended up being another debacle is history.
The “War on Cancer” was taking the Linear-No Threshold model to an absurd extent. It was California’s Proposition 65 with bans rather than sillyass notices and civil suits.
Continuing it was another thing to hold against Jimmy Carter. Right now, Google tries very hard to make searching for the topic.
Net Zero is a true concept. Net Zero will have zero effect on the climate, and will lead to net zero effect on the economy, and possibly even negative. There will be a net zero benefit to the world.
More -10 than net zero
Not possibly even negative. Just negative.
Photo: 15 humans, zero men aged 20-50.
See: Climate Code Red: About & contact us
I suspect this is a paid protest.
1. Our goal is a safe-climate future – we have no right to bargain away species or human lives
Tell that to the eagles and whales and bats.
Tell that to the people who died in Spain’s blackout.
Tell that to the people whose health was compromised or were killed in battery fires.
All discussion of energy policy needs to start with the recognition that trillions of dollars spent over some decades have delivered more expensive and less reliable power with massive damage to the forests and farmlands.
There is no upside especially as warming has been a good thing and CO2 is good as well. Besides it is not a significant driver of warming anyway. No case for net zero there every way you look at it.
Subsidising and mandating wind and solar on the grid was arguably the worst public policy blunder of all time and it would not have happened if wind droughts had been taken into account. Apparently there has been a conspiracy of silence among meteorologists to keep quiet about wind droughts. Then the policy makers and planners who decided to bet the farm on wind and solar power didn’t bother to check the reliability of the wind supply.
Recognition of wind droughts, wind lulls, or Dunkelflautes, could have averted the debacle. Mariners and millers would have known about them for centuries, at least at the local level. https://www.flickerpower.com/images/The_endless_wind_drought_crippling_renewables___The_Spectator_Australia.pdf
As we approach the two week anniversary of large grid failure in Portugal and Spain, it is important to recognize the many hard working politicians and bureaucrats who been the vanguard in the fight to destroy the electrical of their respective countries! Special consideration needs to go to the leaders in England, Germany and Commifornia; where all-knowing politicos have led their constituents down the garden path to skyrocketing rate hikes and greater grid fragility!
Net Zero needs to be called out for the fiction that it always was; the benefits and economic savings will always be, like a bad movie from the 1980s, Less Than Zero!
NetZ has gone from a utopian dream to a liability.
liability? Perhaps. A disastrous tipping point? Definitely.
“Net Zero was always a fragile concept. It rested on shaky and illogical assumptions: that wind turbines, solar panels and “green” hydrogen could reliably replace fossil fuels, that governments could redesign economies without unintended consequences….”
************
Countries like the UK, Germany, Spain and Portugal have been turned into giant laboratory experiments to attempt something with a transitional project which has no history and no proof of success, and the people of these countries are the lab rats.
No small scale trials, no feasibility studies, no questions asked of grid engineers and scientists, nothing to precede the transition before the massive experiment begins. As the quote above says, assumptions are made and accepted on blind unquestioning faith.
To say that this is hugely irresponsible on the part of the leaders of these nations is putting it mildly. Ed Miliband is the mad scientist, and the British people are the lab rats on whom he is experimenting.
Ed is so deluded he thinks that with ‘cheap’ unreliables Britain is going to become the destination of choice for energy intensive industry and that is why he is so keen on wind and solar. He lives in a fantasy land. UK energy prices are higher than Germany’s!
Very nice Vijay. You don’t need to be a scientist, an academic, or any other highly educated person to know that CAGW isn’t about science or climate, it never has been. It has always been about power and control. The most obvious sign is that nuclear is the only viable path to their dreams. Yet they thumb their noses at it. They don’t give a damn about CO2, climate or science, it is all about power and control.
Many UN officials came right out and said that over the past couple of decades.
The delusion will persist as long as there is the IPCC. That bureaucracy is like Japanese knotweed. Only when comprehensively killed it will keep coming back. Unfortunately, if a future president tries to revive the lunacy he or she may succeed if the IPCC is still kicking. In that case the people will have to unlock their gun cabinets.
Torches and pitchforks as a minimum. Who knows if we will be allowed those dangerous firearms.
Wealth is what we consume. The more we consume the wealthier we become – the less we consume the poorer we are.
Poverty is the natural state of Mankind; the start point. The greatest surge in wealth for all was caused by the Industrial Revolution which meant goods could be made at much lower cost allowing more people to have, to consume – in fact to consume things that previously only the very rich could have.
Net Zero is aimed at impoverishing Mankind by forcing people to consume less – it’s a pseudo-religious belief that poverty and self-denial is virtuous and gets you into Heaven – except for the elite who will be able to consume what they want.
“except for the elite who will be able to consume what they want.”
In the ‘Heaven’ they’ve created for themselves … paid for by us plebs !!
You will have nothing and you will be happy.
— WEF
And how is it WHO “owns the science”?
Politicians only respect the laws to funding, grift, patronage, and ……..
Any technology that fails to respect the laws of thermodynamics and energy cycles will fail eventually.
But the Laws of Thermodynamics were not passed by any legislature so they are invalid.
/s