Dr. Lars Schernikau: Energy Economist, Commodity Trader, Author (recent book “The Unpopular Truth… about Electricity and the Future of Energy”)
Details inc Blog at www.unpopular-truth.com
“Net-zero” has become the corporate mantra of our time. But every “green” solution from solar panels to EVs leaves a trail of negative environmental impact (and greenhouse gases, that do exist and help to keep a temperate climate on Earth) somewhere else.
Every time I hear a company announce they are going “net-zero,” I start looking for the asterisk.
And sure enough, there it is, buried in the fine print next to a “carbon offset” bought somewhere far away or a “renewable certificate” that’s already been sold three times over. We’re stacking „carbon credit“s nine layers deep and calling it progress.
This isn’t sustainability…It smells of greenwashing.
Greenwashing exists because it is being rewarded. Investors pay for the story, consumers buy the feeling, and politicians need the slogan…a collective illusion that let’s everyone look good while nothing really changes.
The truth is, ESG was meant to guide responsible investment and governance, but in practice, it’s become a tool for marketing, not measurement. Companies are claiming “green” status at every stage, from mining, to manufacturing, to financing, each one earning ESG points, each one waving the sustainability flag. Meanwhile, our planet barely notices.
Let’s get one thing straight: nothing is or can ever be “net-zero.”
Not wind turbines, not solar panels, nor hydrogen. Every “green” technology depends on fossil fuels at some stage… usually at all stages: mining, manufacturing, transport, and disposal.
We have created a trillion-dollar distraction as we are counting, offsetting, and trading emissions instead of making a truly positive environmental difference.
If everyone can claim “net-zero,” then who is actually reducing emissions?
I wrote an article on Greenwashing our Future and it coveres the lesser known facts from banks quietly shelving their „carbon credit“ operations to ESG funds being shut down by the hundreds, even major players like HSBC have abandoned „carbon credit“ trading. Seems like regulators are finally catching up, banning vague terms like “climate neutral” and demanding proof behind the promises.
It’s becoming clear that “green” finance may be built on very shaky ground…the signs are hard to ignore.
My blog is not about being anti-environment but rather about being honest and pro-environment. The only way forward is through truth, accountability, and innovation.
Greenwashing is no longer just a corporate PR problem, it has become a systemic delusion.
We want to feel good. We want simple stories. We want to be told we are solving climate related issues by checking the right ESG boxes.
But the unpopular truth is this: We cannot buy our way to sustainability with carbon credits. Real solutions require real energy, real accountability, and real trade-offs…and until we are honest about that, we are not saving the planet, we are just telling an expensive fairy tale.
Continue reading the full blog here: Greenwashing our future: Who is NOT benefiting?
It is virtue signaling, but it is mostly folly, as the level of warming from greenhouse gasses is net beneficial at realistic levels.
It’s fairy tales all the way down.
CO2 can’t cause CAGW therefore there is no reason to attack fossil fuels. Wind and solar can’t sustain the grid or a modern society. Stop wasting our money on them. Fire up all fossil fuel and nuclear generators, build new fossil fuel and nuclear generators and remove all wind and solar from the grid.
WTGs and SVs are niche technologies. Eliminating all of them would be a mistake. Allowing their limited energy to supplement the grid actually does reduce fuel costs (when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing). But that penetration needs to be strictly limited and the thermal generators (coal, hydrocarbon, nuclear) need to be capable of fully operating the grid. Cost – risk- benefit analyses seem to be things of a bygone era.
If individuals or organizations want wind or solar I am not against that. They and only they pay all the costs. I am not in favor of allowing them to connect to the grid. The grid can easily be supported by fossil fuels, nuclear and hydro. If more power is needed a modest investment in the three grid suppliers should solve the problem.
A great article. I’ve worked the the mining industry for +40 years. Real ESG is simple. It’s about honesty and some very basic operating systems. Nothing flash, just knowing what your project needs to do to match the local people’s needs.
+1000
Well to be fair the weather worriers do give you a choice between greenwashing and net-zero-
Tomago Aluminium at risk of closure as energy prices continue to rise
although it’s more like Hobson’s Choice if you happen to use a lot of energy.
Lots of skeptics like me were saying that emissions trading was a fraud back in 2000 when the trading mechanisms were first negotiated at COP6 in The Hague. The final negotiations were done in enormous haste during the final couple of hours as the event support staff were taking down the tables and chairs in the main hall. The final discussions were obviously rushed, with a huge amount of bracketed text.
None of the subsequent COP conferences were capable of fixing this mess. In the end, disputes over the trading mechanisms were the reason for the complete breakdown and collapse of the Kyoto Protocol in Copenhagen in 2009. It was compounded by the evidence that Europe’s mafia was heavily involved in trafficking fake emission allowances.
Long experience has taught me that emissions trading has been fake from the get-go and riddled with corruption and fraud.
Story Tip
Vandalising aircraft is ok if you are a climate worrier.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/10/27/just-stop-oil-protesters-free-taylor-swift-plane-spray/
No jail time for them because they brought attention to the climate crisis.
Our UK judges easily misled.
They were just women doing it to a wealthy woman’s jet but you wouldn’t want to be a man doing that-
Students jailed over £140k train compensation fraud
You’ll all be damn well equal or else does have its delicious moments for the wokeys-
All-girls grammar school in gender row after ditching historic pink shirt in favour of ties
Just don’t be a bloke doing the Nazi salute or hoarding Swastika paraphernalia etc-
Twist in Hezbollah terrorist flag case
The hammer and sickle is just fine and dandy for all letters of the alphabet of course.
Then apparently if you are a man you can be arrested for showing a picture of an alleged criminal
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-09-02/man-charged-over-display-of-dezi-freeman-sign-at-rally/105726036
Then only for them to have to back down because it was going to get smashed in the courts
https://www.noticer.news/adelaide-protest-dezi-freeman-sign-charge-dropped/
However the lefty media and lefty groupies had no problems trampling all over someones rights but don’t ever touch there rights. They are all hypocrites.
Good for me but not for thee.
I have changed from “left” to illiberal progressives.
I have seen many males wearing pink shirts. I do not see the need to change except as a sexist policy adaptation.
I was of the understanding that ignorance of the law was no excuse. The lawyers are having a field day in the flag case.
On the other hand,some years ago, they put an 18 year old girl for 1 year into prison for laying bacon on the stair of a mosque.
’…or a “renewable certificate” that’s already been sold three times over.’
I’ve always wondered about this. Here in CT, all energy providers are required to purchase RECs for 38% of the energy they sell, yet the stats from NEISO rarely show ‘renewables’ in excess of 10%.
I understand how greenhouse effect and subsequently greenhouse gasses came into the conversation.
They are social language context driven definitions that simplify for the masses. They are not the concise scientific definitions.
There is no “greenhouse effect.” It is true that the atmosphere is warm enough to support life across the entire planet, but the physics is not due to “GHG.” If it were, the temperature pole-to-pole would be uniform.
The point?
We must stop using the alarmist lexicon. By using their definitions, we give them unearned credibility boosts. We must go back to concise scientific language and definitions.
This is a good point. I have been trying to use the term “IR-active trace gases” and “the incremental IR absorbing power” and similar expressions in my posts and comments to be more in line with the scientifically confirmed properties and implications.
Good article!
“We want to feel good. We want simple stories. We want to be told we are solving climate related issues by checking the right ESG boxes.”
One of the lesser-known but important actions of the current EPA is the Reconsideration of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program described here. Comments are open until November 3rd. Just imagine all the feel-good-but-useless accounting efforts throughout industry that can be redirected toward something productive and beneficial for the human condition. I think I will have to submit a supportive comment.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/09/16/2025-17923/reconsideration-of-the-greenhouse-gas-reporting-program