Ian Bradford: The Futility of Net Zero

The drive for a Net Zero emissions target is a primary focus of most world governments. What do we mean by Net Zero?

It is the situation where the total Carbon Dioxide emissions arising directly or indirectly from human activities equals the amount of Carbon Dioxide removed from the atmosphere (by trees, plants, and oceans or by sequestration underground, or in some form of carbonate). Net Zero does not include Carbon Dioxide emissions which emanate from volcanoes, warming oceans and other natural sources, these being many times higher than anthropogenic emissions.
Behind this is the hypothesis that human caused emissions of Carbon Dioxide and other “greenhouse” gases are responsible for climate change by way of the “greenhouse effect.” The greenhouse effect is the name given to the absorption of radiated heat from the Earth by greenhouses gases in the atmosphere. The greenhouse gases are then supposed to re-radiate heat back to the Earth and cause global warming. The term greenhouse gas is a misnomer. Heat and light from the sun of short wavelength enters a greenhouse. This radiation is absorbed by the objects in the greenhouse- plants and soil etc. They warm and re-radiate but with a longer wavelength than the radiation that entered the greenhouse. The glass of the greenhouse will not pass this longer wavelength radiation out so the greenhouse heats up. If now, vents in the roof are opened the hot air passes out by convection- hot air rises because it is less dense than the cooler air outside. The atmosphere has no roof of containment like a greenhouse. So the heating mechanism in a greenhouse is different from that in the atmosphere.

Bear in mind that it is only the Carbon Dioxide produced by human activities that is involved. Below is a simple diagram produced by the IPCC showing the proportions of Carbon Dioxide produced from all sources.

Human emissions are 29, Vegetation and land 439, and oceans 332. We don’t need units, just the proportions of each.

Total emissions = 29 + 439 + 332 = 800.

So the percentage of human emissions is (29/800) x 100 = 3.6%

We shall round this up to 4%. So of all the Carbon Dioxide emissions just 4% are caused by humans! So the aim of those who want to get to Net Zero is to get rid of the 4%. Using common sense, removing 4% of Carbon Dioxide and not worrying about the other 96% is not going to make the slightest difference to presumably, climate change. There is more than enough evidence anyway, to say Carbon Dioxide is NOT causing climate change.

We commonly hear that if we double the amount of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere then the temperature will double. This suggests a linear relationship between temperature and the amount of carbon Dioxide. The greenhouses gases keep the earth about 30 deg C warmer than it would otherwise be without them in the atmosphere. So instead of the surface temperature being about -15 deg C, it is at present about 15 deg C. The pre-industrial level of Carbon Dioxide was about 280ppm. If the heating effect was a linear relationship then each 100ppm would contribute 1deg C. Concentration of Carbon Dioxide is rising at 2 ppm annually. So every 50 years it would go up by 100ppm giving a temperature rise of 1degC. But the relationship isn’t linear. According to Dr D. Archibald (2007), it is logarithmic. This means that as more and more gas gets into the atmosphere the additional Carbon Dioxide has less and less effect. The following graph gives the type of fall-off of the warming as carbon Dioxide concentration increases.

The temperature of Oregon State has increased by just 1 deg F or about 0.5 deg C from 1895 to 2020. It has been calculated using transfer equations provided by the IPCC that If Oregon had achieved Net Zero by 2016 the State would have prevented a temperature rise

of 0.0007 Deg F by 2050 and a rise of 0.0018 Deg F by 2100. To change to Deg C take roughly half those F values.

In 2020, Norwegian scientists Thorstein Seim, and Borgar Olsen reported on Laboratory experiments designed to simulate the greenhouse effect, and the results were startling. The temperature increases observed with progressively increasing Carbon Dioxide levels were vastly less than predicted by the aggressive formulation used in IPCC models. The results of these direct experiments are entirely consistent with earlier conclusions that even doubling Carbon Dioxide levels in the atmosphere would have no material effect on global temperatures. The studies provide direct evidence that reliance on the greenhouse effect as a principal causal mechanism of global warming is, at best, flawed.

The annual cost of Net Zero is daunting. The International Monetary Fund suggests countries spend one trillion dollars each year for the next three years. While some countries might manage this, it is out of the question for many growing emerging economies. Further, the path to Net Zero requires a transition to an all electric economy. That means unreliable wind and solar farms covering much of the landscape. There needs to be storage systems to cope with peak demand, and times when there is no sun and no wind. There also needs to be much new infrastructure such as transmission lines. There will be no fossil fuel powered vehicles. All this by 2050.

Sky News host Rita Panahi says that the push for Net Zero emissions by 2050 among many Western countries is a futile endeavour, when countries like China, India and Russia aren’t on board. India isn’t signing up to the 2050 target, and China didn’t show up at the Glasgow conference. Russia is sitting back laughing. So let’s not pretend that NZ is now part of some global answer because there are many parts of the globe where they’re looking on and just going to be taking advantage of the absolute idiocy and self harm that NZ has committed to.

Here’s the final crunch. China has repeatedly stated that it has no intention of going along with the Western push to Net Zero. President Xi Jinping reiterated that China would set its own path on the issue and not be influenced by outside factors. In October 2022 he said that China would not abandon Coal-fired power stations before renewables could substitute for the lost fossil fuel. But this substitution will not occur because fossil fuels generate more energy than renewables.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is planning to impose billions of dollars of costs on Americans to reduce US emissions. There would be tens of billions of dollars in annual costs to the US economy – and with no reduction to global emissions, if China replaces the reduced US emissions with its own emissions.

This is the real problem. This stupid scheme is never going to work because it needs a commitment from all countries, and there will never be that.

Meanwhile we in NZ are forced to go along with this scheme by James Shaw –Climate Change Minister , who probably thinks all the CO2 produced by China, India, Indonesia, and so on, just stays in the atmosphere above those countries.

The Emissions Trading Scheme

The Emissions Trading Scheme was implemented under the Climate Change Response Act 2002, as a key tool for ensuring that New Zealand meets its domestic and international climate change targets set by the Unite Nations Convention on Climate Change via the Paris Agreement. The ETS is used as a tool in NZ’s emissions reduction plan and its related emissions budget to help NZ meets its Net Zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

The functions of the ETS are controlled by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). This includes maintaining the ETS Registry.

New Zealand Units (NZU’s) are a NZ currency created by the ETS to charge participants for emitting Carbon Dioxide or greenhouse gases. One NZU is equivalent to one metric tonne of Carbon Dioxide (or greenhouse gas) emitted. NZU’s can be purchased directly from the Government, allocated by the Government, or gifted by the Government for performing activities that remove greenhouses gases from the atmosphere. Units can also be obtained at an auction, or purchase them on a secondary market. You have to be registered.

For every tonne of emissions released each year, an organisation/industry etc has to surrender a Carbon Dioxide credit back to the Government. The use of a carbon credit (Carbon Dioxide credit), can be used to balance out emissions and this is called offsetting. The current price of a carbon credit fixed by the Government is about $72.

Farmers are using the scheme to make money by planting trees on their land. Overseas organisations are buying up NZ land to grow trees for the same reasons. Farmland is being taken out of production. Worldwide, there will be less land for growing food. Farmers and landowners can register on the ETS and be given credits from the govt for trees they have on the property. They can then sell these credits to businesses, probably at a lower rate than the govt offers the credits.

However, there is another problem. Forestry offset programmes are one of the tactics adopted by some to offset their emissions. The following are figures for the US. NZ figures will be lower but still very significant. On average, each person in the US releases about 16.5 tonnes of Carbon Dioxide each year. This is over a variety of activities including breathing out. This quantity is equivalent to emissions from about 46 barrels of oil or approximately 10,000 Kg of coal. An average single tree offsets about 20kg of Carbon Dioxide each year. That means individuals in the US emitting just on 17 tonnes of emissions, will need to plant about 500 trees to successfully offset their carbon footprint!! Well let’s say in NZ every citizen would need to plant say 400 trees. The population at present is about 5 million. So the number of trees planted to offset each person’s carbon emissions will be 400 x 5,000,000

This is 2 billion trees. So that’s for each person, without looking at offsets for organisations and industries. I remind you that Scotland has cut down 14 million trees to make way for wind and solar farms.

Net Zero pledges are being released on a nearly daily basis. They assume that emissions from burning coal for example, can be compensated for (offset) by protecting a forest or planting trees, ignoring the fact that plants need time to grow. Here’s the point: Organisations burning coal can go on burning coal after they have planted a small seedling which is not of course absorbing Carbon Dioxide. Relying on the restoration of forests instead of cutting emissions will not be enough to solve the “climate crisis”. ( If there was one!)

These organisations continue their emission intensive business as usual and market themselves as doing their bit for climate change.

While trees capture large amounts of carbon (Carbon Dioxide), they need to be growing for a long time to be effective carbon stores. So you plant your saplings and then you have to maintain the forest for a hundred years. That’s multiple generations of people and how many companies last a hundred years these days? How is anyone going to afford to maintain that forest , hiring a team of people to do that?

Later, converting a tree into building timber usually turns half the tree into sawdust and woodchips, which might end up being burnt or left to decompose- More CO2 into the atmosphere.

Dame Anne Salmond says the following: “Unfortunately, NZ’s nationally determined contribution to COP26 at home relies on covering our landscapes with short lived, shallow rooting, highly flammable monocultures of pine trees. This kind of “off setting” is high risk , socially, ecologically and economically.” “Lock-up and leave pine plantations are vulnerable to pest attack, wind throw and fire. If they go up in flames, NZ’s carbon debt will rise, not diminish. They create few jobs, and displace sheep and beef farming, production forestry, and their support services, putting rural communities at risk of collapse.” Finally she states: “It seems incredible that a Labour- Green government and a Green minister should continue to support this scheme when it is causing so much grief to rural communities and environmental damage. It is also undermining NZ’s “clean green” image, so vital to local businesses including agriculture, horticulture, and tourism.”

Government Auctions of NZ Units ( Carbon Credits)

The NZ Government auctions carbon Credits four times each year. The credits need to bid for at or above a secret price for the auction to be completed. Carbon Credits give the buyers the right to emit a tonne of Carbon Dioxide, per one credit. So clearly, this does not stop emission of Carbon Dioxide. They buy the credits, then if they emit a tonne of CO2 they give one credit back to the Government. It was the government’s hope that the cost of a credit would rise and this would be an incentive for companies to cut their emissions. It all sounds like a money making scheme for the government, rather than a scheme which cuts emissions.

In the recent September auction, 13 million credits were passed over, so none were sold, and the government lost about $900 million. This was the third time this year that an auction had failed. It is predicted that the final auction in December will also fail. It seems that businesses that needed Carbon Credits were currently able to buy enough on the secondary market, where credits generated by foresters were trading at a small discount. The discounts were on offer for forestry generated credits because of the concern that the Government might change to rules on the use of those credits over worries that there was too much encouragement for pine planting. There is now an oversupply of units hence the low demand. It is expected the review of the scheme now in the pipeline, may look at ways of actually looking at the reduction of gross emissions rather than just planting trees. It is cheaper to buy credits from tree planting than to actually reduce their gross emissions.

Summary

1. Valuable farmland is being taken out of agricultural production and used for growing pine trees. Much of the land is being bought by overseas interests.

2. The offset scheme is not doing anything to reduce Carbon Dioxide emissions. Companies/industries are continuing to emit Carbon Dioxide and simply buy Carbon credits to offset the emissions, and give a credit back to the government for every tonne of emissions.

3. Every human emits up to 17 tonnes of Carbon Dioxide per year due to their activities. Every human in NZ would need to plant about 400 trees to offset this. This is impractical, plus planting the trees does not stop every human emitting Carbon Dioxide.

4. Farmers are using any tree plantation they have to get free carbon credits from the government. They then can sell these at a lower price than that offered by the government. The government’s money making scheme has collapsed.

5. PIne trees are short lived. Long life natives are better. But then they have to be looked after for a long period of time-up to at least a hundred years. Who is going to do that?

6. Finally. To make such schemes work, we need a commitment from all countries. Clearly, we do not have that, and probably never will. China for example, is making itself rich and continues to develop using fossil fuels, while NZ carries on down a path to destruction with wind and solar.

Clearly this is a totally ineffective scheme which does nothing to reduce Carbon Dioxide emissions. It should be scrapped immediately. It should be scrapped purely on the basis that Carbon Dioxide and Methane are NOT causing climate change.

Footnote: Researchers at Leeds University have just published a study in Nature Sustainability after having analysed 168 countries, looking at excess Carbon Dioxide emissions. They concluded that the wealthy countries owed developing nations $192 Trillion dollars compensation. They go on to call India a low emitter entitled to $57 Trillion dollars compensation. India currently has 285 coal- fired power stations in operation- more than the US which will be required to pay a large proportion of that proposed compensation!

Ian Bradford, a science graduate, is a former teacher, lawyer, farmer and keen sportsman, who is writing a book about the fraud of anthropogenic climate change.