What A ‘Zero-Emissions’ World Really Means
“Zero emissions” requires no diesel, petrol, or gas-fuelled cars, trucks, tractors, or dozers and no burning of coal or gas for electricity generation.
But without nuclear power or a massive increase in hydroelectricity, green energy will not support metal refining or manufacturing, and domestic electricity usage will be rationed.
“Zero emissions” will also force the closure of most cement plants, mechanized farms, and feedlots, and will demand nuclear- or wind-powered submarines, destroyers, and bulk carriers.
In the Zero-Emissions world, there can be no diesel buses, oil-powered cruise liners, or jet aircraft (except fleets of climate comrades attending endless UNIPCC conferences).
Moreover, 7.8 billion humans continuously emit a lot of carbon dioxide – maybe they plan to make the Covid masks airtight?
Zero Emissions would decimate mining, farming, forestry, fishing, and tourism. As exports fall, imports must also fall.
Without diesel fuel and lubricants there will be little surplus meat, milk, vegetables, cereals, seafood, or timber for the cities, for export, or for immigrants or refugees.
For Aussies, rabbits, kangaroos, possums, koalas, Murray cod, and wild pigs will become staple foods and wood/charcoal burners generating “green” gas will again fuel antique cars and utes. Wood-burning steam-powered traction engines may live again.
But we have the “Net-Zero” loophole, which is green bait on a barbed hook. It provides five escape routes:
- Buy dodgy carbon credits from dubious foreigners.
-
Cover our grasslands and open forests with carbon-absorbing bushfire-prone eucalypt weeds.
-
Build costly energy-hungry carbon-capture schemes.
-
Chase the hydrogen mirage.
-
Log and replant old-growth forests. (New trees will grow and extract CO2 faster than old mature trees.)
Net-zero has one bright prospect – freeloading cities like Canberra (Australia) must shed population and convert their manicured parklands to lettuce farms, lucerne paddocks, cow bails, and poultry runs.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Wildman 100%
| #
Most people in america cannot drive a single screw, nail, staple or nut without the use of some kind of electro-mechanical device to do it…why? Is it because electricity is scarce or too expensive? The US (INC) Military is the single, largest consumer of oil and oil based products in the entire world. Is that because there is a shortage of oil?…which by the way, IS NOT A “FOSSIL FUEL..” The plagurist, communist, zionist, jewish supremacist, liar and fraud Einstein declared that nationalism (except jewish nationalism) “is an infantile concept.” Anyone who believes that he or his pseudo-theories developed the “bomb” doesn’t know history and the only thing he had a share in was promoting the use and stockpile of nuclear weapons and power, and all his theories including relativity and special relativity were rejected by the scientific and physics communities around the world…did you know that? Of course not, because your true reality has been hidden from you by the controlled press since the early 1700’s. Anyone who promotes nuclear power or nuclear and hydraulic fracturing shoud be forced to live adjacent to these deadly, dehabilitating, environmental degrading and toxifying plants or sites and then maybe they will “change their tune” of willful, deliberate ignorance and defiance of scientific fact!
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
When you say “IS NOT A “FOSSIL FUEL” what do you have in mind?
Reply
JaKo
| #
Hi Robert,
While I may not share many views of Wildman 100%, he is correct about this one: there are several theories of “fossil fuels” origins and it seems the biological one is the one adopted by the climate change howlers, as that indicates finality. A pertinent paper from Cornell University published in 1985(!) can be read HERE. I guess it could be denounced as Russian meddling in the proposed “GND” since the first reference is from a Russian called Mendeleev 😉 (aka one of the originators of a periodic table of elements)
Enjoy, JaKo
Reply
Hivemind
| #
Did you notice that almost everything you just said was untrue? Perhaps you meant to add a /sarc tag?
Reply
Kel
| #
What are we going to pave our roads with, once we have no BITUMEN available from fossil fuels.
Cement also generates huge amounts of CO2, so no concrete roads either ?
WOODEN WHEELS in future (as – “tyres consist of about 19 percent natural rubber and 24 percent synthetic rubber, which is a plastic polymer. The rest is made up of metal and other compounds).
Back to dirt roads …
Electric machinery and vehicles/planes/ships, etc… all require lubricants and oils. Even synthetic fuels are overwhelmingly produced from oil/gas; Wikipedia states:
“Synthetic lubricants can be manufactured using chemically modified petroleum components rather than whole crude oil, but can also be synthesized from other raw materials. The base material, however, is still overwhelmingly crude oil that is distilled and then modified physically and chemically”.
Reply
very old white guy
| #
Even a return to the stone age would not get you zero emissions as that is a physical impossibility. I question the sanity of anyone with any education to show me how we get to zero emissions without killing everyone the planet, as well as all animals, the complete cessation of all volcanic activity on the planet, shall I go on, or is this revelation adequate for all those with multiple degrees in climatology.
Reply
Barry
| #
Really good point zero would be achieving the impossible. While we are busy trying to get rid of plant food we are polluting the world with panels full of toxins and bird killing machines. We have already become a people following an insane path,the definition of which is exactly what we are doing. We actually do have pollution problems that could be easily solved if we spent a small portion of what we do trying to rid ourselves of a non existent problem
Reply