Why Nations Should Reject Net Zero, Embrace Energy Freedom
“Net zero by 2050” policies would be apocalyptically destructive if fully implemented and have already been catastrophically destructive when barely implemented
They should be rejected in favor of energy freedom policies.
What are “net zero by 2050 policies”?
Government (coercive) actions whose primary and binding goal is the net elimination of CO2 emissions, whose number one source is ‘fossil fuel’ use, by 2050.
In practice “net zero” means: rapidly eliminating most ‘fossil fuel’ use.
“Net zero by 2050” policies include:
- Escalating restrictions or bans on fossil fuel development
- Escalating restrictions or bans on fossil fuel use
- Mandates of alternatives
- Subsidies for alternatives
- (Often) hostility to development
- (Often) hostility to nuclear
What are “energy freedom policies”?
Government actions that protect the ability of producers to produce all forms of energy and allow consumers to use all forms of energy, so long as they don’t engage in reasonably preventable pollution or endangerment of others.
Energy freedom policies include:
- Protecting the freedom to develop ‘fossil fuels’ and other forms of energy, e.g., deep geothermal development.
- Protecting the freedom to use ‘fossil fuels’ and all other forms of energy, e.g., “decriminalizing nuclear.”
“Net zero by 2050” is currently the number one cultural and political goal in the world:
- Committed to by most world governments
- Supported by leading corporations and financial institutions
- Privately committed to by leading corporations and financial institutions
To determine the best policy toward ‘fossil fuels’—the energy source that powers most of the world, we need to follow a common-sense principle that is not common practice: carefully weigh benefits and side effects.
Carefully weighing the benefits and side-effects of continuing ‘fossil fuel’ use includes factoring in:
- Fossil fuels’ overall benefits
- Fossil fuels’ “climate mastery” benefits (which can neutralize negative side-effects)
- The climate side-effects of ‘fossil fuels’ with evenhandedness and precision
I believe any honest and informed attempt to carefully weigh the benefits and side effects of continuing ‘fossil fuel’ use will conclude that “net zero by 2050” is apocalyptically destructive and that we need the “energy freedom” to use a lot of ‘fossil fuels’ and rapidly develop alternatives.
A note on “net zero by 2050” policies.
Unlike other proposed policies one might criticize, these are not untested, let alone promising policies.
They are tested-and-failed policies that are harming billions of lives right now. Even though they are only at one percent implementation! 1
To show you how destructive “net zero” is and how good “energy freedom” is I will carefully summarize the evidence regarding ‘fossil fuels’:
1) benefits,
2) climate mastery benefits, and
3) climate side effects
And based on each factor, show what net zero vs. energy freedom would do in practice.
See more here climatechangedispatch
Header image: Cisco Newsroom
About the author: Alex Epstein is an energy expert bringing clarity to energy, environmental, and climate issues. He is the author of the NYT bestseller The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, and his latest Fossil Future.
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
schutzhund
| #
“Net Zero” = Back to the Cave
Reply
Alan
| #
We are going to need a lot of caves!
Reply
Tom Anderson
| #
An excellent comment and well aimed. I think what Mr. Epstein may mean by “Energy Freedom” is what used to be called the free market, in which buyers and sellers of anything were allowed to bid for the product or service that best satisfied their needs, at a mutually satisfactory price. Unfortunately today, collectivist policies, the like of which economist Friedrich A. Hayek decried, have so permeated government and the public forum that few people consider that before climate cultism can be reversed we must reinstate and defend our old policies of free choice in a predominantly unregulated economy.
Reply