Net Zero: Dream and Reality

The collateral damage from climate mitigation policies
 Bryan Leyland, Consulting Engineer

1.     Introduction

Many policies aimed it at reducing emissions of man-made greenhouse gases finish up doing huge collateral damage. As is so often the case, poor people suffer most. But it also damages the environment and economies of countries that adopt them.
The people who promote these policies seem to be ignorant of the fact that China and India are burning ever more coal and fossil fuel consumption worldwide is still increasing. This means that any small improvement that individual countries are able to make them will have no effect on the local climate nor will it have any effect on the world climate. It is nothing more than hugely expensive virtue signalling.
The small reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide achieved by this virtue signalling turns out to be very expensive and, in some cases, the overall result is an increase in emissions. Simply switching to nuclear power and switching from coal to gas would achieve much more at much less cost.
The collateral damage brought on by these rules and regulations is enormous. Some examples are given below.

1. Rising electricity prices

Mandating ever increasing amounts of wind and solar power has resulted in substantial increases in power costs, especially in those countries that have an electricity “market”. To a large extent this is caused by the need to provide very expensive backup generation when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining. The market pays every generator the price bid in by the most expensive generator selected to run so low cost generators such as hydropower reap windfall profits and the consumer pays disproportionately more than would happen under a rational market.

1. Increasing the cost of everything that requires energy to make or store or transport

Many countries provide generous subsidies to those who buy electric vehicles and pay for these subsidies by imposing additional taxes and sales of conventional vehicles. This increases the costs of transportation and, hence, the cost of everything that is transported by road.

1. Closing of farms

It is easier and cheaper to build solar farms on level ground – the same conditions that favour agriculture. So, more and more, productive farms are being replaced by solar farms that have a life of maybe 20 years. As there is no requirement that developers set aside funds  to dismantle the farm at the end of its life and remediate the land, the chances are that it will be abandoned and turn into an environmental disaster. There is still no practical way of recycling solar cells. So, more and more, solar cells will accumulate in landfills.

1. Ending the use of nitrogen fertilisers

Nitrogen fertilisers are responsible for a huge jump in agricultural productivity. They also increase emissions of nitrous oxides which are claimed to be greenhouse gases. But if we shut down the use of nitrogen fertilisers, agricultural productivity will sharply decrease and the cost of food will skyrocket. This actually happened in Sri Lanka which came close to destroying its economy as a result of banning nitrogen fertilisers. Governments who institute such policies seem to be unaware of the Paris Agreement which clearly states that nothing should be done that reduces agricultural productivity.

1. Massive pollution from wind and solar power-related activities (mining, refining, decommissioning, etc.)

Electric cars, wind turbines, solar farms and other technologies promoted in the name of reducing man-made greenhouse gases, require massive amount of rare and not so rare minerals. These include cobalt, lithium, copper and a number of rare earths. Mining these materials damages the environment and, in countries such as the Congo, involves child labour. It often brings a little benefit to the country itself. The sad thing about all this is that the technologies that needs these materials have proved to be a very expensive way of reducing man-made carbon dioxide. Safe and reliable nuclear power or simply switching from coal to gas, is a much better and cheaper option.

1. Forest wildfires are often worse than they should be because global warming is blamed for fires instead of poor forest management

Environmentalists who do not understand forest management have lobbied against the regular burning of undergrowth before it becomes a fire danger. Yet in many countries it was  normal practice by the indigenous people as it made conditions better for the wildlife they relied on for food. So the forests became adapted to regular burning and, if it is stopped, the forests are destabilised. This is particularly evident in Australia where, for more than 20,000 years, the aborigines regularly burned the forest because it promoted grass growth for kangaroos which were a prime source of food. The forest adapted to this regular burning and, without it, intense and damaging wildfires inevitably occur at longer intervals. The prime conditions for wildfires occur when there is a period of rain that promotes plant growth followed by a dry period which turns it into tinder. A one of two degree increase in temperature at the same time has a negligible effect.