Intuition tells us — at least those of us who are thoughtful observers — that the “net-zero” craze is a hoax that will not work, and will bankrupt any nation that seriously attempts to implement it.
There is now an academic study that backs up that intuition. It quantifies the catastrophic economic failure that would result if Greta Thunberg were to get her wish, and the developed world attempted an implementation of net-zero.
Many thanks to Hellequin GB for translating this article from Report24. The translator’s comments are in square brackets:
The Paris climate targets do not pass the cost-benefit test
A new comprehensive analysis examines whether implementing the Paris Agreement’s emissions policy goals will produce more good than harm. The result is sobering and should also alarm climate fanatics. We cannot destroy our economy just because we hope that it will have an improbable temperature effect.
Regardless of whether or not the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions actually has an effect on global temperature development, the implementation of laws, regulations and measures in this regard is guaranteed to have an effect on the world’s economic development. The — highly questionable — measures decided by politicians will also lead to massive economic upheaval in the coming decades. This is also illustrated by a new comprehensive analysis on this topic.
The analysis shows that even in the best-case scenarios, the trillions of dollars in costs (4.8% of GDP) associated with transitioning from fossil fuels to net-zero emissions by 2050 still outweigh the net benefits (3 .0% of GDP) in 2100. “The central estimate of the costs of climate policy, unrealistically assuming implementation at minimal cost, is in the range of 3.8-5.6% of GDP in 2100. The central estimate of the benefits of climate policy, unrealistically assuming high emissions without policy and constant vulnerability, is between 2.8-3.2% of GDP,”, according to the researchers.
These also explain that in 2050 — when “net zero” should be achieved according to politicians’ plans — “the best estimates of the benefits of the 1.5° C target would be around 0.5% of GDP”, “while the costs would be almost 5%”. So we are talking about a negative contribution ten times greater than any possible benefit. In various medium-sized model calculations you also get a negative cost-benefit ratio with a factor of two to four.
However, one should not forget that this analysis assumes a correlation between the CO2 content of the air and the temperature development. An assumption that has already been refuted by several research teams. For example, Report24 already has reported here, here, and here. This also means: All the measures taken by politicians to reduce CO2 emissions will have no significant impact on global temperatures, but will have a massive impact on economic developments. So we should prepare for a worst-case scenario for the economy…
Afterword from the translator:
I simply use the words of our friend Vlad Tepes to describe what the journalist and the editor of this article have overlooked, like they always do when it comes right down to it.
“The most important thing to understand with the Left is: the point is never the point; the revolution is ALWAYS the point.”
In a more blunt way: the truth is irrelevant for the narrative sold to the serfs. Their death is a small price to pay for “saving” the “climate”, “public health”, or whatever they decide needs to be “saved”.
Wake up and don’t forget: they pay for all of this with YOUR life and the lives of your friends and family.
I think the “global cost/benefit analysis” will show that the “Green Deal” is a great benefit to Russia and China and it will cost only the destruction of the US and EU economies, maybe Australia and Canada as well. Once the USA and the EU are no longer capable of any world-class economic power, then Russia and China will gain many steps on the proverbial power-ladder.
Just say “no” and act accordingly. Do whatever you believe works best for your individual circumstances, whatever keeps you healthy, and whatever gives you the most benefit for the least cost.
The Paris Climate Accords are simply a mechanism for globalist, centralized control of your life and the confiscation of your wealth.
It is not so simple to “just say no” when the EU has made it it’s goal to destroy the things I like – like free access to “National Parks”, cheap electricity, good reliable cars, some of that “heavy industry” – that is being destroyed in the EU right now and whole factories are being shipped over to China – all that because energy has become so expensive nobody will start building a new factory in the EU just now…
I mean – I can still own horses – but horses are not my cup of a tea.
Trotsky once said that if he had to kill 90% of the population so that the remaining 10% could live in communism, he would do it. I think leftism is a kind of death cult. They really hate humans. Or perhaps they just hate themselves?
Known many liberals/leftist in my life. Some casually, some more closely. If you talk to them long enough two universal character issues are inevitably revealed. 1) they all have a Daddy issue of some sort, and 2) they invariably have a deep well of self-loathing that manifests, sooner or later, as projection on normal people.
“the “net-zero” craze is a hoax that will not work, and will bankrupt any nation that seriously attempts to implement it”
— From the enemy’s perspective it’s not a hoax, it’s a a commie Narrative that is meant to shape The Reality of The Hive and become “The Truth”.
On a sidenote, Hungary is in on it, unfortunately…
Yes, it may bankrupt countries within a market economy setting. But it goes much further..
My point is that now we’re living in an emerging socialist order — of which the “net-zero” hoax is one accelerator. Meaning that the resources of others are being redirected to those that accept the new reality. So first those that submit to the New Order will be well-off, subsidized by the state distributing the resources of others that will get impoverished.
In that sense the coming series bankruptcy is a tactical goal of the PTB. They can only rule over poor masses that are in constant lack of basic necessities.
Therefore it is going to be the bankruptcy of the (free) market economy itself — and they are not even hiding it.
Industrialization or de-industrialization is essentially the same thing in communism — nothing is new under the sun:
“rapid industrialization, demanding in 1950 that Hungary be made a “country of iron and steel.””
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Erno-Gero
And she has… An agricultural land, mind you…
So it all rhymes in history. And it will again end in misery, that’s right.
This is the War of Bankruptcies, if you will — pre-planned and inevitable ones. Same as its marketing title, the “Great Reset”.
Somehow all the commie wars are called “great”, aren’t they.
But most readers of this site know all this anyway.