Net Zero Fades to Negative!

Building on Bob Bradley’s observations, there is more evidence every day the net zero plans of the Climate Industrial Complex are fading into negative territory. Check out what Australian observer Jo Nova reports today:

Finally, the Australian opposition is bravely popping the sacred cow of the Energy Wars. The Dummy nation was aiming for the holy grail “low emission” grid that no other nation had tried. The driest continent on Earth, with small hydro, and no extension cords to any nuclear power, were going to build the perfect grid based on the wind and sun alone. It was always doomed to fail, it was just a question of how much money would be burned at the pyre before the Crash Test Dummy crashed.

Because they didn’t do their homework, and the fan-media didn’t ask them to, the Labor Party set themselves up to fail. They left their left flank wide open, and the Opposition is finally launching the missiles that have been there all along in the mist. 

The ultimate low-emissions generator was always and obviously the unspeakable nuclear power. It’s a fifty year old technology. If anyone actually cared about carbon dioxide, they would have done this instead of the Kyoto scheme in 1997.

But it was all a theater of grift and graft for unreliable, fairy energy, or for self-serving players who like trips to ski clubs in Davos, or jobs after politics with the UN or “energy companies”. (Not mentioning any names, Matt Kean)…

Finally, the dirty laundry of renewable power might be hung out to dry in an election. After ten years of rampant renewables growth in Australia, a dawning realization is sweeping the nation that wind and solar are not cheap, and will never be cheap. It’s hard to believe only two years ago Labor won on promises to bring electricity costs down by $275 dollars a household, only for prices to rise by $750 instead.

At the same time, the awful reality of collecting low density energy is all too apparent in regional areas where developers are swarming to cover the land in renewables infrastructure. No one wants industrial plants in their backyard, but when we have to build 10,000 kilometers of high voltage towers, 40 million solar panels, and 2,500 bird killing turbines — its in everyone’s backyard.

Suddenly the real environmentalists are the ones who just want to build seven small nuclear plants on old industrial sites. Save the eagles, spare the whales, and don’t club the koalas, OK? The opposition are promising to build nuclear plants on the old coal sites, give cheap electricity to locals and to block major offshore wind projects and oppose large solar plants too. As they so aptly say, the low hanging fruit on this tree are already done.

This is the Deputy Opposition leader saying what was unthinkable only a year ago:

Nationals leader David Littleproud has said a Coalition government will look at alternative energy sources so it doesn’t have to pursue large-scale renewables such as wind and solar, after suggesting he would axe an offshore wind industry if elected.

Amid a pre-election brawl over climate and energy ­policy, Mr Littleproud said the Coalition would send “strong investment signals” that Australia didn’t need large-scale industrial wind farms onshore or offshore or other big renewable projects.

Mr Littleproud also indicated to The Australian that he was opposed to large-scale solar farms, saying: “We’d like to look for whatever option we can so we don’t have to pursue large-scale renew­ables full stop.”

And, Jo Nova isn’t the only one noticing. Chris Talgo just wrote this:

The old adage that “nothing is certain except death and taxes” ought to be updated for our modern times to: nothing is certain except death, taxes, and government-generated climate alarmism.

In late May, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicted that the “upcoming Atlantic hurricane season is expected to have above-normal activity due to a confluence of factors, including near-record warm ocean temperatures in the Atlantic Ocean.”

Specifically, “NOAA is forecasting a range of 17 to 25 total named storms … including 4 to 7 major hurricanes.”

Of course, NOAA points to “human-caused climate change” as the primary culprit for its apocalyptic hurricane season warning. According to NOAA, “human-caused climate change” is solely responsible for “warming our ocean globally,” “melting ice on land,” and “sea level rise.”

In 2022, NOAA issued a very similar hurricane season prediction, which turned out to be way overblown. “Overall, the 2022 Atlantic hurricane season featured near normal activity in terms of the number of named storms and hurricanes, but was slightly below average in terms of the number of major hurricanes,” notes the National Hurricane Center.

Just because NOAA was wrong in 2022 does not mean that its 2024 prediction will be wrong, too. However, more importantly, the entire narrative about hurricanes becoming more frequent and more intense due to anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change is simply not true…

Perhaps Dr. Steven E. Koonin, President Obama’s Undersecretary for Science in the U.S. Department of Energy, put it best when he said, “Pointing to hurricanes as an example of the ravages of human-caused climate change is at best unconvincing, and at worst plainly dishonest.”

Over the past century, the number of hurricanes on a per-decade basis making landfall in the United States has actually declined. For instance, in the 1850s, well before humans harnessed fossil fuels as a viable source of energy, 20 hurricanes made landfall, including six “major” storms. In the 1940s, 24 hurricanes made landfall, including 10 major storms. Since then, we have not had a single decade in which more than 20 hurricanes have made landfall in the United States.

Obviously, the experts at NOAA can read graphs that clearly illustrate the frequency and severity of hurricanes striking the United States have not increased at all over the past several decades.

So, why does NOAA, along with so many other government-affiliated organizations, continue to engage in public fearmongering regarding hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes, and so forth? Because they need to create panic and instill fear to justify their very existence. It is self-preservation.

Like it or not, climate change is big business. Over the next decade, the U.S. government will spend at least $500 billion to “combat” climate change. In order to keep the money flowing, the government needs an endless list of scary predictions to keep the alarmist narrative going.

The good news is, Americans are beginning to realize that they are being lied to about climate change. More and more, polls show that Americans no longer automatically believe that climate change is an existential threat. Because they are starting to lose their hold, the alarmists are resorting to even more desperate measures.

And, here is one of those polls from two months ago, charted by Statists:

Notice where “Environment/Pollution/Climate Change” lands, down in the 2% category, below 14 other issues that include everything from immigration to inflation to crime. Climate change is but a passing concern of little or no relevance to ordinary people just trying to live and enjoy their lives.

It’s only the grifters and the power seekers who give a damn, along mainstream media who want to be seen as part of the club and get their jollies off of peddling fear. Indeed, ordinary people are starting to shift in the other direction as they watch the grifters and power seekers force gigantic green elephant projects into their neighborhoods and then raise their electric prices to pay for those projects.

Yes, net zero is already down to 2% on the reverse scale of popularity and will soon be in negative territory. Net zero is about to have a whole new meaning.

#NetZero #Climate #Australia #Environmentalists #ClimateChange