Who profits exactly, from Net Zero..?

Follow the Science, or follow the money.

A pair of elderly ladies recently broke the glass case to the Magna Carta at the British Museum. This wasn’t in protest at school trips failing to pay enough interest in an underpinning of our basic rights, but to Just Stop Oil. The most glaring word here is ‘just’, as though the foundation stone of modern life isn’t oil, which can be removed as easily as let’s say freedom of movement during a ‘global health emergency’. It’s the worst use of a language since a customer asked Sweeney Todd for a little bit off the neck. It’s like fish campaigning to ‘just’ stop water. While we may not be quite as dependent on oil as fish are to water, it’s pretty damn close. The slightly vacant-looking ladies appearing like Guardian readers baffled at the purpose of the Sports Section appear to think that oil is all about greedy companies ruining the planet, while the green industry is fluffier than a rabbit sanctuary.

In fact, anyone in any doubt about the amounts of money sloshing around the cauldron of the globalist green movement needs to look at a report by Energy Systems Catapult. ESC are an apparently independent company with a ‘mission is to accelerate Net Zero energy innovation.’ Well, they’ve certainly caught a good wave haven’t they? It’s sometimes hard to see if the market creates companies, or if the companies create the market.

The ESC website is brimming with the usual bloated word salad: it’s all innovation, whole energy systems and collaboration. The blurb is written in sentences that, as with all government projects, are hard to recall why they started before you have reached the end. It isn’t just how these organisations get the ear of governments, but how these companies masquerade as independent, while receiving substantial public funding from the State. There’s a lot going on in the lobbying halls and WhatsApp messages of our faceless overlords that we’re unlikely to ever know about.

The ESC have recommended that the UK Government commit £30 billion to a project aiming to pull CO₂ from the air, and they they’re not suggesting prodigious tree planting. Instead, they propose Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage (DACCS) machines sited along the east coast that could pull CO₂ from the air and pump it to underground storage facilities, thereby helping the U.K. to meet its ambitious 2050 Net Zero target set by the UN and the World Economic Forum that no one voted for. Apparently without it ‘we risk non-compliance with our Net Zero requirement’. Non-compliance is apparently more abhorrent than the wilful destruction of natural habitats at the altar of a climate science that is a long way from settled. This is a completely unproven technology, the only guarantee of which is to benefit those involved in its construction.

It was hard to see how the State might further brutalise our coastlines already blighted with solar farms and industrial wind turbines, but they’ve succeeded. Of all the organisations that should be banned from building a wall of fans along the beautific long isle of Britain it’s the government. State projects take so long that the descendants of those who lay the first brick are scratching their heads as to what the plan had ever been. There’s probably State plans yet to be enacted on how to dispose of Rubik's cubes. The other question is that if the sea is rising like shaken up Coca-Cola, as ‘the’ science claims, then surely the low-lying eastern coastline is the last place you’d build a £30b project intended to keep us alive, unless of course they don’t believe their own modelling; if so then there’s no need for the monstrous machines anyway.  

To put the projects into perspective, the UK currently produces 1% of global CO₂ emissions, and apparently DACCS, a technology that’s about as settled as climate science, plan to extract 48 million tonnes of CO₂ from the air each year, despite no clarity as to how, or even if it will work. That’s about 1/10 of the U.K.’s current domestic annual emissions of what is a trace gas in the atmosphere. Let’s not forget that CO₂ driving global temperatures has been challenged by research that in fact it follows rising global temperatures, and that natural cycles drive the temperature inc. changes in orientation of the Earth to the Sun not CO₂ emissions (Berkeley Earth Data). The planet has frequently been warmer with lower CO_2.  We also have historically low CO₂ levels and are in one of the coldest periods of earth’s 4.6billion year history.

However, the Guardian reported this week with its characteristic hysteria, that 80% of respondents from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected a rise in global temperature to 2.5C above pre-industrial levels this century, which is as impartial as asking a packed pub at 11pm how amenable they’d be to a lock-in. The scientists were reported as somewhat distraught at their own belief systems, which might suggest they’d benefit from finding another one. After all, human beings are a temperate species and thrive in warmer rather than colder climates. There’s no mention of how temperature readings have increased over 30 years due to urban sprawl creating urban heat islands and are frequently taken from airports. Yet, this hasn’t stopped the BBC painting weather maps of hot days liberally with Farrow & Ball Inferno Red and advising us to stay inside as though lockdowns remain a good idea.   

This is the same UN IPCC that uses dodgy data by simply averaging 29 major climate models to come up with the warming forecast in the 21st century. This is a practice rarely done in operational weather forecasting. As the Nature Climate Change paper (2019) by Viktoria Eyring of the University of Bremen and 28 co‐​authors stated: “there is now evidence that giving equal weight to each available model projection is suboptimal.”

What isn’t suboptimal is the profits to be made from the green revolution - or whatever they’re calling it - what is in reality a retrograde step (unless you consider increasing fuel bills as a measure of success). A common accusation is that anyone challenging the ‘settled science’ of climate catastrophe is they they are funded by oil companies. What this fails to acknowledge is that £30b projects like the one intending to destroy the east coast of England by urban millennials with fashionably dirty (oil-based) white Reebok trainers, safe spaces and mental health days, constitutes the sort of money spinner heavily-taxed oil companies can now only dream of. Money is always made by speculating, and this is the new gold rush. Has anyone coined it the green rush yet?

There’s President Biden’s US infrastructure plan calling for $174 billion in investment in the electric vehicle industry and a goal of reaching 100 percent ‘carbon-pollution free power’ by 2035. At the brutal cost of the landscape, reliable energy and life spans of wild birds there are now 34 billionaires whose fortunes stem from clean energy products

With a somewhat already-entitled incoming UK Labour government opposed to reliable self-sufficiency in fracking and north sea oil and gas, is instead committing to import electricity from France and oil and gas from the US, Norway and Middle East states. Meanwhile a new Scottish offshore wind farm may cost £500milion a year in State subsidies; although even absurd amounts of money cannot create wind. On land we find farmers bribed to have solar panels or wind turbines on their land rather than cows or crops.

The bottom line is that supporting the manmade climate alarm is compulsory for anyone in publicly-funded education, arts and science establishments, who depend upon government or international organisations for their livelihoods. Any discoveries challenging the agenda will result in withdrawal of funding. And it’s not insignificant amounts. The US National Science Foundation gave almost half a million dollars to a research team ‘discovering’ that glacial science is sexist in their paper Glaciers, gender, and science: A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research. $ 0.5 million to find glaciers are sexist is a new benchmark for the absurd. Anyone thinking academia somehow attracts human beings exempt from agendas, money and idiotic ideas needs to do a research paper on it.

It underlines the importance of the World Climate Declaration with its own scientists, signatories inc. Nobel Peace prize winners, saying, ‘the gap between the real world and the modelled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.’ Yet, CO₂ as the control knob of Earth’s climate is being used to justify suicidal energy policies supported by virtue-addicted fanatics and dollar-eyed opportunists. This is bad news for humanity. It might be worth following the money rather than ‘the’ science to reveal what’s really going on.