The article, below, contains a lot of points about how our lives are going to be restricted in the attempt to reach net zero, but the main point about the rich paying a heavy price is not quite right as we will all be paying a heavy price, but it is the middle class who will face the worst of the restrictions as it is they who will find they cannot afford to run their car, heat their home, go on holiday. The rich will still be able to do these things, as a complete ban on private jets, heated swimming pools, etc. would simply drive the rich abroad and no government would want to risk that.
The only way the government will be able to claim they have achieved net zero is by claiming that vast amounts of CO2 have been removed from the atmosphere. This will result in a number of schemes coming forward to do this, but this will come at a huge price leaving the question of how this money will be found. I expect some will come from the taxpayer in the form of subsidies and some added to our bills.
I will wait and see how they try to hide it. I make one prediction, which is that these schemes will lead to scams as a result of either they will simply not work, or even worse they will prove completely fraudulent, as have some of the schemes to "off set" carbon emissions.
The rich will soon pay a heavy price for net zero | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT (wordpress.com)
Net zero is a very complex attempt to correct the human mistake of burning fossil fuels for our world wide economy. This requires change. The assumption in this article is that we can stay under 1.5*C by 2050. I personally believe its too late for that. Just the same, change is necessary on our (humans) part to avoid the more severe consequences of AGW. If you read into other areas of study in this article, employment mildly increases over time giving us incomes to live in while making the net zero transition. I am now reading that EVs average cost is now the same as the average cost of buying an ICE vehicle. Batteries are on a downward cost trajectory, which helps to accelerate the transition towards a world wide net zero mode of living. Renewable energy and electrical efficiency of products are needed in this area. Heating can be mostly accomplished by highly efficient heat pumps. Cars can be electric giving us the transportation that we desire and need.
ReplyDeleteIf we don't do this, the price is a climate more hostile to our living needs.
https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/sustainability/our-insights/the-net-zero-transition-what-it-would-cost-what-it-could-bring
On the basis of this scenario, we estimate that global spending on physical assets in the transition would amount to about $275 trillion between 2021 and 2050, or about 7.5 percent of GDP annually on average. The biggest increase as a share of GDP would be between 2026 and 2030. Demand would be substantially affected. For example, manufacturing of internal combustion engine cars would eventually cease as sales of alternatives (for example, battery-electric and fuel cell-electric vehicles) increase from 5 percent of new-car sales in 2020 to virtually 100 percent by 2050. Power demand in 2050 would be more than double what it is today, while production of hydrogen and biofuels would increase more than tenfold. The transition could lead to a reallocation of labor, with about 200 million direct and indirect jobs gained and 185 million lost by 2050—shifts that are notable less for their size than for their concentrated, uneven, and re-allocative nature.
You seem to regard a 1.5 degree target as some kind of "handed down from God" edict. Why? It was a number plucked out of thin air with no empirical or (real) scientific justification.
DeleteDo you understand the difference even between 1.5*C or 2.0*C warming since 1850. 1.5*C is just a more desireable outcome based in the physics that god has created. There was no scientist coming down from the mountain top to understand this nor a voice from a burning bush. This is from all the different scientists from all over the world based in evidence. Someone faking the evidence gets ignored. CLimate change is just not one small picture and ignor the rest. It is the total picture and I haven't even presented the total picture. This is ugly stuff.
Deletehttps://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/08/1-5-or-2-degrees-celsius-of-additional-global-warming-does-it-make-a-difference/
CLIMATE EXPLAINED
1.5 or 2 degrees Celsius of additional global warming: Does it make a difference?
It ends up that just a half degree C – less than 1 degree F – leads to far more serious impacts.
Extreme heat
With a 1.5°C increase, extreme hot days in the mid-latitudes will be 3°C hotter (5.4°F) than pre-industrial levels.
With a 2°C increase, extreme hot days in the mid-latitudes will be about 4°C hotter (7.2°F) than pre-industrial levels.
Rising sea levels
With a 1.5°C increase, sea levels are projected to rise by 2100 by 0.26 to 0.77 meters (0.85-2.52 feet) relative to 1986-2005.
With a 2°C increase, sea levels are projected to rise by 2100 by 0.36 to 0.87 meters (1.18-2.85 feet) relative to 1986-2005.
Declining biodiversity
With a 1.5°C increase, 6% of insects, 8% of plants, and 4% of vertebrates are projected by 2100 to lose more than half of their climatically determined geographic range.
With a 2°C increase, those percentages double or triple: 18% of insects, 16% of plants, and 8% of vertebrates are projected by 2100 to lose more than half of their climatically determined geographic range.
Melting Arctic sea ice
With a 1.5°C increase, scientists project that the Arctic Ocean will become ice-free in the summer about once every 100 years.
With a 2°C increase, the Arctic Ocean could become ice-free in the summer once every 10 years.
At-risk coral reefs
With a 1.5°C increase, coral reefs around the world are projected to decline further by 70-90%.
With a 2°C increase, coral reefs are projected to decline by more than 99% – marking an irreversible loss in many marine and coastal ecosystems.
Declining global fisheries
With a 1.5°C increase, one global model cited by the U.N. report projects a decrease in global annual catch for marine fisheries of about 1.5 million tonnes.
With a 2°C increase, the same model projects a decrease of more than 3 million tonnes.