Zero Emissions Foolishness

By Viv Forbes, Chairman,  The Carbon Sense Coalition 

 The Australian Climate Commission says Australia needs to reduce emissions “to nearly zero by 2050”. 

Such a reduction can only be achieved if the Climate Commission has a secret plan to use nuclear power or for a massive expansion of hydro power. 

If they do not have such a plan, their “nearly zero” emissions target would force the shut down of most of the energy, transport and industrial infrastructure developed since James Watt invented the steam engine. 

Imagine Australia with “zero emissions” – which means zero production of carbon dioxide from human activities and industries. 

This would mean zero usage of coal, oil, petrol, diesel or gas, zero production of cement or steel and the shut-down of 92% of Australia’s electricity generators. 

Sunbeams and sea breezes cannot supply 24/7 electricity - the only feasible non-carbon options for Australian grid power are nuclear or hydro. Has the Climate Commission joined the nuclear power lobby? Or do they have a secret plan for big hydro developments on the Snowy, the Franklin and the Tully-Millstream? 

And how do we keep our diesel-fuelled transport fleet operating? Using big, big batteries and even more nuclear or hydro power to recharge them at every roadhouse in the outback? (But once they eliminate our grazing animals and their emissions, we will not need road trains.) 

And how do we keep planes operating? Are they suggesting that we divert most of our sugar production to producing power alcohol?  

For cement and steel we could of course try to catch and bury every molecule of carbon dioxide produced, but in reality the costs involved in such stupidity would force closure of these industries, and cement and steel would be imported from more sensible nations. 

Some zealots would even like to see the end of our vast herds of cattle, sheep and goats, replacing them with kangaroos. 

Unless the Climate Commission can show us a realistic plan for “zero emissions”, with cost benefit analyses, we know it is just more hot emissions from academic zealots. 

They must put up, or shut up. 

For those who can’t believe the Climate commission said something so stupid, see here: