OPINION:
Energy ministers of the world’s most prosperous nations declined to identify the immediate end of oil, natural gas and coal as a worthy goal at a G20 working group meeting last week. That disappointed activists who have been pushing a “net zero” scheme of bringing carbon dioxide emissions “as close to zero as possible” by trading conventional energy sources for windmills and solar panels.
The simple reality is that oil, natural gas and coal supply more than 80% of the planet’s energy. While there are some who insist the world can magically shift to a different set of energy sources at an arbitrary future date, two recent studies cast doubt on whether such a goal is possible, much less whether it is desirable.
In one, experts at the Energy Policy Research Foundation concluded such an energy transition would result in spending more money and using more labor to produce less energy. They pointed to International Energy Agency figures showing that achieving net-zero targets by 2030 would require 25 million more energy sector workers and $16.5 trillion in capital expenditures, yet deliver 7% less energy overall.
The Manhattan Institute’s Mark P. Mills also produced a report documenting the challenges of replacing gasoline- and diesel-powered cars with electric vehicles, as the administration is planning to do by 2035.
“No one knows how much, if at all, CO2 emissions will decline as EV use rises,” Mr. Mills wrote. “Every claim for EVs reducing emissions is a rough estimate or an outright guess based on averages, approximations, or aspirations.”
His report noted that the price of electric vehicles is driven by the cost of critical minerals, which tend to be mined or processed in foreign, often hostile nations. Consequently, there is no telling “when, if ever, EVs will reach parity in cost and fueling convenience, regardless of subsidies.”
Both studies expose an impressive set of problems associated with net-zero policies. The much larger problem, however, is that net zero is always characterized as a national goal. It most definitely is not.
President Biden inherited the net zero concept from then-President Barack Obama, and the idea has been celebrated at various elite conferences such as the G20 and World Economic Forum. It’s an idea that is always being pushed from the top down.
Congress has never been asked to ratify any treaty involving net zero. No federal statute has ever set the achievement of carbon dioxide “neutrality” as a national goal or even a vague national aspiration.
The idea of making energy more expensive — which is what a net-zero regime would require — is so unpopular that no one has even been careless enough to offer a vote on whether to impose a carbon dioxide tax.
While government by the people isn’t without downsides, our system works because the people are invested in the decisions made by their representatives in Congress. After some deliberation and, usually, a lot of back and forth, minority views tend to be heard and accommodated. Majority views are tempered.
This crucial process hasn’t happened with the setting of a net-zero target for carbon dioxide emissions as a national goal. Until that idea and its practical consequences are presented for consideration by Congress, such schemes should be rejected at every turn.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.