What really is ‘net zero’? I had to look it up because it makes no sense. It appears to be the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere that humans in a select few countries emit during their daily lives. It still doesn’t make sense. Carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere has been occurring naturally for billions of years during which time atmospheric carbon dioxide decreased from over 10 per cent to 0.04 per cent. Now that humans are emitting more carbon dioxide, it apparently has to be removed from the atmosphere by a few self-righteous suicidal wealthy countries that are minor emitters. For billions of years, the oceans and atmosphere have been obeying Henry’s Law and the Beer-Lambert Law hence there was no past runaway global warming when the atmospheric carbon dioxide content was far higher than now. Why should it happen now?

Plants thrive when there is at least three times the current atmospheric carbon dioxide content. It is now dangerously low. True tree-hugging environmentalists would burn coal, gas and oil; run computers, AI and data centres; make cement, metals, bricks, ceramics, glass, plastics and fertilisers; have sewerage and potable water systems; and have refrigeration, heating and air conditioning in order to increase the atmospheric carbon dioxide content for plants. Most countries do, the exception being a few guilt-ridden wealthy First World countries. Some, like the US and UK, have reversed their fallacious energy policies which were economically crippling.

Net zero is not just taking coal, gas and oil off the menu. There are 6,000 commonly used daily products made from coal and oil without which we would be back in the Stone Age. If we burn all the coals and oil in the world to produce carbon dioxide, we still wouldn’t reach the higher atmospheric carbon dioxide level at the time when coal and oil formed. These were times when terrestrial and marine life thrived.

The whole climate hysteria is based on models that are demonstrably wrong and dismiss past climate trends, processes, events and cycles. Why should we even bother to reduce emissions at cripplingly large costs when it has never been shown that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming? Even if I am wrong, why spend a single penny on net zero? Humans currently live in hot and humid climates and don’t drop like flies, hence, if the global temperature rises by 1.5 degrees Celsius or more, humans and the rest of life on Earth can easily cope and adapt. Water vapour in the atmosphere drives a natural atmospheric air conditioner preventing runaway warming.

There is a huge amount of money to be made by scaring people witless about the alleged dangers of emissions of the colourless, tasteless, odourless gas of life. Scaring people works best in wealthy countries that have benefited from centuries of energy-poor hardship, catastrophes, risk, invention, investment, hard work and Christianity. A grift magnet has been deliberately created with mandates, extremely complicated opaque legislation and regulations that have encouraged global foreign investors to exploit the net zero obsession in energy-rich Australia. Grifters make wind turbines, solar panels, new high-voltage grids, produce unreliable electricity, trade carbon credits and sequester carbon dioxide. At every stage and with government support, they clip the consumer’s ticket.

To make trillion-dollar changes to a reliable and cheap energy generation and distribution system, there must be absolutely unequivocal proof that carbon dioxide drives dangerous global warming, that we are facing a global catastrophe recognised by every other nation and, by increasing costs and using intermittent wind and solar electricity, a global crisis can be averted. No such proof has been produced. Furthermore, many of our competitors burn our coal to make electricity to add value and produce cheap goods which we buy. If we were serious about net zero, we would not buy anything manufactured using coal-fired electricity.

We once had cheap, reliable coal-fired electricity. What changed? Intermittent wind and solar power were added to the grid at mate’s rates and consumers were easy prey. This resulted in the closure of coal-fired power stations that once made cheap reliable electricity and now are regulated out of business. No coal-fired power station owner will build, recapitalise or maintain a long-life facility under the current regulations and, as a result, we have energy insecurity in the most energy-rich country in the world. The remaining coal-fired power stations and gas keep the lights on. Foreign wind, solar and grid investors are only interested in making quick easy money and it is in their interest to have expensive unreliable mandated electricity, to destroy forests and wildlife, to sterilise farming land and to not clean up their mess.

Why even bother with net zero? To reach net zero, we must stop eating carbon-based food, stop exhaling carbon dioxide and stop all other bodily functions. If you want to live a net-zero life, the only solution is to drop dead. There wouldn’t even be transport to cart away your body. Even if we approached the impossible dream of net zero, we would have to live a Stone Age cave life. Show me just one climate elite activist who explains the benefits of their improved life as a net-zero devotee from their cave.

How did we get to this point? The education system has been in free fall for five decades as we drift into socialism. Important questions such as, ‘How do we know what we know?’ are never asked. Logic, critical thinking, committing a large body of knowledge to memory and healthy scepticism are now not part of the education system. Curiosity is not fostered. Questioning is now insolent disinformation. As a result, we have evolved into a demon-haunted dumbed-down world where the average person has little idea about the basics and will believe anything. The reason why net zero has been able to gain so much traction is because most of the community don’t know elementary science yet, ironically, are happy to operate high-tech equipment invented, built and operated using science, mathematics and engineering.

Carbon pollution is an impossibility. Carbon is black (except when it is as diamond) and if there was carbon pollution, we couldn’t see or breathe. It is fraudulent to substitute the element carbon for the compound carbon dioxide and combine it with the word pollution. Such climate fraud pervades through society. Schools are the playground for propaganda and beneficiaries of our education system vote. Young children are taught about the evils of carbon dioxide, the gas of life, yet do not know about photosynthesis and the carbon cycle. And as for being taught about the past, forget it. The past helps us understand the present and we don’t want that, do we?

Kill off net zero. It has a catastrophic effect on the hip pocket, small business, national sovereignty and international competition.  Kill off subsidies, destroy the grifters’ paradise and let the market decide. Hopefully we come to our senses before we have a Venezuelan-type economy.