Under Joe Biden’s deep state-driven regime, the United States is on an accelerated path to reach Net Zero CO2 emissions by 2050. The UK is on the same course. Climate change is preached as the motivation, and Net Zero is presented as the only possible pathway to save our planet. But at what cost, and is it really required? To accomplish this lofty goal, three massive, interrelated, and multidisciplinary projects must have been completed. First, transportation will have been electrified. Second, industrial and domestic heat will have been electrified. And third, the electricity sector—generation, transmission, and distribution—will have been greatly expanded to handle the first two projects. The cost of this endeavor will comfortably exceed $47 trillion.
Many experts, including Cambridge University Professor Emeritus of Engineering Michael Kelly, have been sounding the alarm for months and months about the dangers of this one-sided (and clearly agenda-driven) pledge to eliminate fossil fuels due to climate change by 2050. Indeed, most endeavors of this size and scope are presented with a range of possibilities and actions, not just one possible path. But again, like the COVID-19 jab campaign, it is crucial to recognize that the same sinister cartel behind the mandatory jabs is behind the push to achieve Net Zero by 2050. And it will not come without significantly altering the freedoms currently afforded to all Americans.
"Professor Michael Kelly, emeritus professor of engineering at the University of Cambridge…will tell an audience in London tonight that the government’s 2050 net zero target is unachievable without major social disruption" https://t.co/KVHQeIvB62
— Tom Nelson (@tan123) November 11, 2019
In a report titled “The Feasibility of A Net-Zero Economy for the USA By 2050,” Kelly notes that besides the outrageous cost of more than $47 trillion, a workforce equivalent in size to the health sector will be needed for 30 years, including a doubling of the number of electrical engineers. Moreover, the bill of specialist materials is of a scope that, for the USA alone, is several times more than the global annual production. And on the manpower front, Kelly pointed out that “one will have to rely on the domestic workforce, as everyone else in the world is aiming for the same target,” adding that if other nations were not also doing so, then the value of the USA-specific target would be moot. Precisely. Stating the obvious, Kelly—who analyzed Net Zero as if he’d been appointed to be the first CEO of a new US government agency whose explicit goal was actually delivering Net Zero by 2050—commented in his report:
“The scale of this project suggests that a war footing and a command economy will be essential, as major cuts to other favored forms of expenditure, such as health, education and defense, will be needed. Without a detailed roadmap, as exemplified by the International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors that drove the electronics revolution after 1980, the target is simply unattainable.”
Kelly’s extensive and eye-opening report is well worth reading. Besides needing minerals on a scale with which they are not available, public acceptance of the massive Net Zero project is largely ignored. Like the deadly mRNA gene-damaging shots, the obvious question is: will the government force Americans to comply with the drastic measures needed to reach Net Zero? If so, life as we currently know it will cease to exist, with no end in sight. Indeed, Kelly remarked that, by observing the public debate, it is clear that the citizenry has no idea of the scale of the task to transition to a net-zero emissions economy in 30 years.
In addition to severe disturbance to everyday lifestyles as the target date approaches, there is the cost of well over $300,000 per household (which would take over 100 years to recoup at today’s cost of energy) for electrical and retrofit actions. Yet, despite these incredible sacrifices, Kelly declared there would be no measurable difference in the future climate as a result of all of the spending and hardship. Instead, to make a difference, the US would need the rest of the world, particularly the developing world, to join the Net Zero movement. Poorer nations, such as India and the countries of South Asia, the Middle East, and Africa, would need financial help to do so. And, again, there is no guarantee of results, with half of the climate change doom and gloom scenario already debunked. With that in mind, Kelly noted:
“If we assume that Europe and North America are to underwrite the rest of the world’s net-zero activities, then the costs to the US could rise by a factor of 4.5, assuming the same per-capita spend globally. The resulting cost of getting to the global target then rises to nearly $1.5 million per household, and $200 trillion for the whole of the USA, which is a fantasy in practical terms.”
In investigating a roadmap for Net Zero, Kelly commented that the success of the IT revolution of the last 40 years “is in no small part due to the existence of the International Technology Road Map for Semiconductors (ITRS).” Kelly remarked that representatives from every part sector and corner of the globe gather every two years to “thrash out in great detail what needs to come out of the laboratory and into development, and out of development and into production, to keep Moore’s law of transistor miniaturization on track, and with it the increase in computing power.” Indeed, every player in the field knows that the other players support and work daily toward a mutually agreed upon objective.
Suggesting Americans are sure to have an economic and societal catastrophe if leaders persist with unfounded projects to deliver a Net Zero economy by 2050, Kelly bravely questions those in the world screaming that humanity faces a climate catastrophe in the coming decades if countries, including the US, don’t reach Net Zero by 2050. Kelly’s analysis requires the climate change community to ask themselves how bad “will” (as opposed to “might”) the world’s climate actually become if we don’t achieve Net Zero. Kelly believes their honesty at this point would assist those pushing for funding climate adaptation, which would then only be carried out when necessary. Without a doubt, the contrast between ITRS meetings and the meetings held by international climate change “authorities,” aka the global elite, has an authoritarian scheme written all over it. Noting the disparity, Kelly remarked:
“Meeting the 2050 net-zero emissions target is much more complex than semiconductor development and can, therefore, go wrong in many more ways. Despite this, it is being attempted without any kind of roadmap. The project is, therefore, more likely than not to veer in the direction of the historical Tower of Babel. No engineer would invest time or money in such a project. Investors should expect better, given the scale of the enterprise.
The idea that Net Zero can be achieved on the current timelines by any means short of a command economy combined with a drastic decline in standards of living—and several unlikely technological miracles—is a blatant falsehood.
In the parlance of the Second World War, ‘Is this journey really necessary?”