Climate Change
Debt-Zero, Not Net-Zero
Environmental protection is no longer about the environment but about a pseudo-scientific ideology called Climate Change. The nature of climate is that it constantly changes, yet this truism has been turned into deliberate excuses for excessive public funding and social control in the West, with intent to mandate policies and behaviour around the world. Climate Change has mutated from Global Warming as the latter can no longer confirm the way its proponents tried to sell to the public some short time ago. Climate is broader, and whether it gets warmer or cooler is a moot point, charlatans can always explain it. Climate Change has been elevated from competitive science to an ideology. The most objectionable aspect of this ideology is its transfer of policy ownership from national populaces to unelected and unaccountable officials residing in the most gilt edged environmentally unfriendly spaces in Brussels, Geneva or New York paid for by national taxpayers. This has created artificial schisms between societies, with authoritarian regimes such as China and its BRICS allies paying scant regard to the ideology in international trade behaviour. Such conduct justifies and reinforces geopolitical tensions and the inevitable advance to decoupling witnessed today.
To protect the integrity of science and extract it from the money laundering swirl, we need to avoid at all costs the demands of vested interest groups like the World Economic Forum that parasite around the dysfunctional United Nations in matters of emission and return control over life and lifestyle to the voters in each country.
CO2 Programs
Net-Zero describes the notion that to stop global warming, we should be aiming globally at achieving a state in which anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide are balanced by extractions of CO2 from the atmosphere. There are widespread government sponsored programs and policy in the West to limit Greenhouse Gases including CO2 growth based on the belief that humanity faces an existential threat with CO2 rising from 310 ppm to 400 ppm over the last half-century. This belief has been billed as “settled science” and those who question it are labelled skeptics or deniers. It’s understandable that many world class scientists have refused to join the echo chamber. The situation is reminiscent of the health establishment’s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic. The world saw reactionary, across-the-board mandates imposed by government on the behest of their chief scientists, who espoused the official view that the virus would have the same effect across all cohorts of the population and that vaccines would prevent transmission of the virus. Both premises are now debunked.
The real issues are, 1) is global warming as observed today driven by CO2, and 2) if so what kind of risk are we facing and how should we respond to it. The undisputed evidence is that climate change science is not settled. We must approach this claimed risk just as we would any other risk to Australia and the world in an efficient manner. Whatever the impact, global warming as we know it today does not represent a serious threat at all. There is a significant body of scientists who have expressed incontrovertibly through meticulous research that this risk is low. The World Climate Declaration – There Is No Climate Emergency, carrying over 2,000 scientists’ signatories, questions the entire basis of Global Warming as a scientific method. The usual reaction from parts of the science establishment is that these contrarian thinkers are unqualified or fossil-fuel industry biased.
The 2023 publication called Challenging “Net Zero” With Science, written by William Happer (Emeritus Professor of Physics, Princeton University), Richard Lindzen (Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science Emeritus, MIT) and Gregory Wrightstone (Executive Director, CO2Coalition, Non-Profit 501(c)(3) Education Foundation, Arlington Virginia), provides sufficient theoretical and empirical counterpoints to the Climate Change side. The authors criticise governments around the world for taking actions to implement fossil fuel-free or Net-Zero energy systems without a thorough examination of the scientific basis for doing so. They undertook a review of the scientific support (or lack thereof) that has been used to justify this transition to Net-Zero. They state that no attempt was made to address the significant economic, societal or environmental consequences of a near-total reliance on renewable energy and the required battery-backup that is necessary to transition to a fossil fuel-free future. In their scientific opinion, any government or other analysis advocating “Net-Zero” regulation, policy, or other action is scientifically invalid and fatally flawed science if it:
omits unfavourable data that contradicts conclusions, for example, on extreme weather events such as heat waves, wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, fires and droughts
relies on models that do not work and thus would never be used in science
relies on IPCC findings, which are government opinions, not science
omits the extraordinary social benefits of CO2 and fossil fuels
omits the disastrous consequences of reducing fossil fuels and CO2 to Net Zero
rejects the science that demonstrates there is no risk of catastrophic global warming caused by fossil fuels and CO2.
The authors urge all government agencies involved in Net-Zero regulation, policy or other action, including USGCRP in its final version of the 5th National Climate Assessment, to apply the scientific method and
delete any reliance on and citation to IPCC government-controlled findings
delete any reliance on and citation to CMIP models and any other models unless they have been proven to work
delete any reliance on methods other than the scientific method, such as peer review and consensus
include and analyse the enormous social benefits of CO2
include and analyse the enormous social benefits of fossil fuels
immediately stop all efforts to eliminate fossil fuels to avoid massive human starvation in the future.
Professor Happer has long contended that a doubling of CO2 concentration would result in less than 1oC increase in global temperature, and any further increase in CO2 would have virtually no impact given saturation. According to him, there will be NO climate catastrophe from increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide because of the structure of the atmosphere and laws of physics.
A study on staple food by Ming Xu from Rutgers University’s Department of Ecology provides indicative insight into basic food security. This study examined the optimal atmospheric CO2 concentration of the CO2 fertilisation effect on the growth of winter wheat with growth chambers where the CO2 concentration was controlled at 400, 600, 800, 1000, and 1200ppm respectively. After offering a comprehensive inventory of published studies concluding in favour or against the notion of global warming impacting on agriculture, the author finds that:
initial increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration dramatically enhances winter wheat growth through the CO2 fertilisation process.
this CO2 fertilisation effect is substantially compromised with further increase in CO2 concentration, demonstrating an optimal CO2 concentration of 889.6, 909.4, and 894.2ppm for above ground, below ground, and total biomass, respectively, and 967.8ppm for leaf photosynthesis.
high CO2 concentrations exceeding the optima not only reduces leaf stomatal density, length and conductance, but also changes the spatial distribution pattern of stomata on leaves.
high CO2 concentration also decreases the maximum carboxylation rate (Vcmax) and the maximum electron transport rate (Jmax) of leaf photosynthesis. But the high CO2 concentration has little effect on leaf length and plant height.
“…The optimal CO2 fertilisation effect found in this study can be used as an indicator in selecting and breeding new wheat strains in adapting to future high atmospheric CO2 concentrations and climate change.”, concludes the author.
This points to at worst a manageable risk associated with climate change on winter wheat, with this risk coming in only in several hundred years’ time if ever, due to the high threshold of CO2 tolerance of the staple food and already recorded lower emission rates in the OECD. Until then, CO2 concentration raises substantially. Wheat yield data from the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) show this improvement history. The Holocene Climatic Optimum, which spanned the first-third of the current Holocene epoch just 5,000-9,000 years ago, was marked by temperatures between one-to-two-degrees Celsius warmer than today. This warmer world was marked by more precipitation in the summers throughout the Northern Hemisphere, milder winters, a greater extent of forest coverage (as attested to by the overgrowth of hazel and oak in Scandinavia, indicating temperate and biologically productive arboreal forests) and a flourishing of human and fauna populations.
The existing monologue on warming climates and humanity’s role in that is simplistic, usually zealous and can be destructive. To reach Net-Zero by 2030, the bill is $1.5 trillion, rising to $9 trillion by 2060 according to a Net Zero Australia report. This represents $54,000 for every man, woman and child in Australia, and $98,000 per taxpayer. Part of this cost is assumed ludicrously to be offset by the gains from hydrogen exports in transitioning Australia to an expensive “hydrogen economy”. All this, to deal with Australia’s 1% of world emissions with zero prospect of moving the needle on the subject.
The contestable idea of man-made climate change that should be fixed by draconian economic measures is driving the marketing of government policy. Yet, at the same time, the well-recognised GEOCARB III carbon cycle model is showing the lowest levels of CO2 concentration in the history of the data series. Developed by Robert A. Berner and Zavareth Kothavala (2001), GEOCARB III is a geochemical model estimating atmospheric CO₂ over the past 570 million years. It incorporates continental weathering, volcanic outgassing, paleogeography, plant evolution, and carbon isotope data. Pro-Warming analysts contend that the GEOCARB model confirms that human made Climate Change is real since the chart depicts very long-term CO2 concentration movement while the last century shows rapid growth rates. However, recent results depend on where CO2 was measured, just like for temperature. Given urbanisation and industrialisation, CO2 and temperature can be expected to rise rapidly in industrial cities but not in the wilderness.
Dr David Evans, a mathematician with six degrees who worked for the Australian Greenhouse Office, specialised in carbon accounting models (soil, vegetation). In 2015, he claimed to have found “two errors” in the application of the Stefan Boltzmann equation and feedback assumptions. His revised model suggested CO₂ sensitivity is only one-fifth to one-tenth of IPCC estimates, and that warming attribution to CO₂ was less than 20%.
Dr Ned Nikolov, a Climate Research Scientist, has since around 2011 independently researched planetary climate dynamics, proposed a theory that atmospheric pressure, not greenhouse gases, predominantly controls surface temperature. Along with Dr. Karl Zeller, Nikolov published papers under pseudonyms (“Den Volokin”) to circumvent perceived bias in peer review. Their model correlates average planetary temperature solely with solar irradiance and surface pressure, claiming that CO₂ has negligible thermal effect. Dr Nikolaev states in his website communication that global warming observed in the past 24 years can be attributed to increased solar energy absorption due to reduced cloud cover, not rising CO2 levels, as shown in satellite data that NASA has provided.
The Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) held a Poll on Attitudes Towards Net Zero (April 2025) covering a nationally representative survey of 1,027 Australians asked respondents, “How much would you personally be willing to pay each year for Australia to reduce its net emissions to zero by 2050?” The results showed low willingness to pay higher amounts:
Only 7% of all Australians were willing to pay more than $2 per week (equivalent to about $104 per year).
Among young Australians (likely 18–24-year-olds, based on context), 9% were willing to pay more than $2 per week.
This suggests that over 90% of respondents overall (and 91% of young people) preferred to cap their annual contribution at $104 or less. Additional reporting from the poll indicated that 58% of young respondents wouldn’t pay more than $50 per year, and 90% wouldn’t exceed $100–$200 per year (figures vary slightly across summaries but align on low overall tolerance). The Lowy Institute Poll (Mar-Apr 2025), while not asking for specific dollar amounts, runs annual surveys of 2,000 Australians gauged tolerance for costs in climate action. 51% viewed global warming as a “serious and pressing problem” requiring immediate steps “even if [it] involves significant costs” (down from 57% in 2024, amid cost-of-living pressures). Younger Australians (18-29) showed higher tolerance at 63%, and 56% supported an emissions trading scheme or carbon tax (which implies willingness to pay via higher prices), down from 64% in 2022.
For historical context, the most detailed amount-specific data comes from earlier surveys. Lowy Institute Poll on Electricity Bill Surcharge (2011, last asked then): Respondents were asked, “One suggested way of tackling climate change is to increase the price of electricity. If it helped solve climate change, how much extra would you be willing to pay each month on your electricity bill?” (AUD).
42%: $0
21%: $1–10
14%: $11–20
23%: $21or more
This shows declining willingness over time (eg, $0 responses rose from 23% in 2008 to 42% in 2011).
Dr Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, said “I am firmly of the belief that the future will show that this whole hysteria over climate change was a complete fabrication.” And here is a random list of eminent scientists who have not joined the Climate Change bandwagon, or who participated for a non-Climate Change cause:
“Man-made Climate Change does not exist” – Dr. Piers Cornyn, astrophysicist
“The Climate Change delusion” – Prof. Ian Plimer, geologist
“Data show there is no climate catastrophe looming” – Dr. Roy Spencer, climate scientist
“The net-zero agenda is the most dangerous threat to our future freedom and sovereignty” – Prof. Norman Fenton
“Inconvenient facts: Actual historical scientific data. Man-made climate alarmism: climate models and speculation. Hobgoblins of alarm.” – Greg Whitestone
“CO2 is the gas of life. CO2 is a very essential and natural part of life. We’re being misled into climate hysteria.” – Dr. William Happer
Dr. Ronan Connolly, climate scientist, dispels myths and disinformation about climate change and provides full science on what is occurring and has occurred in the past with the Earth’s climate.
“One has to free oneself of the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.” – Ottmar Edenhofer, Professor of the Economics of Climate at the Technical University of Berlin, and lead author of the IPCC’s fourth report released in 2007, speaking in 2010.
“The true aim of the U.N.’s 2014 Paris climate conference was to change the (capitalist) economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.” – U.N. climate chief Christiana Figures.
Notably, the U.S. Department of Energy’s Climate Working Group released a report named A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate, Report to U.S. Energy Secretary Christopher Wright, 23 July 2025, which states in its executive summary:
“This report reviews scientific certainties and uncertainties in how anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gas emissions have affected, or will affect, the Nation’s climate, extreme weather events, and selected metrics of societal well-being. Those emissions are increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere through a complex and variable carbon cycle, where some portion of the additional CO2 persists in the atmosphere for centuries. Elevated concentrations of CO2 directly enhance plant growth, globally contributing to “greening” the planet and increasing agricultural productivity [Section 2.1, Chapter 9]. They also make the oceans less alkaline (lower the pH). That is possibly detrimental to coral reefs, although the recent rebound of the Great Barrier Reef suggests otherwise [Section 2.2].
Carbon dioxide also acts as a greenhouse gas, exerting a warming influence on climate and weather [Section 3.1]. Climate change projections require scenarios of future emissions. There is evidence that scenarios widely used in the impacts literature have overstated observed and likely future emission trends [Section 3.1].
The world’s several dozen global climate models offer little guidance on how much the climate responds to elevated CO2, with the average surface warming under a doubling of the CO2 concentration ranging from 1.8°C to 5.7°C [Section 4.2].
Data-driven methods yield a lower and narrower range [Section 4.3]. Global climate models generally run “hot” in their description of the climate of the past few decades − too much warming at the surface and too much amplification of warming in the lower- and mid-troposphere [Sections 5.2-5.4].
The combination of overly sensitive models and implausible extreme scenarios for future emissions yields exaggerated projections of future warming. Most extreme weather events in the U.S. do not show long-term trends. Claims of increased frequency or intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and droughts are not supported by U.S. historical data [Sections 6.1-6.7].
Additionally, forest management practices are often overlooked in assessing changes in wildfire activity [Section 6.8]. Global sea level has risen approximately 8 inches since 1900, but there are significant regional variations driven primarily by local land subsidence; U.S. tide gauge measurements in aggregate show no obvious acceleration in sea level rise beyond the historical average rate [Chapter 7].
Attribution of climate change or extreme weather events to human CO2 emissions is challenged by natural climate variability, data limitations, and inherent model deficiencies [Chapter 8]. Moreover, solar activity's contribution to the late 20th century warming might be underestimated [Section 8.3.1].
Both models and experience suggest that CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed, and excessively aggressive mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial [Chapters 9, 10, Section 11.1]. Social Cost of Carbon estimates, which attempt to quantify the economic damage of CO2 emissions, are highly sensitive to their underlying assumptions and so provide limited independent information [Section 11.2].
U.S. policy actions are expected to have undetectably small direct impacts on the global climate and any effects will emerge only with long delays [Chapter 12].”
What Preachers Do
The Amazon forest has been regaining size for decades. Ironically, it is the COP-30 conference preparations that are tree-felling large stretches of the forest to make way for constructing the conference venue in the heart of the Amazon. This shows the callousness and hypocrisy of the Climate Change ideology. The Avenida Liberdade highway is being built in the Amazon rainforest near Belém, Brazil, ahead of COP 30 (the U.N. climate summit scheduled for November 10–21, 2025). The project undermines the environmental goals of the summit. A 13 km (8mile) four-lane highway is cutting through protected Amazon forest. The route traverses thousands of acres of formerly intact rainforest within a government designated protected area established in 1993. State officials claim construction began in mid-2024, and that the project had been in the works since 2020 – prior to Belém’s selection as COP host in early 2023. Critics argue the road is being fast-tracked to ease traffic for an expected 50,000 – 60,000 attendees, including world leaders, despite claiming the project is independent of COP.. Environmentalists and residents accuse Brazil of hypocrisy, saying it's degrading the Amazon – the very ecosystem COP aims to protect.
Other tales include the preachers’ use of resources while pressing the common people to tighten belts when consuming fossil fuel energy for essential activities. It is true that the world’s richest 1% cause more CO₂ emissions than the poorest 60%, and this is backed by reputable sources including Oxfam, the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), and data from the World Inequality Lab. After all, they admit it and propose “market-based solutions” in handling this inconvenience. They would just create emission tokens out of thin air, allocate to each head of population – assigning you a liability from nothing – and they’ll buy your allocation and pretend to pay you for an asset that you never owned from money they gave themselves through either printing or your tax dollars that your government is mushy-brained enough to give them. It is a neat little trick since they know there is a little chance that governments around the world would come together to set up a trading regime for those tokens. Emission Trading Schemes have been bandied around for nearly half a century. It’s a political sleight of hand by governments and cronies to impose tax liabilities on the populace and divert funds to themselves. This is done through either money laundering or legal but not legitimate funding schemes to shore up the fortune of the parties in government and the market position of the corporate financiers or associated organisations including Unions and NGOs.
Microsoft’s founder Bill Gates, a long-time Climate Change advocate, has recently flipped according to media reports. Like Musk, Gates is a genius entrepreneur who has contributed much to technological development. One can only assume that geniuses are as prone as anyone to misjudgement when it comes to emotion-charged issues like Climate Change. He now sees global warming as not a serious risk to humanity. And as Microsoft is battling it out with the world’s AI giants for a piece of the future, he has probably come to realise that massive datacentres strung across the U.S. and other advanced economies emit tremendous amounts of heat. To satisfy AI demand, these companies will have to deal with public concerns over heat generation and the narratives of Climate Change. In A New Way to Look at the Problem - Three Tough Truths About Climate, published on 28 Oct 2025, Gates professes that he wanted everyone at COP30 to know:
“There’s a doomsday view of climate change that goes like this:
In a few decades, cataclysmic climate change will decimate civilisation. The evidence is all around us—just look at all the heat waves and storms caused by rising global temperatures. Nothing matters more than limiting the rise in temperature.
Fortunately for all of us, this view is wrong. Although climate change will have serious consequences—particularly for people in the poorest countries—it will not lead to humanity’s demise. People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future. Emissions projections have gone down, and with the right policies and investments, innovation will allow us to drive emissions down much further.
Unfortunately, the doomsday outlook is causing much of the climate community to focus too much on near-term emissions goals, and it’s diverting resources from the most effective things we should be doing to improve life in a warming world…”
According to the National Centre for Public Policy Research (NCPPR), former VP Al Gore’s Nashville, Tennessee residence consumed approximately 230,889 kWh in a 12month period – including the home, pool, and entry gate. That’s 19,241 kWh per month on average, around 21 times more electricity than a typical American household (19,241 kWh vs. 901 kWh). In a peak month (Sep 2016), consumption spiked to 30,993 kWh, equivalent to what an average U.S. household uses in 34 months. After a major “green retrofit” in 2007 – including installation of 33 solar panels, improved insulation, and a geothermal system – Gore's electricity consumption allegedly increased by about 10%. The rooftop solar system generates about 1,092 kWh per month, covering only 5-6% of total consumption. Of the reported annual 230,889 kWh, 66,159 kWh were used just to heat the outdoor swimming pool – enough to power six average U.S. homes for a year.
The More You Know the Less You Worry About Climate Change
A paper looking at public anxiety over climate change finds the more someone is informed about the topic the less they are worried about it. Environmental Knowledge Is Inversely Associated With Climate Change Anxiety was written by Hannes Zacher (Wilhelm Wundt Institute of Psychology, Leipzig University, Neumarkt 9‑19, 04109 Leipzig, Germany) and Cort W. Rudolph (Department of Psychology, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA), published in March 2023. This study tests the hypotheses that overall environmental knowledge and climate-specific knowledge are inversely related to climate change anxiety, such that people who know more (less) about the environment in general, and about climate in particular, are less (more) anxious about climate change. Time lagged data were collected from N = 2,066 individuals in Germany. Results show that, even after controlling for demographic characteristics, personality characteristics, and environmental attitudes, overall environmental knowledge and climate specific knowledge are negatively related to climate change anxiety (both B = -.09, p < .001).
Adaptive Strategy
In terms of managing risk, we can look at Climate Change not as a man-made hypothesis but as a potential natural disaster. In that case, there is a better way to deal with it than throwing our entire economy down the “gurgler” for it. This approach is called an adaptation-first framework for climate policy. Setting aside the veracity or otherwise of climate change, we can take precautionary measures against it like we can against a potential cyclone or earthquake or tsunami.
Climate change may be happening, regardless of exact causes
The cost of completely preventing or reversing it is prohibitively high or ineffective
Therefore, society should prioritise resilience and practical responses over ideology.
A structured adaptation-first approach can be framed as follows:
Guiding Principles
Cost-effectiveness over symbolic or extreme policy
Localised solutions based on geography and risk – take away the threat of “globalist” manipulation of the subject
Technology neutrality – support whatever works best, not just renewables
Resilience first, then mitigation if and when cost-justified
Equity – protect the most vulnerable without punishing the entire citizenry
Voluntary participation – citizens are responsible enough to do the lifting if they are convinced of the risk, there is no need for government mandates and punting a king’s ransom of taxpayers money on it.
Policy Pillars
Climate-Resilient Infrastructure
Invest in infrastructure upgrades to withstand extreme weather:
Elevated roads/rail in flood-prone zones
Urban heat-resistant materials (cool roofs, shaded transit)
Stormwater management systems and levees
This kind of investment has direct benefit to households even without the Climate Change risk
Prioritise retrofit funding for buildings in at-risk areas.
Smart Agriculture
Fund drought-resistant and heat-tolerant crop R&D – some tax based encouragement from government should be sufficient without direct government funding
Incentivise precision agriculture to reduce waste and boost yields
Support water recycling, soil regeneration, and farmer adaptation practices rather than forcing carbon targets.
Disaster Preparedness and Insurance Reform
Expand early warning systems (fires, floods, storms)
Modernise disaster response capabilities
Restructure public disaster insurance to price in climate risk without disincentivising development (eg, shared-risk models, zoning reforms).
Urban Cooling and Water Security
Planting urban forests, increasing permeable surfaces, and improving building codes
Diversify water sources (eg, desalination, aquifer recharge, greywater systems) for dry regions.
Energy System Reliability
Focus on grid resilience, not just emissions reduction
Promote decentralised energy (micro-grids, storage) for blackout protection for households
Remove barrier to nuclear energy entry to let the market choose the best combination of energy supply – horses for courses
Support multiple generation types: nuclear, hydro, clean gas, as well as solar/wind — prioritise availability, affordability, reliability, sovereignty.
Technology and Innovation Focus
Support carbon capture not as a panacea, but a hedge
R&D for geo-engineering contingency options (eg, stratospheric aerosols) if climate destabilisation outpaces adaptation
Foster private sector innovation with prizes, deregulation, and tax credits, rather than mandates.
Economic and Fiscal Discipline
Apply strict cost-benefit analysis to all climate programs
Avoid blanket subsidies – tie funding to measurable resilience or adaptation outcomes
Remove Net-Zero as a target and replace it with visible end-game environmental protection programs that would aid emission reduction where appropriate.
Measurement and Accountability
Replace vague Net Zero pledges with “climate resilience scorecards” that assess:
Infrastructure robustness
Supply chain vulnerability
Disaster recovery times
Cancel emission measurement and accounting to reduce cost to businesses
Incentivise adaptation progress rather than emissions quotas.
International Strategy: Adaptation Diplomacy
Redirect a portion of climate aid from mitigation to infrastructure support in vulnerable nations
Help countries build sea walls, drought mitigation, and food security systems rather than carbon trading schemes – very important to move from nebulous to practical and pragmatic programs for immediate living standard improvement
Shift global discussions from carbon counting to human well-being and damage reduction.
Public Communication
Move the message from fear to preparedness.
“Don’t panic about distant Climate Change, build smart for near term comfort.”
“Change happens, let’s be ready.”
Reframe climate as a risk management issue, not a moral crisis.
Be honest: No silver bullets. Let citizens choose from a menu of adaptive investments.
What we can achieve with this framework:
Much lower, more realistic costs
Lower political friction
Broader public support
Tangible near-term benefits
Long-term optionality if warming accelerates
Geopolitics and AI Trump Climate Change
An adaptation approach will prove to be much more efficient in getting the world prepared for any possible climate change-related events. The ultimate driver of climate change policy will be the course of the Warm War between the U.S. and China. Given that climate change is not a definable risk along the line of observable environmental degradation, war or famine or incurable disease, the adaptation approach is the right risk management strategy. Global warming is clearly not a risk that we would bet our entire economy on, especially when it is visible that there is zero chance of Australia having any impact whatsoever on the subject. On the other hand, the sub-currents associated with the Warm War and AI will force countries around the world, Australia included, to align their policies with the side they choose. Either the U.S. or China camp, there is no escaping that Australia must prepare for potential austerity to focus capital and human resources on optimising our chances of staying in a leading position with regard AI. Net-Zero spending largesse must be abandoned.
The U.S. has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement and it’s likely that some E.U. members will be following in the next few years. For Australia to carry on with a hideously high-cost economic structure that is Net-Zero based on unreliable science is irresponsible. Money talks. Market indicators show that capital is moving away from Environment, Sustainability and Governance (ESG) and climate change related endeavours. Much more urgent matters are gripping humanity and we are just living the last stretch of a zombie generation that hallucinates over hubris. As the West has enjoyed a multi-decade stretch of relative peace and prosperity – Australian not having a recession for 30 years – we are understandably distracted by other quality of life issues. To protect what we have, we should get back to reality. Like the U.S. and China, Australia needs to focus on sovereignty and resilience of supply chains of essential products and services like food, medical care, transportation, construction, fuels, robots, military hardware and software, space communications, cyber security and especially energy supply and AI. The simple truth is this:
To win the Warm War, the West must win the geopolitical war, which requires it to win the AI war, which means the energy supply war, which means supply sovereignty, affordability and security.
Locking ourselves into a high cost, undefinable and most probably non-existent climate war that requires an expensive, unreliable power supply system that relies on China supply chains is a treacherous undertaking.
