Barnaby’s Net Zero Rants: Right for the Wrong Reasons

Net zero is simply a quantity, devoid of a subject, but it has come to mean different things to different people as it has been spuriously linked to concerns about the rapidly increasing amounts of carbon dioxide that human actions are releasing into the global atmosphere.

To Barnaby Joyce, net zero is “completely useless”; “it is outrageous what it is doing to the nation”, “it is putting people out of housing”, “it is desecrating the landscape with swindle factories, dividing communities, pushing up power prices”, and “it has China breathing down our necks”.

So what exactly is this “really bad, bad, bad policy that is completely useless and has zero effect”? What exactly is “it”?

Barnaby Joyce, like the average person in the street, fails to be able to explain “it”, but is quick to assure you that “it” is all Albanese and the Labor Government’s fault.

Irrefutable, credible scientific evidence shows that since the onset of the Industrial Revolution, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased by alarming amounts in an alarmingly short geological time period, leaving insufficient time for various living species on Earth to successfully adapt to the changes. Scientific evidence also shows that atmospheric carbon dioxide has the important role of behaving like a heat blanket to prevent the planet from freezing over. However, just as you enjoy the comfort of extra blankets in winter, they will cause discomfort if you do not remove them as the weather warms up in summer.

Finally, credible, fact-checked data has shown that as our carbon emissions have been increasing, so has the overall temperature of the planet. Only a fool would so avidly dismiss the confluence of the data with the conclusions.

Since the early 1990s, everybody bar the scientifically illiterate and the politically compromised accepted the science and recognised the need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, leading to the globally endorsed Paris Climate Agreement.

According to the IPCC’s Special Report (2015) on the importance of keeping global warming under a further 1.5°C rise, “net zero” means a “balance” between carbon emissions and carbon sinks.

Recognising the need is one side of the equation; finding ways to do it is the other, and herein lies the beginning of the Net Zero con that Barnaby and his cohort vociferously allude to – for the wrong reasons.

While the science behind the proposal is sound, Barnaby continues to refute it even though he fails to provide any evidence to the contrary.

The problem of achieving “net zero” has been hijacked for profit with a “burn now, pay later” strategy – shelving responsibility until 2050, conning us into believing that future, but unproven, developments in technology such as carbon capture and storage will enable us to keep doing what we have been doing without increasing our carbon footprint. Elaborate carbon trading schemes, protecting forests that are already there, and more – all push the problem onto future generations.

Net zero is a distraction. Our real emissions reduction goal should be zero – getting there as quickly as possible.

That means biting the bullet and phasing out all fossil fuel-using technologies now, rather than relying on elaborate trading systems and vague political promises of future cuts to save the day. By continuing to debate “net zero by 2050”, we are exposing ourselves to the danger of running out of time to limit further global warming to sustainable levels.

So Barnaby and his cohort are right – we are being conned, but not for the reasons they espouse.

Got something on your mind? Go on then, engage. Submit your opinion piece, letter to the editor, or Quick Word now.