Zero Emissions

By Viv Forbes

“Zero emissions” requires no diesel, petrol or gas-fuelled cars, trucks, tractors or dozers and no burning of coal or gas for electricity generation. But without nuclear power or a massive increase in hydro-electricity, green energy will not support metal refining or manufacturing, and domestic electricity usage will be rationed. “Zero emissions” will also force closure of most cement plants, mechanised farms and feed lots and will demand nuclear or wind-powered submarines, destroyers and bulk carriers.

In the Zero Emissions world there can be no diesel buses, oil-powered cruise liners or jet aircraft (except fleets of climate comrades attending endless UNIPCC conferences). Moreover, 7.8 billion humans continuously emit a lot of carbon dioxide – maybe they plan to make the Covid masks air tight?

Zero Emissions would decimate mining, farming, forestry, fishing and tourism. As exports fall, imports must also fall. Without diesel fuel and lubricants there will be little surplus meat, milk, vegetables, cereals, sea food or timber for the cities, for export, or for immigrants or refugees. Rabbits, kangaroos, possums, koalas, Murray cod and wild pigs will become staple foods and wood/charcoal burners generating “green” gas will again fuel antique cars and utes. Wood-burning steam-powered traction engines may live again.

But we have the “Net Zero” loophole, which is green bait on a barbed hook.

The “Net Zero” baited hook offers five escape routes:

  1. Buy dodgy carbon credits from dubious foreigners.
  2. Cover our grasslands and open forests with carbon-absorbing bushfire-prone eucalypt weeds.
  3. Build costly energy-hungry carbon-capture schemes.
  4. Chase the hydrogen mirage.
  5. Log and replant old-growth forests. (New trees will grow and extract CO2 faster than old mature trees.)

Net zero has one bright prospect – freeloading cities like Canberra must shed population and convert their manicured parklands to lettuce farms, lucerne paddocks, cow bails and poultry runs.

Related Reading:
Climate Council says we do not need gas:

Telstra buys Carbon Credits from India

Why is electricity so expensive?:

Back to Charcoal Burners?

Bright Green Impossibilities:

Zero Emissions almost here:

Net Zero – Albanese goes for broke – Tony Thomas:

Carbon Credit/Emissions Fraud:

2 thoughts on “Zero Emissions”

  1. The emotional response to tree removal is to see it as always unnecessary. However, it is unneccessary only in areas already devoid of trees, often over an extended period of time. For where there are trees there usually is regrowth. Indeed, some seed may even germinate decades after the removal of the parent trees. Virtually no one thinks a garden only needs weeding once, yet agricultural tree weeds are widely thought to be different somehow.
    “Cover our grasslands and open forests with carbon-absorbing bushfire-prone eucalypt weeds.”

    I like eucalypts. A lot. However, we Australians need to have an honest discussion about land-clearing.

    The issue is an emotional black hole thanks to the media’s unquestioning acceptance of activist hype.

    The only place that tree removal is not needed as a management tool is where there are no trees left. The green tape that wraps around the issue only hurts those who have trees, including those who took the time and care to replant selectively and those who didn’t clear completely.

    However, the simple fact is that trees seed. A lot. They grow back, in unwanted places, harming agricultural production and presenting a real threat of bushfire. A tree becomes a weed when it’s in the wrong spot.

    My family farm has about ten to twelve per cent tree cover. We should be given far more leeway in managing that cover. Much of it is not even indigenous to the area, but planted species simply native to Australia.

    Ironically, the wildlife benefits of going against the usual local-only planting policies are fairly substantial and massively ignored. The wildlife benefits of narrow tree belts are much the same. Neither fit the accepted dogma.

    The environmentalist-led attitude to trees on farms just hurts farmers and limits our ability to do our job. The days of farmers being forced or encouraged to undertake extensive clear-felling are long gone. So too should be the days of unfettered regrowth. A balance needs to be struck and that does not need input from environmentalists, as they lack balance and are not true conservationists.

    If one wants to hug a tree, one should plant one in one’s own backyard. Just don’t blame me if it falls on your house because you were prevented from removing it when it grew too big.

  2. Viv Forbes sums it up quite well below, this green (neutrality ideology) will take us back 130 years.
    Personally I still consider modern Nuclear (utilising thorium 100% burnable reactor rods) the best way forward for Australian energy requirements thus retaining competitive manufacturing (meaning lots more jobs)!!!! South Australia between Whyalla and Olympic Dam represents the perfect place to kick this first major reactor (power generation) off in Australia.
    The other opportunity Australia now fails with going forward is not utilising vast (over a 1.5K years worth) seams of underground and surface coal we have, close to potential major manufacturing hubs like NSW & QLD. Modern coal fired power stations utilising co-generation (Heat Recovery Steam Generator) power plants are still to this day the best form of creating immediate and continual energy second to modern Nuclear.

    Kind Regards

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *