In October 2008, Parliament passed the Climate Change Act requiring the UK Government to ensure that by 2050 ‘the net UK carbon account’ was reduced to a level at least 80% lower than that of 1990. (‘carbon account’ refers to CO₂ emissions and ‘other targeted greenhouse gas emissions’.) Only five MPs voted against it. Then in 2019, by secondary legislation and without serious debate, Parliament increased the 80% reduction requirement to 100% – thereby creating the Net Zero policy.ⁱ

Unfortunately, it’s a policy that’s unachievable, potentially disastrous and in any case pointless – and, importantly, that’s the case irrespective of whether or not human caused greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to a rise in global temperature.

1. It’s unachievable.

Many vehicles and machines (used for example in agriculture, mining, mineral processing, building, heavy transportation, commercial shipping and aviation, the military and emergency services) and products (for example cement (and concrete), high-grade steel, plastics – all needed incidentally for the construction of renewables – nitrogen fertilisers, insecticides, pharmaceuticals, anaesthetics, lubricants, solvents, paints, adhesives, insulation, tyres and asphalt) essential to life and wellbeing require the combustion of fossil fuels or are made from oil derivatives; there are no easily deployable, commercially viable alternatives. Our civilisation is based on fossil fuels; something that’s unlikely to change for a long time.ⁱⁱ

Wind is the most effective source of renewable electricity in the U.K. (because of its latitude, solar farms contribute only a small percentage of the UK’s electricity), but: (i) the substantial and increasing costs of building the huge numbers of turbines needed for Net Zero, (ii) the complex engineering and cost challenges of establishing a stable, reliable non-fossil fuel grid by 2030 as planned by the Government – not least the need to cope with a huge increase in high voltage grid capacity and local distribution, (iii) the vast scale of what’s involved (a multitude of enormous wind turbines, immense amounts of space ⁱⁱⁱ and increasingly unavailable and expensive raw materials, such as so-called ‘rare earths’) required because, unlike fossil fuels, the ‘energy density’ of wind is so low and (iv) the intermittency of renewable energy (see 2 below) make it unlikely that the UK will be able to generate by 2030 sufficient electricity for current needs let alone for the mandated EVs (electric vehicles) and heat pumps and for the energy requirements of industry, rapidly expanding AI (artificial intelligence) and huge new data centres.^iv

In any case, the UK doesn’t have enough skilled technical managers, electrical, heating and other engineers, electricians, plumbers, welders, mechanics and other skilled tradespeople required to do the multitude of tasks essential to achieve Net Zero – a problem worsened by the Government’s plans for massively increased house building.^v

‘Net Zero’ means that there has to be a balance between the amount of any greenhouse gas emissions produced and the amount removed from the atmosphere. That there’s no detailed, costed (or indeed any) plan for such removal, threatens the credibility of the project.

2. It would be socially and economically disastrous.

The Government aims for 100% renewable electricity by 2030 but has yet to publish a fully costed engineering plan for the provision of comprehensive grid-scale back-up when there’s little or no wind or sun; a problem that’s exacerbated by the pending retirement of elderly fossil fuel and nuclear power plants. The Government has indicated that back-up may be provided by new gas-fired power plants ^vi but it hasn’t yet published any detail. This of course would not be a ‘clean’ solution and it seems the Government’s answer is to fit them with carbon capture and underground storage (CCS) systems (very expensive and commercially unproven at scale).^vii This issue is desperately important: without full back-up, electricity blackouts would be inevitable – ruining many businesses and causing dreadful problems for millions of people, including health consequences threatening everyone and in particular the poor and vulnerable.^viii

Even more serious is the fact that, because there’s no coherent plan for the project’s delivery, little attention has been given to its overall cost. All that’s clear is that it would almost certainly be unaffordable: for example, a recent Office for Budget Responsibility projection of £1.4 trillion ^ix is probably far too low and several trillion seems likely to be more accurate.^x The borrowing and taxes required for costs at this scale would destroy Britain’s already weak credit standing and put an impossible burden onto millions of households and businesses.

Net Zero would have two other dire consequences:

(i) As China essentially controls the supply of key materials (for example, lithium, cobalt, aluminium, processed graphite, nickel, copper and so-called rare earths) without which renewables cannot be manufactured, the UK would greatly increase its already damaging dependence on it, putting its energy and overall national security at most serious risk.^xi While impoverishing Britain, Net Zero is enriching China.

(ii) The vast mining and mineral processing operations required for renewables are already causing appalling environmental damage and dreadful human suffering throughout the world, affecting in particular fragile, unspoilt ecosystems and many of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people; the continued pursuit of Net Zero would make all this far worse.^xii

3. In any case it’s pointless.

For two reasons:

(i) It’s absurd to regard the closure of greenhouse gas (GHG) emitting plants in the UK and their ‘export’ mainly to SE Asian countries, commonly with poor environmental regulation and often powered by coal-fired electricity, as a positive step towards Net Zero; such action will increase global emissions. Yet efforts to ‘decarbonise’ the UK mean that’s what’s happening: it’s why we no longer produce key chemicals and, by closing our few remaining blast furnaces, will soon be unable to produce high quality steel.

(ii) Most major non-Western countries – the source of over 70% of GHG emissions and home to 84% of humanity – don’t regard emission reduction as a priority and, either exempt (by international agreement) from or ignoring any obligation to reduce their emissions, are focused instead on economic and social development, poverty eradication and energy security.^xiii As a result, global emissions are increasing (by 62% since 1990) and are set to continue to increase for the foreseeable future. The UK is the source of less than 1% of global emissions – so any further emission reduction it may achieve cannot have any impact on the global position.^xiv

In other words, Net Zero means the UK is legally obliged to pursue an unachievable, potentially disastrous and pointless policy – a policy that could well result in Britain’s economic destruction.

Robin Guenier September 2024

Guenier is a retired, writer, speaker and business consultant. He has a degree in law from Oxford, is qualified as a barrister and for twenty years was chief executive of various high-tech companies, including the Central Computing and Telecommunications Agency reporting to the UK Cabinet Office. A Freeman of the City of London, he was Executive Director of Taskforce 2000, founder chair of the medical online research company MedixGlobal and a regular contributor to TV and radio.

End notes:

ihttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/27/part/1/crossheading/the-target-for-2050

ii See Vaclav Smil’s important book, How the World Really Works: https://time.com/6175734/reliance-on-fossil-fuels/

iii See Andrews & Jelley, “Energy Science”, 3rd ed., Oxford, page 16: http://tiny.cc/4jhezz

iv For a view of wind power’s many problems, see this: https://watt-logic.com/2023/06/14/wind-farm-costs/ This is also relevant: https://davidturver.substack.com/p/debunking-cheap-renewables-myth

v A detailed Government report: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65855506fc07f3000d8d46bd/Employer_skills_survey_2022_research_report.pdf See also pages 10 and 11 of the Royal Academy of Engineering report (Note 6 below).

vi See this report by the Royal Academy of Engineering: https://nepc.raeng.org.uk/media/uoqclnri/electricity-decarbonisation-report.pdf (Go to section 2.4.3 on page 22.) This interesting report contains a lot of valuable information.

vii In this report the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis indicates serious uncertainties and shortcomings regarding CCS: https://ieefa.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Gorgon-Carbon-Capture-and-Storage_The-Sting-in-the-Tail_April-2022.pdf Also see this: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/07/24/how-failure-carbon-capture-risks-net-zero-nightmare-labour/

viii This article shows how more renewables could result in blackouts: http://tiny.cc/lnhezz

ixhttps://www.cityam.com/uk-fiscal-watchdog-puts-cost-of-reaching-net-zero-at-1-4trn/

x The National Grid ESO has said net zero will cost £3 trillion: https://www.current-news.co.uk/reaching-net-zero-to-cost-3bn-says-national-grid-eso/. And in this presentation Michael Kelly, Emeritus Professor of Technology at Cambridge, shows how the cost would amount to several trillion pounds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkImqOxMqvU

xihttps://www.dw.com/en/the-eus-risky-dependency-on-critical-chinese-metals/a-61462687

xii See this for example: http://tiny.cc/3lhezz. Arguably however the most compelling and harrowing evidence is found in Siddharth Kara’s book Cobalt Red – about the horrors of cobalt mining in the Congo: https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250284297/cobaltred

xiii This essay shows how developing countries have taken control of climate negotiations: https://ipccreport.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/the-west-vs-the-rest-2.1.1.pdf (Nothing that’s happened since 2020 changes the conclusion: for example see the ‘Dubai Stocktake’ agreed at COP28 in 2023 of which item 38 unambiguously confirms developing countries’ exemption from any emission reduction obligation.)

xiv This comprehensive analysis, based on an EU Commission database, provides – re global greenhouse gas (GHG) and CO₂ emissions – detailed information by country from 1990 to 2023: https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2024?vis=ghgtot#emissions_table

The dominant narrative in climate science holds that Arctic sea ice loss is almost entirely driven by human-induced global warming, primarily from CO2 emissions. Yet, a Nature Communications study titled Role of Atmospheric Rivers in Shaping Long-Term Arctic Sea Ice Variability highlights a crucial factor that has been largely overlooked: atmospheric rivers (ARs). These ARs—narrow, intense streams of water vapor originating in tropical and mid-latitude regions—play a significant role in Arctic sea ice variability, a phenomenon that traditional climate models fail to adequately capture.

By concentrating so heavily on CO2 as the main culprit of Arctic sea ice decline, mainstream climate models ignore the complex interactions between natural atmospheric phenomena and sea ice variability. This omission exposes the significant limitations in our understanding of the Arctic’s climate, and by extension, the reliability of the climate models driving current policy.

What Are Atmospheric Rivers, and Why Are They Important?

Atmospheric rivers are immense, fast-moving channels of water vapor that can transport moisture across vast distances. These rivers are known for delivering enormous quantities of water in the form of rain or snow when they make landfall, but their influence on the Arctic is less understood. The Nature Communications study shows that ARs can have a profound impact on the Arctic’s sea ice cover, both in terms of accelerating melt and contributing to periods of ice recovery.

These atmospheric rivers inject warm, moist air into the Arctic, which increases the temperature in the region and melts sea ice. The moisture they bring also plays a significant role in cloud formation, which in turn affects the energy balance of the Arctic system. Yet, despite this, ARs are often left out of the conversation when discussing Arctic ice loss, as the focus remains firmly fixed on CO2 emissions. This begs the question: why are such natural forces so often ignored in the narrative?

Abstract

Atmospheric rivers (ARs) reaching high-latitudes in summer contribute to the majority of climatological poleward water vapor transport into the Arctic. This transport has exhibited long term changes over the past decades, which cannot be entirely explained by anthropogenic forcing according to ensemble model responses. Here, through observational analyses and model experiments in which winds are adjusted to match observations, we demonstrate that low-frequency, large-scale circulation changes in the Arctic play a decisive role in regulating AR activity and thus inducing the recent upsurge of this activity in the region. It is estimated that the trend in summertime AR activity may contribute to 36% of the increasing trend of atmospheric summer moisture over the entire Arctic since 1979 and account for over half of the humidity trends in certain areas experiencing significant recent warming, such as western Greenland, northern Europe, and eastern Siberia. This indicates that AR activity, mostly driven by strong synoptic weather systems often regarded as stochastic, may serve as a vital mechanism in regulating long term moisture variability in the Arctic.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-49857-y

The Complexity of Arctic Sea Ice Variability

One of the most valuable contributions of this study is how it emphasizes the complexity of Arctic sea ice variability. The study documents that atmospheric rivers play a dual role in the Arctic: at times, they can melt sea ice by delivering heat, while in other instances, they help stabilize or even recover sea ice under certain conditions. This nuanced effect is vital to understanding why Arctic ice levels are not following the simplistic, linear trajectory of decline that CO2-centric climate models predict.

For example, in years with fewer or weaker atmospheric rivers, sea ice can recover, even in the context of an overall warming trend. Conversely, strong or frequent AR events can lead to accelerated ice loss. This dynamic, episodic interaction starkly contrasts with the popular portrayal of Arctic sea ice loss as an inevitable, unidirectional consequence of increasing CO2 levels. Instead, it points to a system where natural variability and short-term weather events play as significant a role as long-term climate trends.

The Limitations of Current Climate Models

The study’s findings expose significant deficiencies in the climate models that underpin much of the global warming narrative. These models, which are the foundation for policies like Net Zero and the Green New Deal, are primarily driven by the assumption that rising CO2 levels are the dominant force behind climate change. Yet, as the Nature Communications study reveals, atmospheric rivers—completely unrelated to CO2 emissions—are major drivers of Arctic sea ice variability.

Why do current climate models fail to account for such phenomena? The answer lies in the inherent limitations of these models. Climate models are built on assumptions and simplifications that struggle to accurately capture complex, chaotic atmospheric interactions like ARs. As a result, their projections tend to overestimate the impact of CO2 and underestimate or outright ignore natural variability.

This creates a problematic situation where policymakers are making decisions based on incomplete or faulty data. If atmospheric rivers, which are unpredictable and chaotic, can exert such a significant influence on the Arctic, it calls into question the reliability of long-term projections made by models that neglect them.

Natural Variability: A Long-Ignored Factor

The role of natural variability in shaping the Arctic’s climate is another critical point highlighted by the Nature Communications study. Arctic sea ice levels have fluctuated significantly in the past, long before the industrial era. Periods of Arctic warming in the early 20th century, for example, occurred with no significant rise in CO2 levels, pointing to the influence of natural climate drivers, including atmospheric rivers and oceanic cycles.

This should make us question why modern climate science tends to downplay or ignore the role of natural variability in current climate trends. The idea that CO2 is the singular driving force behind Arctic changes is not supported by historical evidence. The Arctic has always been subject to complex interactions between atmospheric and oceanic forces, and atmospheric rivers are just one example of such natural drivers.

Yet, today’s climate models tend to gloss over these complexities, focusing instead on greenhouse gas emissions as the primary explanatory variable. This not only leads to inaccurate predictions but also promotes a one-dimensional understanding of climate dynamics, particularly in the Arctic.

ARs, which can cause rapid and extreme moisture surges, may lead to significant Arctic melt events and initiate positive feedback loops. Future studies are essential to explore these potential new roles of ARs in AA as the Arctic continues to warm.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-49857-y

Arctic Sea Ice Recovery: An Inconvenient Truth

Another inconvenient fact often omitted from the CO2-driven narrative is the occasional recovery of Arctic sea ice. While it’s true that there has been a long-term decline in sea ice, periods of recovery—such as those observed after the dramatic low in 2012—undermine the idea of a linear decline. The Nature Communications study suggests that atmospheric rivers can create conditions conducive to ice recovery, depending on their timing and intensity.

For example, a lower-than-average occurrence of ARs in certain years has allowed for the temporary recovery of Arctic sea ice. This goes against the projections of climate models that had forecast an ice-free Arctic by now. It turns out the Arctic is more resilient than many alarmist predictions would have us believe, largely because these predictions fail to consider the full range of forces—like ARs—that influence ice variability.

This raises an important point: how reliable are the models if they cannot account for the natural forces that occasionally lead to sea ice recovery? This is not just an academic question—it has serious implications for the climate policies being pursued around the world today.

Questioning Drastic Climate Policies

Given the findings of the Nature Communications study, it becomes increasingly difficult to justify the extreme climate policies being advocated by governments and international organizations. The Net Zero agenda, which seeks to eliminate all carbon emissions, is premised on the idea that human-induced CO2 is the primary driver of climate change. But if natural variability, including phenomena like atmospheric rivers, plays a significant role in climate dynamics, then the rationale for these policies becomes less clear.

This doesn’t just affect scientific debates—it has real-world consequences. The costs of achieving Net Zero, in terms of both economic disruption and environmental degradation from mining for rare earth metals for renewable technologies, may far outweigh the supposed benefits. Worse, by focusing on CO2 reduction as the sole solution, these policies ignore more practical, adaptive strategies that could better help societies cope with the impacts of climate change—whatever its causes.

The Unsettled Science of the Arctic

Ultimately, the Nature Communications study serves as a reminder that the science of the Arctic, and by extension, climate change as a whole, is far from settled. Atmospheric rivers, oceanic cycles, and other natural phenomena play significant roles in shaping the Earth’s climate, yet they are often ignored in favor of simplistic, politically convenient narratives centered around CO2 emissions.

The failure to adequately model and predict the influence of ARs on Arctic sea ice is just one example of how climate science still has much to learn. Policymakers should take heed: enacting drastic climate measures based on incomplete or inaccurate models could do more harm than good.

The lesson here is one of humility. The Earth’s climate is a complex, dynamic system with many interacting parts. By reducing it to a single variable—CO2—we risk not only misunderstanding the problem but also implementing ineffective and potentially harmful solutions.

As the Nature Communications study shows, the influence of atmospheric rivers on Arctic sea ice variability is a critical factor that cannot be ignored. It’s time we move beyond the oversimplified, CO2-centric models and embrace a broader, more nuanced understanding of the forces at play in our climate system.

Conclusion: A Call for Rethinking Climate Models and Policies

The study on atmospheric rivers has given us a valuable insight into the complexity of Arctic sea ice variability. The role of ARs in both ice melt and recovery provides a clear challenge to the simplistic view that Arctic changes are primarily driven by CO2 levels. This should prompt us to rethink the way we approach climate science and, more importantly, climate policy.

By acknowledging the limitations of current models and embracing a more holistic understanding of climate dynamics, we can develop more effective, adaptive strategies that better serve both the environment and humanity. The Arctic’s fate is not as straightforward as many would have us believe, and neither should be the policies we enact in response to its changes.