Gabriel Moens and John McRobert have penned a misleading article full of flawed analogies and unsupported claims.

Climate policies aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promote sustainable practices, and ensure long-term economic stability. Research shows that shifting to renewable energy can create jobs, cut health costs from pollution, and foster innovation, debunking the idea that these policies harm industry and commerce.

Achieving Net Zero emissions is both feasible and essential to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. The IPCC outlines clear paths to Net Zero, and many countries and businesses are making significant progress. Comparing climate science to historical delusions, as described by Charles Mackay, ignores the robust scientific consensus on human-caused climate change, supported by organizations like NASA, NOAA, and the WHO.

Transitioning to a low-carbon economy can drive economic growth. Investments in renewable energy, energy efficiency, and sustainable technologies create jobs, lower energy costs, and enhance energy security. The risks of not addressing climate change pose a far greater threat to economic stability, such as higher costs from extreme weather events, health impacts, and biodiversity loss.

The claim that high levels of CO2 benefit plant growth is a gross oversimplification. While CO2 is essential for photosynthesis, the negative impacts of climate change (such as extreme weather, altered precipitation patterns, and increased pests and diseases) outweigh any potential benefits. Ecosystems and agricultural systems are adapted to current CO2 levels, and rapid changes disrupt these systems.

The article also cites independent studies supposedly disproving the link between CO2 and climate change. Yet peer-reviewed research is far more reliable, and it overwhelmingly supports the connection between CO2 and climate change.

Renewable energy sources like solar and wind have a significantly smaller environmental footprint compared to fossil fuels. Land use for renewable energy can be managed sustainably, with technology continuously improving efficiency and reducing land requirements. Renewable energy also reduces pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, leading to healthier ecosystems and communities.

No Dan, it isn't limited to politicians. It is people who believe themselves correct beyond measure, with all others at least wrong, or worse, evil.

I'm watching South Australia: A failure to realise the ambition of 100% renewables by 2027 might end the odyssey, but given the intention to build a wind and solar system several times the cost of nuclear, I suspect that the zealots will dig their heels in.

Hi John,

"Research shows that shifting to renewable energy can create jobs, cut health costs from pollution, and foster innovation, debunking the idea that these policies harm industry and commerce."

That might be the glowing new world you learn about from the climate cultists, but I live in the real world. The economic and environmental harm from pursuing renewable energy is real, and I'm sure that the many people who have lost businesses and jobs might feel somewhat conflicted having you tell them that they are all better off because the research says so.

Reality is king, John, and it isn't supporting your story. A prosperous nation is founded on cheap and dispatchable energy. Wind and solar are neither.

Fester,

Reality certainly reigns, and research consistently shows that it is not on your side, with renewable energy projects creating more jobs than the fossil fuel industries.

For example, IRENA reported that the renewable energy sector employed 12 million people globally in 2020, with this number expected to grow significantly as the world transitions to cleaner energy sources. While there has been some disruption in some industries, the overall job creation potential in the renewable energy sector offsets job losses in fossil fuels. Retraining programs and new job opportunities in renewables can help ease this transition.

Moreover, numerous studies highlight the economic benefits of renewable energy, including reduced health costs due to decreased air pollution. A study by the Harvard School of Public Health found that reducing pollution from coal power plants could prevent thousands of premature deaths annually and save billions in healthcare costs. Claims that renewable energy harms the economy ignore these substantial savings and health benefits. The initial costs of transitioning to renewables are often offset by long-term savings in healthcare and environmental remediation.

Regarding energy reliability and cost, while wind and solar energy are variable, advancements in energy storage and grid management technologies are making these sources more reliable and cost-effective. The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for wind and solar has dropped significantly over the past decade, making them competitive with or even cheaper than fossil fuels in many regions. The idea that wind and solar are neither cheap nor reliable is outdated. Investments in battery storage and smart grid technologies are addressing intermittency issues, enhancing the reliability of renewable energy sources.

Dismissing the well-documented benefits of renewable energy overlooks the comprehensive evidence supporting job creation, economic savings, and technological advancements. Reality and research show that renewable energy can contribute to a prosperous and sustainable future. For further reading, you can check out these sources:

IRENA Report, 2021: Renewable Energy and Jobs Annual Review.
Harvard School of Public Health Study, 2014: Clean Energy Health Benefits.
International Energy Agency (IEA), 2020: Renewable Energy Market Update.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), 2021: Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis.

"The idea that wind and solar are neither cheap nor reliable is outdated."
John,

Wind and solar are non-dispatchable. That is a fact and won't change.

As for the economic contribution, fossil fuels generate more than iron ore in exports, or about 20% of exports. They generate hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue, making a huge contribution to government revenue and the economy.

In contrast, renewables represent an annual import deficit of how many billions of dollars? They cost taxpayers at least seven billion a year in taxpayer subsidies, although government tries hard to hide the figure. Then there is the economic damage from rising power costs.

Keep believing all the bs in the glossy sales brochures and "research" if you wish, but note that France built over 150% of its electricity demand with carbon free nuclear in fifteen years from the mid 1970s. Than infrastructure now earns the French billions of Euros in electricity exports annually.

Why pursue an unproven wind and solar based generation system when nuclear has a track record of doing the job reliably and at much lower cost? It's nuts. And how will South Australia get to net zero by 2027? It's currently importing over half its demand and generating nearly two thirds of its local power from gas. Total fantasy.

https://aemo.com.au/en/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/data-nem/data-dashboard-nem

Why do the stupid indoctrinated insist on not understanding the "renewables" folly ?
I bet no-one from the renewables camp can actually offer an explanation let alone proof of one single "renewable" component that can be produced with zero emission !