The grand deception of Net Zero: The million-dollar cost of climate alarm

For years, the environmentalist and degrowth narrative has sold Net Zero as an inexorable panacea that offered growth, green jobs, low costs and a saved planet. The official narrative has been relentless with anyone who dared to question it. In recent times, however, the panacea has lost its luster, both economically and scientifically and, above all, politically.

Now, in Great Britain, a devastating new report from the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) has emerged on the true cost of this transition that dealt a blow to the green utopia. The publication unveils the goal of Net Zero as a project based on fanciful assumptions, creative accounting and a systematic manipulation of public opinion.

What the author, David Turver, reveals coincides with the criticism that scientists, economists and specialists have had since certain political currents unconsultedly and irresponsibly embraced this drastic degrowth plan: that no one, absolutely no one, knows how much Net Zero will really cost and what its real impact will be.

"The Net Zero debate must be based on facts, not fantasies or climate faith."

Continuing with the U.K., in 2019, Philip Hammond was warning Theresa May of a cost in excess of 1 trillion pounds ($1.35 trillion). The following year, National Grid was talking about 3 trillion. In 2025, the Office for Budget Responsibility mentioned 803 billion for the Treasury alone. The Committee on Climate Change estimated in 2015 that reducing emissions by 80% would cost 1.5 trillion pounds. Years later, magically, the total cost of Net Zero between 2025 and 2050 was reduced to just 108 billion pounds. And now, analyst David Turver estimates that the real cost could be 9 trillion: more than 300,000 pounds per British household.

How is such a disparity possible, and who is responsible for such a gap? Manipulation of figures, calculations based on a hypothetical scenario and creative mathematics have been a constant within climate influencers, who, incidentally, have not had a single correct guess since they started forecasting apocalypses and catastrophes.

The benefits of Net Zero: More expensive and less reliable energy

The IEA report systematically dismantles the assumptions. The costs of the transition have been artfully and systematically underestimated, while those of installation, maintenance and a key factor—the backup needed for when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine—are swept under the accounting carpet. Not to mention what no one talks about: the damage to wildlife and pollution generated by the production and disposal of these energies. Finally, there is the problem that no environmentalist wants to face. Renewable energy is intermittent by nature.

It is intended to replace a reliable energy system with one that is completely dependent on the weather. Batteries can compensate for fluctuations of hours, but not weeks of cloudy skies and still air. The solutions offered by politicians consist of maintaining traditional energy sources as backup, but operating them sporadically or not maintaining them makes them brutally expensive. In conclusion, the long-suffering citizens are paying double for energy, which at this stage of civilization should be extremely cheap.

The consequences are already palpable, and now comes the really perverse part: even if we were to accept the sensationalist narrative on climate change (and more and more scientific voices are questioning it), the benefits of Net Zero for the planet are mathematically nil.

Britain accounts for less than 1% of global emissions, and that figure is still falling. If the country were to literally go back to the caves tomorrow, the impact would be indistinguishable. This truth is replicated for every place where this insane policy was or is intended to be implemented. Meanwhile, China is building coal-fired power plants at an industrial pace and India is accelerating its fossil fuel industrialization. The result is that Britain's energy-intensive industries such as steel, chemicals, cement, etc., will either move their production to countries with cheaper energy and no emissions restrictions or go bankrupt. It is suicide disguised as virtue.

When Donald Trump criticized Keir Starmer for his green policies and called for leaving windmills behind, the reaction from the media and progressive politicians in general was overwrought indignation. No one exposed data, partly because degrowth is political dogma and partly because no one has any idea what this criminal plan really costs. No one seems to care. Targets have been set decades ahead and move at the pleasure of politics, conveniently beyond the careers of those who set them.

But Net Zero is not limited to the energy sector. It has become a control system that permeates the entire British economy. Companies must achieve emissions targets not only in their direct operations, but across their entire value chain: suppliers, transporters, customers and even employees. No major British company escapes this control. It is a tool of corporate social engineering, implemented with regulatory zeal and no real democratic debate.

Facts, not fantasies or climate dogma

The other manipulation that should not be hidden is that of public debate. Because many polls show popular support for green policies, but we do not know if the questions are really comprehensive and if they include informing citizens that this means skyrocketing energy bills, more expensive food, unemployment, cold, misery and progressive deindustrialization. And they are not informed that this is a totally useless effort!

Because the other scandal of Net Zero, in addition to its stratospheric cost, is the zero profits. It is the absolute lack of honesty. It has been sold as inevitable and affordable when it is a conscious political decision to prioritize dogma over the standard of living of ordinary people. Public agencies must recognize that the project is simply a fantasy of elites who are insulated from reality.

The Net Zero debate must be based on facts, not fantasies or climate faith. And without depriving society of the decision of whether to go ahead with this pipe dream. But let it be an informed decision, voted on at the ballot box, not a bureaucratic imposition disguised as scientific inevitability. The scandal of the cost of Net Zero reveals not only the degrowth fanaticism but the bubble of falsehoods that was implemented to sustain it.