What do you think?
Rate this book
Not Zero: How an Irrational Target Will Impoverish You, Help China
The British government has embarked on an ambitious and legally-binding climate change reduce the country's greenhouse gas emissions to Net Zero by 2050. The Net Zero policy was subject to almost no parliamentary or public scrutiny, and is universally approved by our political class. But what will its consequences be? Ross Clark argues that it is a terrible mistake, an impractical hostage to fortune which will have massive downsides. Achieving the target is predicated on the rapid development of technologies that are either non-existent, highly speculative or untested. Clark shows that efforts to achieve the target will inevitably result in a huge hit to living standards, which will clobber the poorest hardest, and gift a massive geopolitical advantage to hostile superpowers such as China and Russia. The unrealistic and rigid timetable it imposes could also result in our committing to technologies which turn out to be ineffective, all while distracting ourselves from the far more important objective of adaptation. This hard-hitting polemic provides a timely critique of a potentially devastating political consensus which could hobble Britain's economy, cost billions and not even be effective.
- GenresNonfictionPolitics
272 pages, Hardcover
Published February 2, 2023
7 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
September 5, 2023
This book has managed to inflame the passions of both progressives and traditionalists at the same time. As things stand currently, that is quite an achievement. The basic argument of the book is that the legal commitment to achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050 is likely to be remembered as one of Theresa May's biggest acts of folly. The author constructs a convincing case to support his contention.
The first point of contention made by the author is that the whole question of de-carbonisation is surrounded by a mass of vague assertion and appeals to emotion. There is very little factual analysis despite calls to follow the science. The science is actually far more hesitant than climate activists would have us believe. The first thing a climatologist will tell you is that the weather is not the climate, and that one hot (or cold, or windy, or whatever) summer is not evidence of climate change. It could have been caused by the usual amount of variation within weather patterns.
By placing net zero within a legal framework, Theresa May has invited the judiciary to become involved in public policy. This has already resulted in the delay - if not the cancellation - of airport development. It would be unwise to allow the fabric of our built infrastructure to become fossilised into the patterns of the early twenty first century. But this is where we are heading.
This might not be disadvantageous, except that the rest of the world is moving on. Here the author makes two points that count. The first is that, by contributing about 1% of global emissions, the move to net zero by the UK alone is not likely to have an appreciable impact upon the course of climate change. The gesture only has relevance if an appreciable number of other nations act accordingly. The second point is that they aren't. Whilst the UK is absorbing the costs and disruption of moving to net zero, very little progress has been made elsewhere.
The distribution of the costs of the transition to net zero are likely to be the factor that de-rails the whole policy. The cause of net-zero is very much an elitist concern that has very little traction with the average voter. The imposition of the net-zero framework has a democratic deficit similar to that of the EU in the UK. We are already seeing popular push back against net-zero schemes, such as the London ULEZ, and this is likely to escalate because the net-zero is not a particularly popular cause. Once the costs of the transition to net-zero to ordinary people become evident, there is likely to a popular clamour to either moderate the pace (net-zero by 2075?) or abandon the target completely. If the mainstream parties don't adopt this stance, there may well be populist parties who will.
All in all, I found this to be a fairly level headed book. It is a polemic against the emotional arguments of the activist lobby and it attempts a rational assessment of the pros and cons of action. It aims to achieve a sense of balance to an unbalanced debate. The book is enhanced by the journalistic style of the author, who takes complex ideas and explains them with a degree of clarity. He is not one of those climate authors who bore their readers. Whilst we may not agree with all he has to say, he is an important counter-balance against the emotional naivety of many climate activists.
The first point of contention made by the author is that the whole question of de-carbonisation is surrounded by a mass of vague assertion and appeals to emotion. There is very little factual analysis despite calls to follow the science. The science is actually far more hesitant than climate activists would have us believe. The first thing a climatologist will tell you is that the weather is not the climate, and that one hot (or cold, or windy, or whatever) summer is not evidence of climate change. It could have been caused by the usual amount of variation within weather patterns.
By placing net zero within a legal framework, Theresa May has invited the judiciary to become involved in public policy. This has already resulted in the delay - if not the cancellation - of airport development. It would be unwise to allow the fabric of our built infrastructure to become fossilised into the patterns of the early twenty first century. But this is where we are heading.
This might not be disadvantageous, except that the rest of the world is moving on. Here the author makes two points that count. The first is that, by contributing about 1% of global emissions, the move to net zero by the UK alone is not likely to have an appreciable impact upon the course of climate change. The gesture only has relevance if an appreciable number of other nations act accordingly. The second point is that they aren't. Whilst the UK is absorbing the costs and disruption of moving to net zero, very little progress has been made elsewhere.
The distribution of the costs of the transition to net zero are likely to be the factor that de-rails the whole policy. The cause of net-zero is very much an elitist concern that has very little traction with the average voter. The imposition of the net-zero framework has a democratic deficit similar to that of the EU in the UK. We are already seeing popular push back against net-zero schemes, such as the London ULEZ, and this is likely to escalate because the net-zero is not a particularly popular cause. Once the costs of the transition to net-zero to ordinary people become evident, there is likely to a popular clamour to either moderate the pace (net-zero by 2075?) or abandon the target completely. If the mainstream parties don't adopt this stance, there may well be populist parties who will.
All in all, I found this to be a fairly level headed book. It is a polemic against the emotional arguments of the activist lobby and it attempts a rational assessment of the pros and cons of action. It aims to achieve a sense of balance to an unbalanced debate. The book is enhanced by the journalistic style of the author, who takes complex ideas and explains them with a degree of clarity. He is not one of those climate authors who bore their readers. Whilst we may not agree with all he has to say, he is an important counter-balance against the emotional naivety of many climate activists.
February 2, 2024
Balanced and persuasive. Largely grounded in fact and well reasoned arguments. I would have enjoyed more focus on nuclear fission.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews