Our government, and a number of other Western governments, are committed to a goal of “net zero.” That is, our countries will add nothing further to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Any emissions of CO2 (e.g., breathing) will be balanced by absorption of CO2 by, e.g., plants. Various dates are specified in these aspirational statements, none of them realistic. And of course, the world’s main sources of atmospheric CO2 (China and India now account for most of the world’s CO2 emissions) have no intention of cutting their CO2 emissions, let alone cutting them to net zero.
But suppose we did it. Suppose we spent countless trillions, destroyed our electric grid and reduced our standard of living to a pre-industrial level. How much would an American “net zero” affect global temperatures?
This paper by three of the world’s leading scientists, Richard Lindzen, William Happer and W. A. van Wijngaarden, of MIT, Princeton and York University respectively, undertakes a mathematical calculation to answer that question:
Using feedback-free estimates of the warming by increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and observed rates of increase, we estimate that if the United States (U.S.) eliminated net CO2 emissions by the year 2050, this would avert a warming of 0.0084 ◦C (0.015 ◦F), which is below our ability to accurately measure. If the entire world forced net zero CO2 emissions by the year 2050, a warming of only 0.070 ◦C (0.13 ◦F) would be averted. If one assumes that the warming is a factor of 4 larger because of positive feedbacks, as asserted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the warming averted by a net zero U.S. policy would still be very small, 0.034 ◦C (0.061 ◦F). For worldwide net zero emissions by 2050 and the 4-times larger IPCC climate sensitivity, the averted warming would be 0.28 ◦C (0.50 ◦F).
See the link for the mathematics. One important factor is that CO2 is relatively saturated in the atmosphere. Each incremental addition of CO2 adds less and less warming:
The proportionality of the temperature increment ∆T to the logarithm of the concentration ratio C/C0 means that the warming from increased CO2 concentrations C is “saturated.” That is, each increment dC of CO2 concentration causes less warming than the previous equal increment. Greenhouse warming from CO2 is subject to the law of diminishing returns.
Dr. Happer has commented on the paper:
“This is something anybody with a calculator can figure out,” said [Dr. Happer], who may be best known for his contribution to a laser-based technology for destroying incoming ballistic missiles as part of the so-called Star Wars program of the 1980s.
***
Noting that others using different approaches have come to conclusions similar to the paper’s, Dr. Happer said he and his coauthors wanted to show that the controversial subject of climate change need not be complicated.“More members of the public should understand that they are being victimized by false information disseminated by those whose interests have more to do with money and power than with environmental concerns,” he said. “Answers found in relatively simple mathematics strongly suggest this to be the case.”
I think that is right. “Green” forces are trying to engineer the biggest transfer of wealth since the Industrial Revolution, shifting trillions of dollars out of some industries (and out of the pockets of taxpayers and ratepayers) and into their favored industries. There is nothing noble about this effort. On the contrary, it is a contemptible attempt to stop the progress of history and condemn billions to permanent poverty. It also will have no perceptible effect on the Earth’s climate, as real scientists–not the “climate scientists” who so often have their fingers in the till–have been arguing for a long time.
