ExxonMobil is Proper: Internet Zero Efforts Will Result in a Decrease High quality of Life – Do You Agree?
From climate realism
By Linnea Lueken
A recent Bloomberg article, titled “Exxon Says Achievement of Net Zero Global Emissions by 2050 Is ‘Highly Unlikely’,” describes a regulatory filing submitted by Exxon Mobil Corporation, indicating that with there would be significant risk associated with phasing out oil and gas production and use. Exxon and Glass Lewis, the consultant they referred to, are correct. Forgoing oil and gas in pursuit of net-zero emissions by 2050 would seriously affect the living standards of people around the world.
According to Bloomberg, Exxon said, “The International Energy Agency’s (IEA) net-zero emissions scenario, which calls for a phase-out of most fossil fuels by 2050, has little bearing on reality.”[.]”
They go on to say that it is “highly unlikely that society would accept the deterioration in global living standards required to sustain a scenario such as the IEA NZE.”
Exxon representatives are right. Several polls have shown that while the majority claim to support “climate action,” they are far less enthusiastic once they see the actual price. For example, a 2016 United Nations survey concluded that concerns about climate change ranked last.
Californians offers a good case study. As pointed out in Climate Realism, while Californians are often celebrated for their commitment to climate change, their support dwindles when polls support a climate tax. A California county executive polled the public, seeking support for a 0.25 percent tax hike to meet climate goals. However, the poll did not produce the two-thirds majority needed to pass the tax.
Europeans, who are generally more comfortable with government climate initiatives, also do not support these plans once they start directly impacting their way of life. A recent YouGov poll of several thousand Europeans in different countries found that most Europeans said they were concerned about climate change. However, when the poll asked how much they were willing to sacrifice, support quickly dwindled. Most were not in favor of limiting meat and dairy consumption, paying more for electricity or energy-efficient appliances, limiting the number of children, or restricting or banning internal combustion engine vehicles.
Since fossil fuel use is the backbone of all these parts of life, it makes sense to say that once the masses realize the impact it would have on everyday life, it is “highly unlikely” that a fossil fuel phase-out would be supported .
Limiting or eliminating the use of fossil fuels will undoubtedly lead to higher food prices, since every step of large-scale food production relies on them and the by-products of their refining. Fertilizers and pesticides are by-products of natural gas production, and plastics and other specialty materials are made from the by-products of oil and gas refining. Large tractors run on diesel fuel; The steel required for heavy agricultural machinery is made from coal. Transportation fuels bring food from farm to table, the list goes on and on, and that’s just for agribusiness. For example, as Climate Realism has detailed here, here and here, the food supply is already being threatened by efforts to ban the use of fossil fuels in agriculture.
Fossil fuels are even used in the mining, refining, manufacturing, transportation, and construction of renewable power sources such as wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, and electric vehicles.
Exxon recognizes this and should be encouraged to continue reporting these facts. If voters were informed of the true cost of net-zero emissions, it might be harder for the alarming media and politicians to force it on the public.
Linnea Lueken is a research fellow at the Arthur B. Robinson Center for Climate and Environmental Policy. During her internship at the Heartland Institute in 2018, she co-authored a Heartland Institute policy brief entitled Debunking Four Persistent Myths About Hydraulic Fracturing.