ExxonMobil was right, net zero efforts cause a lower quality of life – Are you satisfied with that?

From climate realism

Via Linnea Lueken

A recent Bloomberg article, titled “Exxon says reaching net zero global emissions by 2050 ‘Very unlikely’,” describes a regulatory filing released by Exxon Mobil Corporation that indicates there will be significant risks associated with phasing out the production and use of oil and gas. Exxon and Glass Lewis, the advisors they referred, were right. Eliminating oil and gas in pursuit of Net-Zero emissions by 2050 will severely affect people’s living standards globally.

According to Bloomberg, Exxon said “The International Energy Agency (IEA) net zero-emission scenario, which models the phasing out of most fossil fuels by 2050, makes little sense in practice.[.]”

They go on to say that “it is highly unlikely that society will accept the deterioration in global standards of living required to achieve a scenario like the IEA NZE in perpetuity.”

The Exxon rep was right. Many polls have shown that even though the majority declares support for “climate action,” when they see the actual price, they are much less enthusiastic. For example, a United Nations poll conducted in 2016, concerns about climate change are dying.

Californians provide a good case study. As covered by Climate realism, ThisAlthough Californians are often celebrated for their climate goodwill, when polled in favor of a climate tax, their support falls flat. A California county council polled the public, seeking support for a 0.25 percent tax increase to use on climate goals, and the poll failed to produce 2. Three-thirds of the support they need to pass the tax.

Europeans, who are generally more satisfied with government climate initiatives, are also not supportive of those plans once they begin to directly impact their lifestyles. ONE recent YouGov . poll of several thousand Europeans across different countries, found that most Europeans said they were worried about climate change. However, when the poll asked how much they were willing to sacrifice, support quickly dwindled. Most are not in favor of limiting meat or dairy consumption, paying more for electricity or energy-efficient appliances, limiting the number of children they have, or limiting or banning internal combustion engine vehicles.

Since fossil fuel use is the backbone of all these parts of life, it is reasonable to say that it is “very unlikely” that the phasing out of fossil fuels will be supported once the realize its impact on daily life. Have.

Limiting or eliminating the use of fossil fuels will inevitably lead to higher food prices, because every step of large-scale food production depends on them and the by-products from refining them. . Fertilizers and pesticides are created as a by-product of natural gas production, while plastics and other specialized materials are created from oil and gas refining byproducts. . Large tractors run on diesel fuel; steel required for heavy agricultural equipment manufactured with coal; transportation fuel that gets food from farm to fork, the list goes on and on, and that’s just agriculture. EQUAL Climate realism widely covered, This, ThisAnd ThisFor example, food supplies have been threatened by efforts to ban the use of fossil fuels in agriculture.

Fossil fuels are even used in the extraction, refining, production, transportation and construction of renewable electric energy sources such as wind turbines, solar panels, batteries and electric vehicles.

Exxon knows this and should be encouraged to continue publishing these facts. If voters are aware of the true cost of net zero, it may be more difficult for the alarmed media and politicians to coerce the public.

Linnea Lueken