Is the UK's Net Zero Drive 'Economic Suicide'?
GB News interview Professor Steve Koonin on the new US Climate Policy & Science
GBNews recently discussed a shift in the US's climate policy, where the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may reverse its stance on fossil fuel emissions being a primary driver of climate change and a threat to health.
In this video, physicist and former US government adviser, Professor Steve Koonin provides a damning critique of the UK’s Net Zero strategy and urges policymakers to rethink their approach. Koonin was the science chief for President Obama. He argues that:
Existing climate models are unreliable and overstate the impact of human activity.
There is no imminent climate catastrophe.
The economic and health impacts of warming are minimal, and that cold-related deaths significantly outweigh heat-related deaths globally.
Adaptation and research and development in new energy technologies should be preferred, instead of costly "Net Zero" policies like those in the UK.
Net Zero will lead to "economic suicide" with little climate benefit.
The US Context: A Potential Climate Policy Reversal
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering declaring that fossil fuel emissions are no longer seen as the primary driver of climate change or a threat to human health.
This could be a dramatic reversal of 16 years of policy that identified greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide as an urgent danger. The report A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate was co-authored by five highly respected scientists: Steve Koonin, John Christy, Judith Curry, Ross McKitrick and Roy Spencer. It aims to provide a more accurate and nuanced scientific picture, relying on official data, peer-reviewed literature, and UN/US government assessment reports.
Key Scientific Insights Challenging the Catastrophic Narrative
Professor Koonin highlights several findings from his report and broader climate science that challenge the prevailing narrative of an existential climate crisis:
Minimal Economic Impact: Official US government reports from the Biden administration itself indicate that the economic impact of warming on the US will be minimal. Projections suggest that over the next 70 years, a few degrees of warming would only decrease economic growth (e.g., from 400% to 380% growth), a difference considered "in the noise" by physicists and not an "existential catastrophic crisis". Similar trends are seen globally, though poorer countries might be more impacted. [This is why I have argued consistently that the best way to protect poorer countries is to help them to become richer.]
Net Decrease in Temperature-Related Deaths: While heat-related deaths are a concern, Professor Koonin points out that far fewer people are dying from extreme cold globally – about nine times fewer than from extreme heat. As average temperatures warm, cold temperatures are warming more rapidly, leading to a net decrease in deaths from extreme temperatures. But this begs the question - why isn’t this simple fact better understood?
Unreliable Climate Models: Koonin states that climate models are "pretty awful" and provide only a "hazy picture." They disagree significantly on sensitivity to carbon dioxide (by a factor of three) and often fail to accurately reproduce observed temperature rises, especially at regional levels. He notes that professionals themselves acknowledge these models are "not at all fit for purpose at the regional level". [I wrote about this topic in my article Hot climate models and unrealistic assumptions are undermining public trust in climate action.]
Lack of Observable Trends for Many Climate Impact Drivers: A table in the most recent UN climate science report (IPCC Working Group One, Chapter 12) shows that for about 30 different climate impact drivers (e.g., high/low temperatures, storms, floods, droughts, sea level rise), no observable trend has been seen in the last century. This lack of evidence for a "broken climate" contradicts common warnings.
Forecasts Based on Implausible Scenarios: Many catastrophic forecasts are based on models acknowledged to be unreliable and on "extreme scenarios for what future emissions will be that the IPCC itself declares as implausible".
The "99% Consensus" Nuance: Koonin clarifies that while there's broad agreement that the climate is changing, greenhouse gases are increasing due to fossil fuels, and they exert a warming influence, the consensus breaks down when discussing how significantly the climate will respond and whether impacts will be catastrophic. He advocates for an honest public discussion of the science.
Implications for the UK: Economic Suicide?
The UK is legally bound to achieve Net Zero by 2050, involving costly measures like banning petrol cars and promoting heat pump schemes, alongside rising "green taxes". Professor Koonin argues that the UK's approach is already causing significant economic damage:
Minimal Direct Climate Benefit: The UK's contribution to global CO2 emissions is less than 1%, meaning anything it does to reduce emissions will have a "minimal direct effect on the climate".
Economic Damage Already Underway: He believes the UK is already damaging its economy, citing an increasingly expensive and unstable electricity grid due to the push for wind and solar, manufacturing shutdowns, and rising costs for households. From his perspective, it looks like "economic suicide" for very little, if any, benefit. [Even the Office for Budget Responsibility is sounding alarm as I discussed in my article Britain's Looming Fiscal Storm.]
Unrealistic Expectations for Renewable Costs: The idea that wind and solar systems will be cheaper than traditional gas or coal systems is a "fantasy." Building a reliable electrical system on intermittent wind and solar requires enormous costs for backup systems (nuclear, gas turbines, large batteries), leading to prices "two or three times what you thought you were going to pay". [I wrote a short article on this issue called Innovative fuel development heralds new era in transport. Superficially it looks like an argument against EVs, but it really isn’t. Rather it’s a metaphor for the realities of trying to run our grid on renewable energy.]
A Call for Adaptation and Rethink
Instead of focusing solely on emissions reduction, Professor Koonin suggests a two-fold sensible strategy:
Adaptation: Investing in adaptation measures like seawalls and air conditioning. Adaptation is proportional, local, visible, and currently more economical. [I wrote about this in my article Adapting to climate change won't cost the earth.]
Research & Development (R&D): Developing new, cost-effective emissions-reducing technologies that are no more expensive than existing alternatives. He notes that China's president has stated they won't change their electricity system until a workable alternative exists, a contrast to the West's "rushed headlong" approach.
Koonin hopes the potential US policy shift marks an "emperor's new clothes moment" for Europe, Japan, Australia, and Canada, prompting a more realistic examination of climate science and policy. He observes that some regions are already quietly rethinking their strategies, such as the EU embracing nuclear power and the UK relaxing its internal combustion engine ban.
Ultimately, Professor Koonin believes policymakers and the public should be "enraged" that they haven't been told important nuances about climate science. He calls for harder questions to be asked of "consensus scientists" to ensure a more complete and nuanced picture informs policy decisions.