International Energy Agency’s Net Zero Dream Debunked as a Nightmare

Wikimedia Commons, Julie Anne Workman
Please Share This Story!
Net Zero 2050 means that “net emissions of carbon dioxide will need to fall to net zero by 2050”. This is Technocracy’s scam in order to control all available energy and hence, all economic activity and human consumption. CO2 is not, nor has ever been, our enemy. Without it, green plants do not grow. Green plants produce O2 for humans to breathe. What is hard to understand? ⁃ TN Editor

First they came for the cars. Then the gas stoves. Next was meat and dairy products. The latest on the chopping block? Wood-fired pizza. These types of tactics grab the headlines, but make no mistake: climate alarmism courses through the veins of the highest levels of government leaders and regulators.

As President Joe Biden would say, “I’m not joking, folks.”

Give Biden credit for one thing: he has been honest about his intentions. As garbled as his public remarks can be, Biden has left no doubt as to where he stands on the climate debate.

As president-elect, he listed climate change as one of the four most pressing threats facing our nation. As president, he called for a net zero emissions economy by 2050, going even further than his old boss Barack Obama. Facing a tough reelection and a restless liberal base, he has no incentive to change course.

Should the climate crew get its way, the consequences extend far beyond pizza or steaks (as unpleasant as that may be).

In May 2021, the International Energy Agency (IEA) publicized a report, “Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector.” It was portrayed as a roadmap for Biden and other climate zealots.

Because of its noble-sounding intentions and a sympathetic mainstream media, the preposterous nature of a world without carbon rarely gets the scrutiny that it deserves.

Until now.

For these reasons, the RealClearFoundation asked the Energy Policy Research Foundation (EPRF) to analyze the feasibility and consequences of a carbon-neutral world.

The results of the meticulous 92-page report weren’t pretty.

First, the report examines some of the more unreasonable assumptions. For example, the IEA plan is based on China, the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, also embracing the wisdom of going carbon-neutral, beginning in 2021. One immediate problem: China was producing two new coal plants per week in 2022. Addressing energy before a speech to the Communist Party Congress last fall, President Xi Jinping was focused on “getting the new before discarding the old.”

Second, to make up for fossil fuels (which account for 80% of the world’s energy supply), the world needs more electricity — a lot more electricity. In fact, global power supply needs to increase from less than 20% of all energy use to 50% by 2050.

Of course, setting aside feasibility questions, the consequences would be dire and all too recognizable. Soaring inflation. Spikes in gas prices as supply and production are constricted. More land gobbled up for wind and solar farms. An increased reliance on OPEC+ monopolizing the world’s oil supply, even as high as 82%, placing our nation’s geopolitical security in the hands of nations who wish us harm. If this sounds familiar, it is: it’s what we are going through right now because of bad decisions coming out of Washington, D.C.

These are the stakes as our next presidential election kicks off. On the Democratic side, the incumbent, Biden, has made his green positions clear. Facing a stronger-than-expected primary challenge from environmental activist Robert Kennedy, Jr., he has no incentive to change course.

Meanwhile, the Republican side is taking shape. More than 10 candidates have announced. Still others are waiting in the wings.

During the Biden administration, American families have grown painfully aware of the role of energy in their lives. A series of domestic policy decisions surrendered American energy independence, contributed to 40-year-high inflation, and drove the price of a gallon of gasoline north of $5 per gallon.

Power The Future, the nonprofit organization that I run, recently issued a survey to each declared candidate. Our goal is to better understand the respective visions for our energy future. Our hope is to jump-start a productive and meaningful conversation.

One thing is clear: climate zealots have their plan. Groups like the International Energy Agency aren’t shy about where they want us to go. They are well organized and have unlimited financial resources.

We need to be prepared to fight back with facts, figures, and a roadmap of our own. Otherwise, a future world without carbon is not out of the question. As delicious as wood-fired pizza is, the lack of it surely won’t be the worst problem we’re facing.

The Critique

The IEA’s Original Report

About the Editor

Patrick Wood
Patrick Wood is a leading and critical expert on Sustainable Development, Green Economy, Agenda 21, 2030 Agenda and historic Technocracy. He is the author of Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation (2015) and co-author of Trilaterals Over Washington, Volumes I and II (1978-1980) with the late Antony C. Sutton.
Notify of

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

[…] International Energy Agency’s Net Zero Dream Debunked as a Nightmare […]

Ephesians 5-6

The consequences of individual elections are trivial compared to consequences of letting a culture die by protracted post modern suicide. This and its precursors have given the green agenda its traction, because many generations have allowed a long spiritual decline. Though the naturalism behind the elevation of science to divinity, and its twisting into scientism, has not yet run its entire course, its being supplanted by something more nefarious. That something is new life for an amalgamation of ancient pagan and occult belief and practice. It now manifests in diverse and varied belief systems under various names; cherry picked and… Read more »


…this article ‘spells’ out the sinister aspect of this agenda … …here’s a snippet…’But, as I have explained in previous writings, ‘Net Zero’ is a quasi scientific fiction, completely devoid of reason or rational thought. It utilises two abstracted meaningless words ‘net’ and ‘zero’ to convey something that everybody is supposed to understand as a saviour remedy for an overheating planet, but which is actually a scurrilous plot for the decimation of life on earth. Please be aware: ‘Net Zero’ exactly fits the description of what we are told run-away global warming would do to our living planet. The… Read more »