He’s not grasped it at all:

It suggests that large businesses should prepare a plan
to show how they would manage their transition to being net zero carbon
emitters. This requirement is consistent with the expectation that economies
as a whole achieve this state, which many governments have now committed
to. The plan would apply to the business and its supply chain.

We don’t want each component of the economy to be carbon neutral. We desire the economy as a whole to be so.

Sigh.

41 thoughts on “Idiot”

  1. Wouldn’t we expect a plan for what happens to the whole economy? A mind map, maybe. One with an investigation of how near we can get to carbon neutrality, how much each step nearer costs, what the effect will be if nobody else does it, and so on. The current plan if there is one seems determined to destroy just about every bloody thing to achieve the square root of SFA.

  2. I for one don’t want any part of the economy to be carbon neutral, most certainly not my personal and business part of it.

    When will this unscientific madness end?

  3. Well your plan to be a net zero carbon emitting entity could be one sentence long. “Buy carbon credits/indulgences from a company that absorbs carbon dioxide.”

    There are a few things that really only can be done (well) with fossil fuels. Commercial aviation comes to mind. Absent a nuclear-propelled aircraft (and people prepared to get on one, or live anywhere near where they fly), it’s difficult to imagine a way of travelling 6,000 miles in one hop without oil.

    Not a lot, but enough that there will always be some carbon dioxide emission. So either you can’t have a zero-carbon economy, you can have a zero-carbon economy and someone will have to be packing the stuff up somewhere other than the atmosphere ,or you can have a zero-carbon economy and go back to being grateful for your daily cold bowl of raw turnip peel in your freezing eco-yurt while the local mosque ululates the call to benefits and unaccountable nabobs zip by in their (electric) Zil lanes (hat tip Steve, I think, inspired prescience that was).

    Which of the three futures do you suppose they have in mind for us?

  4. The heading for section 3 of the linked paper.

    “For whose benefit changed is required”

    Pretty well summarises the thought & care that’s gone into it.

  5. 30 years ago many predictions were made about what would happen due to there being slightly more CO2 in the atmosphere. These predictions were made on the assumption that this extra CO2 would have a warming effect. None of these predictions have come true, in many cases the opposite to what was predicted happened. The whole premise behind the climate change scare has been falsified. So, what exactly is the point of all this carbon neutral crap when the whole basis for doing it has been disproven?

  6. He clearly believes that “the economy as a whole” means “the whole individiual parts of the economy”.

    Logically, he would have to apply this to the rest of the world. A family as a whole needs to be net financially solvent –>> each and every individual in a family needs to be net financially solvent, get up that chimney!

  7. “Stonyground
    So, what exactly is the point of all this carbon neutral crap when the whole basis for doing it has been disproven?”

    The point is that you can get a grant for producing reports on carbon neutral crap.

  8. Talking of business, the Grauniad tells name that “Dennis Muilenburg took over as chief executive of Bowing in 2015”.

    The tin-eared company board said “a change in leadership was necessary to restore confidence in the company moving forward as it works to repair relationships with regulators, customers, and all other stakeholders”.

    Some might think that repairing their aircraft was more urgent. Some might think that a bromide about “moving forward” is rather crass when the issue is about their planes moving downward.

  9. What if the planet in its 4.5 billion year-old wisdom desires and needs more or less carbon and we, in our folly, pursuing carbon neutrality, deprive it of what it needs?

  10. Emil,
    Stop being an intolerable pendant.

    And, as you are an intolerable pendant, there is no such thing as co2. At the very least both C and O are capital letters. If the HTML tags work, it’s CO2 yer after.

  11. Spud is, of course, jumping on yet another bandwagon he knows nothing about.

    I suspect it wouldn’t be too hard to get Murphy to sign up to the banning of dihydrogen Monoxide. It is after all a major component of acid rain.

  12. Mr C, “I suspect it wouldn’t be too hard to get Murphy to sign up to the banning of dihydrogen Monoxide. It is after all a major component of acid rain.”

    Rather like Chris Morris getting Phil Collins to wear a ‘nonce’ t-shirt.

    There, but for the grace of God, etc. etc. …

  13. ‘which many governments have now committed to’

    They did so well with the Kyoto Protocols, why not demand more?

    They all stared at each other at COP25 and wondered, “Who can we get to go first?”

    Murph jumps up, “WE WILL! WE WILL!”

  14. Man! I feel old. When I was in high school, everyone — even the guys doing shop class and the girls doing home ec — had to sit through some basic science and learn about the “Carbon Cycle”. Plants absorb life-giving CO2 from the air, and photosynthesize food; we animals eat the food, and return the CO2 to the air. Without CO2 in the air, life would come to a screeching halt.

    Later on, those of us who took more advanced high school science classes learned that commercial growers buy CO2 and pipe it into greenhouses to improve plant growth.

    Strange that now it seems the best & brightest from Ivy League universities are incapable of opening a textbook and learning that for themselves.

    And don’t get me started on the utter ignorance of talking about “greenhouse gas”. A greenhouse works by interrupting convective heat transfer. CO2 does not interrupt convective heat transfer — it (along with other much more significant gases like water vapor) redirects radiative heat transfer. The proper term for CO2 and H2O in vapor phase is “Radiatively Active Gas”. But the beautiful people would not want to mention “radiation”, even if they understood what it was.

  15. Bloke in North Dorset

    Emil,

    co2 is not carbon

    Notwithstanding BiG’s comment, why can’t co2 self identify as carbon if it wasn’t to, bigot?

  16. Spud notices that the £ has slipped back to its pre election exchange rate against the €. Based on one index over one week, this is proof that

    “Disaster capitalism is on its way…..”

    Delusional f’ing moron.

  17. Most of the economy is services. Suppose you are, say, a firm of chartered accountants. Just how can you achieve carbon neutrality? No heat, no light, no computers, no business. It really isn’t up to them to work out a carbon neutral way of generating electricity, is it?

  18. @GL: it is, of course, a wonderful joke that the buggers don’t know how a greenhouse works but it doesn’t change the physics at all, it simply means that the label is ill-judged.

    The big trick that lets them predict thermogeddon is to add the water vapour effect into the models to amplify the CO2 effect. But nobody knows whether extra evaporated H2O will remain as vapour or whether it will condense and join clouds, thus acting as a lovely parasol. I repeat: nobody knows the physics. You might guess, of course, from the fact that the models overpredict temperature rise (even after the measurements have been substantially tampered with to aid the global warmmongering case).

  19. Unintended funny BBC headline

    “Boeing chief fired but 737 concerns persist”

    No wonder they fired him. 1 or two concerns, OK, but 737?

  20. Bloke in Costa Rica

    Kerl in Deutschland, this is what you’re looking for: CO₂. The U+2082 codepoint.

    Murphy on science is even more woeful than on the approximately 200 million other things about which he doesn’t have a fucking Scooby.

  21. The journal doesn’t appear to be peer-reviewed. Indeed, given that he doesn’t credit any reviewers at all, I wouldn’t even use this paper to wipe my arse with.

  22. “We desire the economy as a whole to be so.”

    This point is lost even at the micro-economic level.

    I read a assessment, admittedly by a pro-EV magazine, that given an amount of diesel used to power a traditional ICE driven car, the same could power a generator and charge a battery in an EV much more efficiently (more mileage).

    If true, I I personally would believe it, does this not mean putting the generator in the car itself to replace the battery is an even better way of driving the car? This is not as crazy as it sounds, Mr Porsche built such a vehicle in the early 1900s and even designed a tank based on it.

    But for the eco-purists, the very notion that a drop of dirty filthy fossil fuel can soil their lovely clean electricity is enough to discount the concept, even though, until we reach an renewable nirvana, at some point in the chain of manufacture or generation there will always be a substantial amount of fossil fuel burnt.

    The 200 ton block of concrete that holds your wind turbine in the ground didn’t come about with fairy dust.

  23. @Runcie B
    That’s a diesel-electric, which is how most diesel locos are powered (except in Germany, for some reason). The problem is that it makes the complete power train very heavy, which isn’t a huge problem for a train, but is for a road vehicle.

    Hybrid cars work in a very similar way (with a small battery to help balance the load), but they use petrol engines, because there’s a lot of stop/start which doesn’t suit diesels – and the jury’s still out on whether they’re any more efficient than a diesel of equivalent power.

  24. “…..We desire the economy as a whole to be so…..”

    NO! NO! A thousand times No!

    ACTIVISTS desire the economy as a whole to be ‘carbon neutral. The overwhelming majority of people are quite happy with things as they are, thank you.

    Incidentally, the Earth is a closed cycle, so any activity is neutral with respect to everything. What you presumably mean is that the activists don’t want any human activity to have CO2 as an output. Good luck living with that….

  25. Incidentally, the Earth is a closed cycle…

    Erm… except with regard to energy input, which is what skates us onside with respect to the Second Law, no?

  26. @dcardno

    Without Mr Sun, life on earth would not exist

    Trump has faced down the anti-CO2 eco-loons, more need to follow him or we face China & India ruling the world

  27. You are correct, Chris Miller. The diesel locomotive is run by electric motors, which receive their electricity from diesel generators. There is no electrical storage for the drive train, though there is considerable storage for the loc’s starters, lighting and other electricals.

    “I read a assessment, admittedly by a pro-EV magazine, that given an amount of diesel used to power a traditional ICE driven car, the same could power a generator and charge a battery in an EV much more efficiently (more mileage).”

    Likely true. My friends’ hybrid Priui get better mileage when running electric with charge from engine and no traction from engine.

    Runcie, you describe the electric boat, i.e. conventional submarine. A configuration developed by the Germans between the world wars. Their diesels drive generators which charge batteries. The motors are powered completely from the batteries. The diesels have no mechanical connection to the drive shafts at all.

  28. “Incidentally, the Earth is a closed cycle, so any activity is neutral with respect to everything.”

    Which has long been my point – all the CO2 sequestered in coal and oil was once in the atmosphere (only about 300m year ago in fact). Its not like all that CO2 has been magically introduced into the Earth’s carbon system by Man from some outside source. Its just that we are liberating it back to whence it came. The Earth survived for billions of years with very high CO2 levels and I’m sure it will manage again just fine, with or without humans.

  29. “The Earth survived for billions of years with very high CO2 levels and I’m sure it will manage again just fine, with or without humans.”

    There’s a Green Dichotomy there.

    The Greentards pretend to want to save the planet to keep it habitable to humans.

    Greentards hate humans.

  30. ‘prepare a plan to show how they would manage their transition to being net zero carbon
    emitters’

    Betcha Murphy is an expert at preparing plans to show how to manage transition to being net zero carbon emitter. Prolly on his business card.

    (This is an employment needed advertisement.)

    ‘The plan would apply to the business and its supply chain.’

    FULL EMPLOYMENT FOR RICKY !!!

  31. @dcardno

    Yes. I forgot +1, sorry

    @Gamecock

    Toyota Pious: engines are most efficient at peak torque, problem is speed wanted not=, hence wide flat torque; however this reduces peak efficiency at one RPM. Pious attempts to keep peak engine efficiency by battery charge/discharge

    Toyota did sell a coach with CVT gas turbine based on this for a few years, but no battery/elec-motor; it failed to sell as not efficient in real world use

    +1s too

    @Jim

    +100

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *