Net-zero is unachievable....

This interesting from Forbes - www.forbes.com/sites/jimmagill/2021/02/22/blue-vs-green-hydrogen-which-will-the-market-choose/?sh=6abc72633878


The cost of alkaline electrolyzers made in North America and Europe fell 40% between 2014 and 2019, and Chinese-made systems are already up to 80% cheaper than those made in the West,” the report states. The IREA predicts that green hydrogen could be produced for between 8 cents/kg and $1.6/kg in most parts of the world before 2050.

“This is equivalent to gas priced at $6/MMBtu to $12/MMBtu, making it competitive with current natural gas prices in Brazil, China, India, Germany and Scandinavia on an energy-equivalent basis, and cheaper than producing hydrogen from natural gas or coal with carbon capture and storage.”

Noble effort to not prove your non-point since nowhere does it say the problem of global warming is caused by humans. activity.

This thread is following a familiar path - with the usual lies like that above about what "scientists" believe. I can't remember that last time I heard a scientist talking about climate change - only politicians.

So let's look at the facts:
1. The problem with "net-zero" is that it assumes that if we stop producing CO2 we'll save the planet - hence net-zero. But even the IPCC have said that eliminating CO2 production will make no difference to the Earth's climate for a couple of centuries. And the scientists have NEVER said that CO2 is the predominant cause of climate change is CO2 anyway.
2. So we're focusing all our energies on achieving an impossible goal that won't help anyway.
3. You can make ad hominem attacks on the good Doctor Whatever-his-name is but the fact that he worked for oil companies doesn't mean he's wrong. He made one mistake when he said that hybrid cars are "very efficient" but most of what he said was pretty accurate. ELectric cars are another dead end that our politicians have chosen to go down - like diesel. They will prove to be more polluting than petrol cars because batteries are very dirty technology. Petrol cars just emit CO2 and water nowadays. But the damage to the environment done by Li/Co mining and their disposal after the battery is dead are huge. Same for solar panels. And the idea that the infrastructure to make BEVs work will be available by 2030 is a sick joke - or even 2130. We need many more nuclear power stations and a huge number of charging points - and even then it won't work because the technology to allow batteries to charge up quickly is not available - or even close.
4. The other problem with BEVs is that they're staggeringly heavy, so they release particulates from their tyres at a great rate - which are very dangerous. They also damage the road and are inefficient because of their weight. The greenest car is a small light petrol car.
5. The use of hydrogen is interesting. In hydrogen fuel cell cars it's a very green form of energy. HFC cars produce only water out of their tailpipe - and they also clean their air as they go along because they have to have filters to prevent particulates damaging the fuel cell. And the water they emit is clean enough to drink. They're less efficient than batteries (50% against 80%) but more efficient than ICE cars (30%) but HFC cars are genuinely completely clean.

However, when you're talking about using hydrogen in ICE cars or in boilers it is NOT green - even though many people (including most politicians) think that it just emits water (like an HFC) which is sadly not true. The fact is that hydrogen burns at very high temperatures which means that the nitrogen drawn in from the atmosphere is converted to nitrogen oxides (N2O, NO and NO2) which are all toxic. That's what killed off the diesel, remember. But hydrogen produces far more NOX than diesels.
6. As the good Doctor said (IIRC) wind turbines are a sick joke. They cost a fortune to build and maintain and their blades kill wild life and last a fraction of the time that their manufacturers claim - and are difficult to recycle.
7. Et cetera. There are just so many problems with all this net-zero rubbish that it's hard to remember them all. Suffice it to say, it will NEVER happen. But CO2 is almost certainly not the main cause of warming anyway. It's houses/roads/infrastructure/people... What we need is population control.

Well you've obviously basing your statement on a sound knowledge so perhaps you can show the proportions of man's and other activities that cause climate change. For instance how much does forestry destruction affect us, how much does the shift of polar axis affect climate, either across Earth or in specific areas, how much are we affected by deep ocean currents, what effect does unnecessary transport have; there are many more questions to which I can't find answers. 

As the OP has said net-zero is unachievable - certainly in the short-term but also probably in the foreseeable future. And it's worth bearing in mind that there has never been any proof that increasing CO2 causes warming in the Earth's system - the Earth's stabilisers (photosynthesis etc) prevent that from happening. Of course if we eliminate the Earth's stabilisers all bets are off. However the climate models are based on the assumption that increasing CO2 causes warming. They've invented a coefficient that postulates a certain amount of warming for each ppm increase of CO2, and they adjust the coefficient to try to match what happens. So far they've been gradually lowering it. But it is only an assumption. Remember that. 

The IPCC baseline the temperature from which they measure the global temperature increase (which they want to keep below 1.5C) as the average global temperature in 1850. How we actually know what the average global temperature was then is a valid question, but let's just assume it's accurate. In 1850 the global population was about 1 billion. It's now 8 billion - and we've "repurposed" 75% of the planet's land area to accommodate this number of people. We've deforested on a huge scale (Britain, for example, was mainly forest back then - it's now down to about 11%), and we've urbanised huge areas (which we KNOW causes higher temperatures).

Yet the politicians tell us that this is irrelevant. All of the 1.1C degree rise is caused by the rise in CO2 from 280 ppm to 420 pp. Bollocks.