The complex economics & trade-offs of 'net zero'

At the polar-opposite ends of the ‘net zero’ policy debate are two fatuous positions we may caricature thus:

A.  renewable energy is so cheap and creates so many excellent new jobs, the whole thing will easily pay for itself in economic terms alone (never mind “saving the planet”): it’s just a matter of some easily-afforded up-front investment and a bit of planning;

Z.  the very attempt to bring about a ‘net zero’ economy will destroy the entire existing economy.

Along the spectrum between these two extremes are so many subtle trade-offs that have presumably been resolved to their own satisfaction [1] by those who’ve made their way to one of the extremes.   Except, we don’t see their working displayed very often.

Here are a few:

• Renewables are in fact more expensive than the energy mix they are designed to replace.  True: but we often decide to pay more for a cleaner outcome (cf the Clean Air Act, the water industry, etc etc).
• The roll-out of what we might call a ‘net-zero-intended’ programme would create a lot of new jobs.  True: but the industries that will be made obsolete along the way will collapse (often “by mistake”[2]) before any kind of equilibrium, let alone positive balance is established.
• There are virtually no short term benefits of most[3] individual ‘net-zero-intended’ projects upon completion: and even the supposed long-term benefits are questionable.  True, but in certain circumstances the Keynsian insight about digging holes has a lot of force.
• Nuclear energy ticks a lot of ‘net zero’ boxes.  True, but nobody has truly resolved the short-term / long-term calculus on nukes.
• Something approximating ‘net zero’, as currently envisaged, would make us less energy-dependent on imports in the long term.  True, but in detail this is an exceptionally complex issue both to characterise fully, and still more to ‘optimise’.

And so on.  

All this deserves better policy-making than we get.  And more transparent, too.  I am heartily sick of being lied to – by both ‘sides’.

ND

___________________

[1] Obviously that credits them with at least rudimentary intellectual processes that in practice may not have troubled them too much.

[2]  Watch, for example, the UK oil & gas industry, as illustrated here (always assuming the collapse of the mining sector isn’t enough evidence already).  The Unions know this, of course.

[3] Most, but definitely not all.