Climate Policy Turnaround The Death of Net Zero
Gerald Ratzer, Professor Emeritus, McGill, Montreal
Terigi Ciccone, Engineer, Gas Turbines, Climate Educator
Douglas Lightfoot, Mechanical Engineer, video: "Nobody's Fuel"
Michael Hancock, Energy Policy Advisor, website: allaboutenergy.net
John Shanahan, Civil Engineer, website: allaboutenergy.net
Abstract
This paper presents the findings of the Climate Discussion Group (CDG2024) to examine climate science and policy critically. The authors argue that Net Zero policies have led to significant economic and social disruptions, citing case studies from Sri Lanka, the Netherlands, Germany, Spain, and Portugal. The paper highlights recent political and policy reversals in response to public backlash against stringent climate measures, particularly in the agriculture and energy sectors. It contends that reliance on wind and solar energy has undermined grid reliability and industrial competitiveness, contrasting the outcomes of nuclearfocused France with those of Germany and the UK. The authors advocate for a shift away from Net Zero, dismantling the IPCC, and cessation of subsidies for renewables, asserting that CO₂’s warming effect is negligible, and that climate alarmism is unfounded. The paper concludes by calling for policy turnarounds that prioritize energy security, economic growth, and open scientific debate.
Introduction
The five authors of this paper formed a team that created a climate discussion group called CDG2024. It ran from September 2024 through to its final report in January 2025. Over 100 professionals contributed some 500 pages of technical and climate policy ideas. They came from 22 countries and represented a wide range of disciplines and opinions. All the submitted material is in the public domain and freely available at the website allaboutenergy.net. There are seven categories on the technical side and six categories on policy issues. Here is a summary of this project.
The mission of this four-month Climate Discussion Group included:
1)An update on the state of Climate Science.
2)An update of Recommendations for Policymakers.
3)An effort to bring non-alarmist climate scientists together so we can be more effective in fighting human-caused climate change alarmists and their public leaders.
As commented by Tom Shula – “This forum has allowed me to gather thoughts on a lot of issues. It’s an open forum for expression, which didn’t exist before. I think it’s a shame input is going to be cut off.”
There has been an informal continuation, with some 80 people on a long email thread. This has been an unmoderated discussion group, and some participants were irritated by a few of the scientists who only wanted to discuss their research to the exclusion of all other ideas. There is a 45-page edited version of this discussion at this link. Be warned that much of the dialogue is technical. There is a search for a better way to host and manage the discussion going forward.
Turnaround Policies
Here is a case study of a policy turnaround trying to implement Net Zero policies. The Sri Lankan government imposed a sudden and sweeping ban on the import and use of synthetic (nitrogen) fertilizers and agrochemicals in April 2021. The stated aim was to promote organic agriculture and reduce import costs
The ban was in place for about six months. Due to widespread protests from farmers, dramatic declines in crop yields, and rising food insecurity, the government began easing restrictions selectively after around five months, allowing synthetic fertilizers for certain crops like tea The full ban was officially revoked in November 2021, and the private sector was again allowed to import chemical fertilizers. By January 2022, Sri Lanka had resumed large-scale imports of chemical fertilizers.
Here is a more recent example of a “Climate Policy Turnaround” in Europe. The Dutch farmers’ protests have been ongoing since 2019, with major escalations in 2022 and renewed demonstrations in 2023 and 2024. The most significant protests occurred in June 2022, when the Dutch government announced plans to drastically reduce nitrogen emissions, which would have forced many livestock farmers to cut
back or close their farms. This sparked nationwide protests, including road blockades and mass demonstrations.
The protests continued into 2023, with a major demonstration in The Hague on March 11, 2023, and further actions following the breakdown of negotiations between farmers' organizations and the government in June 2023. Dutch farmers were also part of the broader wave of European farmers’ protests that began in December 2023 and continued into 2024, targeting environmental regulations and other agricultural policies.
The sustained protests led to significant political change. The Farmer-Citizen Movement (BoerBurgerBeweging, BBB), a party founded in 2019 to represent farmers’ interests, achieved a breakthrough in the 2023 provincial elections and subsequently played a key role in the formation of a new conservative coalition government in May 2024. This marked the first time an activist farmers’ party entered government in the Netherlands. The new coalition agreement signalled a major shift in government policy:
• The government will no longer aim to reduce the livestock population or enforce forced expropriations of farms.
• Future agricultural and nitrogen policies will be developed in close consultation with farmers, focusing on practical solutions and aligning with, but not exceeding EU standards.
• The Ministry of Agriculture was renamed to emphasize food security and the interests of farmers.
The recent Dutch farmers’ protests, peaking in 2022–2024, directly contributed to a change in government and a reversal of key agricultural and nitrogen policies. The Farmer-Citizen Movement’s entry into government marked a significant political and policy response to the farmers’ demands.
This policy turnaround or 180-degree reversal example would be relevant to other countries, such as Ireland, where there is a major agricultural sector.
We now move on to a different form of “turnaround” with the energy choice of nuclear as opposed to wind and solar. Here we use the example of France versus Germany regarding nuclear energy generation. Germany went Green for two decades and lost much of their industrial base. Same in the UK. Their electricity prices are among the world’s highest. German households pay 40-euro cents per kWh while France pays 20-euro cents
per kWh. Why the difference, when both neighboring countries are comparable in size? The answer lies in the energy policies of the two countries.
French and German Nuclear Programs
France derives about 70% of its electricity from nuclear energy, making it one of the most nuclear-dependent countries in the world. This reliance is rooted in longstanding policies aimed at energy security and reducing fossil fuel dependence. The French government has agreed to provide EDF (Électricité de France) with a subsidized loan covering at least half the construction costs for these reactors, with the final investment decision expected by mid-2026. The French Senate and Parliament have passed legislation to accelerate the construction of new nuclear facilities and streamline regulatory processes. France currently operates 57 nuclear reactors, but many are ageing and require replacement or refurbishment. Investments are also being made in nuclear fuel recycling, with plans for a new spent fuel storage facility at La Hague by 2040. France is the world’s largest net exporter of electricity, thanks to its low-cost nuclear generation. The country is active in nuclear technology exports and is investing in research on small modular reactors (SMRs) and fourth-generation reactor designs. France remains committed to nuclear power as the backbone of its energy strategy, with major investments planned in new reactors and supporting infrastructure, despite delays and significant modernization challenges.
Germany's nuclear energy program has undergone significant shifts, marked by a complete phase-out in 2023 but now facing renewed political debate about a potential revival. Germany's commercial nuclear power began in 1969, eventually generating ~25% of its electricity by 2011 through 17 reactors.
The initial phase-out plan under the SPD-Green coalition targets a shutdown by 2022, with the full phase-out in 2023. 31 reactors are being dismantled, with some sites already cleared.
High energy prices are linked to reliance on imports and fossil fuels, contributing to a 0.3% GDP decline in 2023. Germany’s nuclear program remains officially phased out, but political pressure and energy realities have reignited debates about
a partial revival, particularly for recently closed reactors. The CDU-led push faces opposition but reflects broader concerns about energy costs and industrial stability. This stark difference in energy policy, with the Green parties advocating Net Zero policies, has been the cause of a factor of two to one in electricity prices compared to France, with its large fleet of nuclear power stations. The high price of electricity in Germany has been the cause of an erosion of its industrial base. The situation in the UK is similar to its main steel industry on the verge of closing. Net Zero policies are detrimental to economic and industrial growth.
Summary of 2025 Turnarounds
• With the new Trump administration, there has been a dramatic set of turnarounds in policy issues (~140) compared to the Biden administration.
• Concentrating just on climate and Net Zero policies – the US has exited from the ParisAgreement, exited from the IPCC, and cancelled many of the Obama climate directives.
• These include the more technical EPAEndangerment Finding, same for LNT - Linear No-Threshold, nuclear regulations, etc.
• Legal cases concerning Net Zero – Chevron deference, Wyoming, Happer & Lindzen Amicus Briefs, etc.
• Texas turnaround for reliable wind and solar power generation.
Afurther case study of the impact of Net Zero policies was demonstrated by Spain and Portugal on the Iberian Peninsula at the end ofApril 2025. During the week of the 21st ofApril, Spain was bragging that it had a weekday with most of its electrical power generated by wind and solar. The following week both Spain and Portugal were plunged into a complete power failure, as the grid could not cope with the wild swings - synchronization of frequency from multiple asynchronous sources; lack of electrical inertia from spinning turbines – and swings from bright sun to nightly darkness and a lack of wind at the end of the day. Many modern services like the internet, cell phones, airport and train services, traffic signals, hospitals,ATMs, etc., all failed at the same time. There is no substitute for 24 x 7 reliable power, like gas turbines, which came to the rescue. The GWPF also echoes this point.Also in Denmark. The above energy policy decisions are also called out by Ronald Stein and his
regular articles on different forms of energy generation. He points out that coal & oil came before electrical power generation, and oil derivatives are needed for every form of power generation construction. What he is referring to is the 6,000 products made by the petrochemical industry. This includes all forms of plastics, insulation, resins, paints, transformer moderators, etc. He also points out that many forms of power generation do not produce any other product other than electricity. This includes hydro, geothermal, nuclear, wind, and solar. Oil and its derivatives are needed in every one of the five methods just mentioned. These five methods have made a minimal contribution to land and sea transportation and essentially zero to aviation. But airports do need reliable electrical power to operate. Any Net Zero policy to exclude fossil fuels, like coal, gas, and oil, is doomed to failure, as demonstrated by the case of Germany, Spain, Portugal, and the UK above.
“Sir Tony Blair called for a ‘reset’of the UK’s approach to climate change, arguing that Net Zero was losing public support.” This recent declaration is an interesting 180-degree turnaround, as he was instrumental in laying the groundwork for Net Zero in the UK. The Stern Review (2006) was a landmark economic analysis of climate change, commissioned by Blair’s government, which influenced global climate policy discussions.
Clintel is a worldwide organization of 2,000 scientists and professionals who have signed the World Climate Declaration. The members agree there is no climate emergency and write extensively about both the technical weather and climate details, along with policy recommendations.An example of their activity was reflected in the conference held in Prague last November. At the end of the conference, a communique summarized the main points covered. The last one was a call for the dismantling of the IPCC. There have been many cases of misleading science in the IPCC reports, which bases many of its assertions on a set of computer climate models and not real, unedited empirical data.
Here is a quote from the Clintel communique –“18. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which excludes participants and published papers disagreeing with its narrative, fails to comply with its own
error-reporting protocol and draws conclusions some of which are dishonest; it should be forthwith dismantled.”
The authors of this paper support biodiversity and sustainability, but not carbon reduction, carbon capture and sequestration as proposed in some countries chasing the Net Zero goals. See a paper on this topic by Terigi Ciccone and Gerald Ratzer. Page 4 explains the section in bold at the top of this paragraph.
Wishlist for the rest of 2025
While an Executive Order (EO) has been signed for the cancellation of the Endangerment Finding (EF), its status in law is still to be confirmed. There will be court cases to contest the EO. The newAdministrator of the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) is Lee M. Zeldin. He is tasked with removing all parts of the Endangerment Finding from the EPARegulations. The same applies to the LNT (Linear No-Threshold) and its impact on nuclear regulations, which have been disproved and rescinded by EO but must be enacted and codified into law. A new 47-page document written by Professors Happer and Lindzen considers the legal implications of EF, Net Zero, CO2 regulations and the supremacy of the Scientific Method.
While more of a climate issue, we would like to see the death of GHE, the Greenhouse Effect. Papers from our team show that the GHE is a broken analogy – our atmosphere is open, and our greenhouse has no windows! The previous link in the last sentence is to a recent paper of ours that gives a simplified view of this topic, with page 18 explaining that the Earth’s greenhouse has no windows More and more people now recognize that CO2 has a minute warming effect on our atmosphere, so small that our research, based on empirical data, confirms that the contribution to atmospheric warming by CO2 is less than 0.01°C and immeasurable on a global basis.
Our team would like to see all new wind and solar projects stopped and all taxpayer government subsidies for such projects removed. For example“Interior Secretary Doug Burgum ordered a halt to all construction work on a project called Empire Wind, an offshore wind project located about 20 miles South of Long Island and just East of New York City. This is close to a final
stake through the heart of the energy transition program outlined in the NY Scoping Plan. We have gone from what seemed a clear path to energy transition to being nowhere and with no plan forward. It is fair to say that New York’s leaders have no idea what their next move is, other than the usual “Sue Trump!” Manhattan Contrarian.
Other turnaround policies we would like to see are -
• More countries declare that Net Zero is ruinous for their economy.
• Removal of all taxpayer-funded energy subsidies, so energy sources and products compete on a level playing field. See Denmark on SMRs.
• That ordinary people, the workers, the consumers, the taxpayers, who bear the unnecessary extra cost, the penalties for unreasonable energy policies, and the disruptions of the inevitable blackouts, benefit from the demise of Net Zero and the establishment of inexpensive, reliable electricity.
• More power generation to follow Texas regulation for intermittent sources.
• Takedown of Mainstream media on their climate reporting – like Paul Homewood and Tom Nelson do with the BBC in the UK.
• Dismantle the IPCC as called out by Clintel.
• Resignation of UN Sec. Gen. Guterres. No, the “The world is not boiling”! Earth has entered a long-term Global Solar Minimum
Conclusions
The authors conclude that the current trajectory of Net Zero policies has led to significant economic and social disruptions, as evidenced by multiple case studies across the globe. They emphasize the urgent need for a policy turnaround that prioritizes energy security, economic growth, and open scientific debate. The paper advocates for the dismantling of the IPCC, cessation of subsidies for renewables, and a shift away from reliance on wind and solar energy towards more reliable energy sources such as nuclear power. The authors assert that the warming effect of CO₂ is negligible and that climate alarmism is unfounded. They call for a reevaluation of climate policies to better balance environmental goals with economic and social realities, ensuring sustainable development and energy reliability.
Communicating author: gerald.ratzer@mcgill.ca