Australian science has gone overboard for ‘climate action’

This new study warns, net-zero isn't credible

Few "stakeholders" are more "committed" to net-zero than Australian academics and scientists. Riffing on Hollywood science-fiction, CSIRO vows to science the "shit" out of it.

What of non-climate-scientists, laid low by climate-envy? They could retool, as did celebrities Ross Garnaut, Tim Flannery, and Andrew Forrest. Nobody notices the difference, in the global north. Elite New York Times will chat you up.

In 2025, net-zero's looking like a travesty of world-science, on a par with the supremacists' crash-tackling of Darwinian evolution-theory. That didn't turn out great.

Has science not had second thoughts? Seriously, you try trawling the literature, for sceptical research.

What you tend to find instead, say here and here, are climate-scientists warning of burning fossil-fuels today, only to "pay" tomorrow. Like, net-zero's not working, so net-zero harder.

They can see the forever graphs – population rising, GDP and consumption rising, CO2 rising, temperatures rising. A layperson might think, maybe climate-policy doesn't quite cut it?

"Committed" scientists have different logic-circuits. Never mind the strife-torn world, their climate-urgency is greater than ever, because it's "five minutes to midnight".

Of all ways to "rescue" the environment, climate-action looks the most elitist and least promising. To avoid "racism" towards the global-south, it plays down obvious vectors of societal and environmental strife. Little tiny things like massive overpopulation, land-clearing, logging, habitat destruction, water-insecurity, and species-extinctions.

Economists and a geographer wrote this June 2025 France-UK study. In effect, they estimate you'd need a forest the size of North (and Central) America, to carbon "offset" the reserves currently held by corporate Oil & Gas. This would be insanely expensive.

At some risk of research-overkill, this study shows yet again, climate-policy can never deliver convenient environmental-fixes, under Earth's (Australia's) increasing overpopulation load.

Yet techno-optimists imagine, sweeping cuts to actual-emissions A, plus steep acceleration of carbon-captures B. This latter would derive from planting greenery to the max, shakier forms of land-sea sequestration, plus unknown technologies C. To be discovered by next week, perhaps.

These utopians don't care that earth's carbon-cycle can scarcely absorb half of A, nor that B is elusive and impermanent. Their sentimental story – now Australian "law" - is that A minus B will "net" to zero. Whenever that happens, planet-earth will kindly respond with lower high-temperatures D, not higher high-temperatures E. Good luck with that.