Net Zero is not a term that is easily defined but that has not stopped the Australian Federal Government legislating a requirement that the country be net zero by 2050.

Can anyone define what net zero means? The usual definition is that greenhouse gas emissions are matched by greenhouse gases being extracted from the atmosphere. You know, carbon capture; the environmental constabulary will be racing around after escaping carbon and capturing it. With a very fine net, I guess.

There is a major problem with the whole concept and that is the vagueness involved in defining and measuring greenhouse gases both in and out of the atmosphere. It is based on opinion. There is no way to demonstrate whether greenhouse gases are net positive, net zero or net negative with an objective measure. The government will simply state the score. That in itself is a very bad position to be in. Former New Zealand Prime Minister Ardern stated to the NZ people, in a different context, “The Government is your single source of truth.” We know how that turned out. Meanwhile current NZ PM Chris Hipkins is struggling to live up to Ardern’s lofty goal, as he couldn’t answer a reporter’s question at a news conference as to “what is a woman?” Hipkins froze for what seemed like an age before saying the question came out of left field and he hadn’t formulated an answer. Hmm, I’d like a second opinion, doc.

So how will a Government perform as the source of truth for compliance with net zero? Consider an obvious current example, electric vehicles. Clearly, the Australian governments, both state and federal, have decided that replacing petrol powered cars with electric vehicles will contribute towards meeting net zero. There are subsidy incentive schemes in place around the country to hand cash to buyers of EVs, courtesy of the taxpayer. Yet, EVs are worse than petrol cars when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. Does anyone in government realise that? Or have they established herd immunity to facts?

Outgoing CEO of Qantas Airways, Alan Joyce, was not one that I expected to come out publicly and point out the ridiculous notion of using battery technology or hydrogen for powering transport, but he has. This week Joyce said that for aviation batteries are too heavy and hydrogen takes up too much space such that neither could viably power a commercial passenger plane.

Quite right. It is sometimes referred to as energy density. A tank of aviation gas has potential energy stored that is enough to fly a Qantas aircraft with 300+ people from Perth to London, non stop. Joyce says a battery powered aircraft couldn’t fly from Melbourne to Sydney.

This example of aviation could be very useful in demonstrating the concept of energy density to the public. When it comes to cars, it has proven to be very easy to hide both the relative lack of energy density in batteries, but also their worse environmental score when compared to petrol powered cars. With an aircraft, it is easier to see. The physics remain the same across all types of transport. Once people see a clear example, they will be more likely to join the dots and see the problems with EVs in other sectors of transport.

Rowan Atkinson has joined the dots and he wrote a piece in The Guardian this week where he said: “But increasingly, I feel a little duped. When you start to drill into the facts, electric motoring doesn’t seem to be quite the environmental panacea it is claimed to be.”

In part, Rowan had found a Volvo study that showed greenhouse gas emissions during production of an electric car are nearly 70% higher than for an equivalent petrol powered car. That’s before it hits the road and thereafter is powered 70% by coal from the Australian grid. Not to mention the usable life of a battery being in the region of 10 to 15 years. Replacing a battery every 10 to 15 years in a mainly coal fired car is both environmentally damaging and very expensive. I have a theory that 15 years is about as long as the current tiny market for EVs will last before falling away to virtually nothing. Given the Teslas on the roads building up in the last 8 years or so, the market has less than 8 years left, in my view. Those owners having to decide between a replacement battery and a new car will lean to the new car.

So back to our governments and their fantasy about net zero. Our energy minister Chris Bowen will never admit he is wrong. But he will be gone from his current role in a few years and someone else will have to dump net zero. I can imagine many meetings of government people and staffers around the country, no doubt flying to and from these interstate meetings courtesy of a fossil fuel powered aircraft, getting their messaging aligned prior to the announcement. The unknown question is how much damage to the lives of taxpayers will they have done before that time. It won’t be zero.