The False Religion of Climate Alarmism
By Dr Paul Mills, Chairman
“Watch out for false prophets... By their fruit you will recognize them…every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.” (Matthew 7:15-17, NIV)
Climate alarmism [1] is often spoken of in religious terms. [2] The connection naturally springs to mind when considering the priestesses of Gaia at ‘climate’ demonstrations, or the cult-like statements of protestors justifying their latest acts of cultural iconoclasm or infrastructure sabotage. Claire Coutinho, the former UK Energy Secretary, noted that the achievement of net zero carbon emissions has become “a religion” for such protest groups. [3] This way of thinking would appear to have become a sub-sect of full-blown Nature worship, or is certainly adjacent to it. Commentators often note that alarmist thinking has filled the religious vacuum in Western societies as adherence to Christianity has waned.
Given the overt danger of religious excess in this area, one might have expected Christians in the public eye to be circumspect in endorsing such mania. However, one is disappointed. For instance, the Church of England (CoE) is committed to ‘net zero’ emissions by 2030 and, in 2022, took on £250mn of debt to fund ‘green’ investments and projects. [4] Pope Francis asserted that there is no question that human action is responsible for climate change while excoriating ‘climate deniers’. [5] Evangelical climate advocate Katherine Hayhoe says she is motivated by her faith to warn of the “unprecedented” climate changes to come that cannot be adapted to. [6] Such Christians often take the imperative given to steward the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:15) and then leap to the conclusion that this equates to decarbonising energy usage and moving to ‘net zero’ emissions, ignoring the multiple contested assumptions and trade-offs that have to be made to reach that endpoint (see appendix). Christians who sincerely disagree with such a leap of faith are criticised for not understanding the ‘integrated’ gospel. [7]
Yet, in this debate we are presented with a stark choice in which the stakes could not be higher. On the one hand, climate alarmists warn of a catastrophic apocalypse involving rising sea levels, accelerating warming and extreme weather events if action to decarbonise energy usage is not taken imminently. This supposedly poses an existential threat to human life and must be prevented at all costs. And yet, the costs (if calculated at all) of decarbonising global energy usage with current technology are so vast that they would entail significant depopulation [8] and effective immiseration of most of the world’s remaining population. How can Christians who care about both stewarding creation and the alleviation of poverty be discerning in this area?
To help with this process, this paper will briefly outline the contours of the religion of climate alarmism and its various religious facets. It will then describe the ‘fruit’ of this religion to assess its validity and how it compares to a biblical worldview regarding creation, the climate and the future. The appendix describes the ten preconditions that all must be met before one can conclude that stewardship of the Earth entails the pursuit of ‘net zero’ carbon emissions.
The religious worldview of climate alarmism
As with other worldviews, that of climate alarmism can be categorised as one of creation (original state), fall (the problem), redemption (the solution), future judgement (apocalypse), and ‘heaven’ (the ideal future state).
Creation. The natural world is viewed as inherently benign. Hence the pre-industrial climate was relatively stable, natural and ‘good’ without significant human influence. The inherent goodness of nature means that animals and even landscapes have ‘rights’ that are comparable, if not superior, to those of humanity.
Fall/the Problem. Humanity is held responsible for despoiling the Earth not only through pollution and habitat destruction but also by releasing greenhouse gasses (notably carbon dioxide [9], but also methane and nitrogen oxide) into the atmosphere, thereby inducing ‘catastrophic climate change’.
Redemption/the Solution. How is humanity to atone for its ‘sins’ of greenhouse gas emissions? The solution is to decarbonise energy usage as soon as is practicable, with the 2015 Paris climate agreement setting out binding targets for industrialised countries to do so by 2050. This is intended to keep the increase in global temperature since the mid-nineteenth century to 1.5 degrees Centigrade.
Future Judgement/the Apocalypse. If emissions are not curbed sufficiently, then humanity will face judgement for these sins in the form of rising global temperatures which are then forecast by climate models to unleash droughts, forest fires, rising sea levels, flooding and increased extreme weather events.
‘Heaven’/the ideal future state. Embedded within this worldview, the ‘ideal’ outcome would be a return to ‘Eden’, that is pre-industrial human emissions and global temperatures. The (usually) unspoken part is that this would also require a return to pre-industrial human population levels of 1-2 billion (from the current 8 billion) with the most extreme adherents hoping for eventual human extinction altogether (conveniently after their own lifetimes). [10]
The religious trappings of climate alarmism
As with all religious paradigms, the framework of the worldview has social and moral manifestations. These include:
Moral purity. The righteous life is one in which CO₂ and other greenhouse gas emissions are minimised through recycling, eating less (or no) meat, reducing travel by car or air, buying local produce and using non-carbon emitting sources of electricity, heating and transport.
Indulgences/penances. Remission for one’s sins of emission can be obtained by purchasing carbon offsets (such as to pay for tree planting) and installing solar panels and heat pumps to generate electricity, thereby assuaging the guilt associated with air travel or a steak.
Priestly caste. The most esteem within the climate alarmist religion is afforded to those politicians, billionaires, climate ‘scientists’ and modellers, and celebrities who promote the alarmist narrative. Faux-sainthood is even bestowed upon some. [11] Due to the virtue of their cause, this caste believe that they are exempt from the strictures against carbon emitting consumption - notably air travel - that apply to the laity. [12]
Prophecies. Climate alarmism sustains its control over adherents through a series of apocalyptic projections if the sins of continuing emissions are not redressed. These are now supplemented by climate attribution studies that attach an additional probability to extreme weather events due to human emissions.
Overriding priority. Since alarmism foresees an existential threat to humanity, its prerogatives must dominate all other considerations whatever the consequences and however non-sensical. Hence, no cost-benefit calculations or trade-offs are considered necessary, whatever the costs, and every other area of public policy is expected to prioritise decarbonisation as an objective. In the UK, this now even applies to the NHS [13], Bank of England and Ministry of Defence despite their tangential relevance and potentially life-threatening consequences.
Heretics. Those who question the tenets of the religion are branded with the deliberately pejorative and insulting label ‘climate deniers’, rather than ‘sceptics’. Along with the label comes professional censorship and cancellation from academia, employment and the media.
Belief in the miraculous. The foundation of alarmism – that the trace human emissions of a trace gas is the overwhelming driver of global temperature [14] – itself verges on belief in the miraculous. Yet the primary policy prescription – that the sustained operation of a major power grid can be ‘decarbonised’ and rely solely on intermittent renewable power sources – has never been achieved and constitutes belief in the miraculous, along with highly speculative and scientifically illiterate carbon capture [15], ‘green’ hydrogen and battery-powered aircraft technologies.
Ignoring of history. Alarmism overlooks the natural cyclicality of the Earth’s climate. In practice, we are just emerging from a very cold phase of Earth and human history characterised by historically low levels of CO₂.
The ‘bad fruit’ of climate alarmism
Climate alarmism clearly has the framework and trappings of a religious perspective. Jesus warned his disciples against false prophets and to examine the form of fruit that resulted from their teaching, be it good or bad: “…by their fruit you will recognise them” (Matthew 7:16). To assist with Christian discernment, what are some of bad fruits that climate alarmism produces?
A litany of failed prophecies. To bolster the authority of their case, climate alarmists have made a series of dated forecasts that have proved to be wildly incorrect, from an ice-free North Pole and Mount Kilimanjaro to the end of snow in the UK, to the imminent inundation of coral atolls, to dwindling polar bear numbers and coral reefs. [16] All have proven false. A test of whether a prophet is speaking the truth or not is whether their dated forecasts about the future come true (Deuteronomy 18:21,22). Climate alarmism has proven false in this regard.
The stoking of fear. Climate alarmism has promoted apocalyptic projections if decarbonisation does not occur, with many saying that the planet has passed ‘the point of no return’. With such messages promoted in schools, it is no wonder that a large majority of British children report being prone to ‘climate anxiety’. [17] In addition, couples have chosen to have no, or a limited number of, children to reduce emissions while others have opted for abortions or suicide due to such pessimism for future generations. This fruit is not good.
The destruction of the environment. This arises primarily from the resort to renewable energy sources and mass electrification in the pursuit of decarbonisation. Wind turbines and solar farms take up far more land than conventional or nuclear power stations; they rely on the destructive mining of heavy and rare earth metals, often with the use of child or slave labour; they result in the mass culling of large birds, bats, insects and whales; and wind turbines are currently uneconomic or hard to recycle and so usually go straight to landfill when their useful life is over. The classification of the burning of biomass (i.e. wood) as ‘carbon-neutral’ is resulting in the destruction of ancient forests. It is the ultimate irony that a cause that claims to be ‘green’, causes so much environmental degradation [18] and seeks to restrain the growth of atmospheric CO₂ when that is precisely what is leading to the current ‘greening’ of the planet. [19]
Hypocrisy. As noted above, the advocates of climate alarmism preach a low carbon lifestyle to others but do not take their own prescriptions, be that private jet-setting celebrities and CEOs or the tens of thousands of delegates who attend international climate conferences. Numerous climate alarmist politicians and billionaires have bought beachfront properties despite warning of catastrophic sea level rise. Protesters claiming to believe in imminent apocalypse block roads in the UK (thereby endangering lives) yet would never dream of protesting in China – by far the world’s largest carbon emitter – because that truly would be courageous.
The justification of patent insanity. The push for decarbonisation at all costs results in nonsensical public policies. For instance, the UK pays wind turbine operators around £0.4 billion a year (in ‘constraint’ payments) to shut off when there is too much wind and £0.6 billion to back-up generators when there is too little [20]; we pay another £0.9 billion to subsidise the shipping of wood chips from the US (thereby vastly increasing emissions) because biomass is deemed carbon-neutral whereas gas or coal are not; we have banned ‘fracking’ and new coal mines even though this vastly increases global emissions through energy imports at extra cost; we are conducting experiments to dim sunlight whilst subsidising uneconomic solar power; the German Green Party insisted on the shutting down of Germany’s nuclear power plants in 2023 despite these being carbon-free sources of power, with the result Germany burns significantly more coal to compensate; we are allowing the adulteration of food through the inclusion of insects and promoting lab-grown and plant-based ‘meat’ despite these being detrimental to human health, in order to reduce meat production and the minute methane emissions that thereby arise. Chemicals dangerous to health are being fed to cattle just to reduce methane emissions. Only the zealotry of a false religion can accommodate such contortions of logic in contradiction of its stated goals.
Censorship of opposing views. As the ‘Climategate’ scandal revealed 16 years ago, climate alarmists sought to prevent the inclusion of sceptical viewpoints in the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); at the behest of Extinction Rebellion, the BBC no longer deems the inclusion of climate sceptical views as necessary to fulfil its public duty of impartiality; and the G20 group of the largest economies recently pledged to step up efforts to censor climate sceptical viewpoints on social media around the world. [21] Again, only a religious perspective confident in its own righteousness would seek to suppress opposing viewpoints on such a controversial, supposedly scientific, topic. [22]
Hubris. In addition to multiple claims of being on ‘the right side of history’, alarmist hubris also manifests itself in a number of geo-engineering projects to cool the planet that are already underway or being planned [23], from spreading particulates in the atmosphere to seeking to slow the melting of polar ice caps. None of these have been subject to global discussion or mandate given their possible unforeseen, potentially disastrous, long-term consequences and the varying impact on different countries from engineered cooling.
The promotion of global government. For international bureaucracies, climate alarmism constitutes a godsend in terms of justifying the extension of their power and influence. For climate change is a global ‘problem’ in need of globally coordinated solutions. Unsurprisingly, the UN [24] and EU Commission have been the most ardent disciples within the cult, with the World Bank, IMF and World Economic Forum also eagerly embracing the cause. No matter what the evidence against climate alarmism, these institutions will cling to the dogma out of institutional self-interest.
Poverty and economic decline. Access to cheap and reliable energy is the foundation of economic prosperity and human flourishing, yet the push to decarbonise electricity generation and energy use are resulting in impoverishment, deindustrialisation and economic decline because renewable sources of power are intermittent and expensive, and battery storage inadequate, vastly costly and a dangerous fire hazard. [25] The UK currently subsidises wind and solar electricity generation by at least £16 bn a year, has the highest household and industrial prices in the OECD [26] and yet has come perilously close to national blackouts when the wind doesn’t blow on cold, cloudy days. It is little wonder that the UK economy has been stagnant on a GDP per head basis since the passage of the Climate Change Act (2009). Perhaps even more disgraceful is that climate alarmism deprives poorer countries of finance (through the World Bank or privately) to develop their own coal- and gas-fired electricity generation and grids. This prolongs their poverty while causing around three million premature deaths each year through the indoor burning of wood for cooking and heating. [27] Most assuredly, bad fruit.
The fabrication and manipulation of data. To strengthen their case, climate alarmists have frequently adjusted and manipulated data. This has ranged from the notorious ‘hockey stick’ graph from the IPCC’s 2001 report to the studies claiming that ‘97% of climate scientists agree that humans are responsible climate change’ [28] to the repeated misuse of a global disaster database (EM-DAT) by the UN to fabricate an increasing trend of weather-related disasters that does not exist in practice. This deception extends to the manipulation of temperature data through the continued reliance on poorly sited thermometers prone to upward bias through urbanisation (the ‘urban heat island effect’) to the fraudulent interpolation of temperatures for weather stations that no longer exist [29] and the repeated ‘adjustments’ to historic temperature series that invariably cool past temperatures and raise those from more recent times to increase trend ‘warming’.
The corruption of ‘science’. Climate alarmists often claim that ‘the science is settled’. The UN Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications, Melissa Fleming, stated that in 2022 that “We own the science [of climate change] and we think that the world should know it…”. Apart from the most trivial of questions, this should never be the approach to scientific enquiry, let alone that concerning the climate which poses perhaps the most difficult modelling problem in nature. The climate results from the complex interaction of two chaotic fluid dynamic systems (the atmosphere and oceans) interacted upon by external forces (the Sun, volcanic ejections) on whose cycles and effects we have only a paltry grasp. The IPCC’s cohort of climate models all over-forecast global temperatures because they are too sensitive to the increase in CO₂ and have no satisfactory way of modelling cloud formation. [30] Yet these flawed models are relied upon to advise the outlay of vast resources on decarbonisation and yet those seeking to develop alternative explanations of climate trends are excoriated on social media, censored from academic journals and denied research funding.
To set against this veritable basket of ‘bad fruit’ (Amos 8:1-2), one struggles to find anything ‘good’. Even on its own terms, climate alarmism has achieved a negligible impact on humanity’s emissions despite £trillions equivalent in subsidies, just as atmospheric CO₂ levels keep on rising inexorably. Those vast subsidies have yielded some improvements in electric vehicle, solar and battery technologies, but with significant downsides, while fossil fuels still supply over 80% of the world’s energy needs. The nuclear power renaissance just starting may be the only lasting benefit to humankind that the imperative to decarbonise may impart, although we would have arrived at this conclusion anyway through the need for reliable base-load power for data centres.
Following Jesus’ advice, given this weighing of the good and bad fruit arising from climate alarmism, the conclusion is clear – it is a false religion.
A Biblical view of ‘climate’
In contrast to the alarmist religious framework, what does a biblically based position on ‘climate’ look like?
Creation. Initially, God declares Creation to be “very good” (Genesis 1:31) and entrusts His image-bearers with the responsibility to subdue, populate and care for the Earth and Garden (Genesis 1:28; 2:15).
Fall. The disobedience of God’s image-bearers results in the created order being cursed, resulting in toilsome work being needed to survive (Genesis 3:17-19). As a result, “the creation was subjected to frustration” but will one day “be liberated from its bondage to decay” (Romans 8:20,21) with the return of Christ.
Flood. Due to humanity’s wickedness, God judged both the Earth and humanity through the ultimate ‘climate emergency’ - a global inundation that only eight humans survived (Genesis 6:5-8:19).
The Noahic Covenant. Following the Flood, God commits never to curse the ground or flood the earth again, even though humanity remains plagued by sinful inclinations (Genesis 8:21; 9:8-11), with the rainbow given as a sign that the earth will not be destroyed by rising waters again (9:12-17). He specifically promises that harvests, temperature variations and seasons will not cease (Genesis 8:22). The mandate to procreate and is given to animals (8:17) and reaffirmed for humanity (9:1). It is never subsequently rescinded or modified.
The Mosaic Covenant. Having rescued the people of Israel from oppression in Egypt through inflicting various natural disasters, God stipulates in His law various protections for the natural world (e.g. Deuteronomy 20:19,20) and creatures (e.g. Deuteronomy 25:4). He promises that if His law is obeyed, the people will enjoy the blessings of regular rainfall, abundant harvests and increasing population (Leviticus 27:3-13). However, drought, poor harvests, depopulation and exile would be the result of disobedience (Leviticus 27:14-46; see also Deuteronomy 28 & 29 for further blessings and curses).
Old Testament history. These promises were carried out during the history of Israel, notably with regard to the drought brought by God as punishment for the idolatry practiced under King Ahab and Queen Jezebel (1 Kings 17-18) and at the time of Jeremiah (ch.14).
Jesus’ descriptions of the ‘end times’. When describing the period leading up to the ‘end’, Jesus notes that “there will be famines and earthquakes in various places”, constituting the “beginning of the birth pains” (Matthew 24:7,8). However, the time prior to His re-appearing will be characterised by seeming normality, with life events (feasting, marriage) occurring as usual, as they did prior to the Flood, right up until His return (Matthew 24:37-41).
The final destruction will be by fire, not water. Peter clearly states that the current created order will be destroyed by fire (2 Peter 3:7,10), consistent with God’s promise not to flood the Earth again.
What can Christians discern from this teaching that is relevant to the climate debate? Briefly, we can see that:
Creation is not to be worshipped but subdued and stewarded. We should not regard the natural world as sacred, but a place to be both developed for humanity’s good and cared for, both for its intrinsic value to God and for future generations. In a fallen world of scarcity and decay, difficult trade-offs will nevertheless be required between human flourishing and the stewardship of the Earth’s resources.
The mandate to procreate still applies. The Bible is unequivocally pro-natalist, with the birth of children always seen as a blessing. There is no hint of a fixed ‘carrying capacity’ of the Earth, with the implication that, even in a Fallen world, the natural endowments God has provided on the Earth, combined with human technological innovation, will prevent a Malthusian depopulation catastrophe through resource constraints or environmental destruction. The sense of the Noahic covenant is one of measured optimism of humanity’s resource and environmental future, rather than strident apocalypticism about the fate of the planet.
God is sovereign over extreme weather events. God’s power over storms, floods, hail etc. is never in doubt (e.g. Job 37,38; Psalm 107:25,29). However, outside the strictures of the Mosaic covenant and without inspired prophetic insight, it is hazardous to attribute any particular weather event or events directly to God’s particular judgement.
God promises that seasons and harvests will continue until Christ returns. The sense of the Noahic covenant is one of an equilibrating, stable system (c.f. Ecclesiastes 1:4-7) that will self-correct if disturbed, whatever humanity may throw at it. Jesus prophecies that the time prior to his return will be strikingly ‘normal’, rather than one plagued by drought, storm, wildfires and sea level rise. The end of the world will not be widely anticipated.
The Christian Response to Climate Alarmism
It should be clear from the preceding analysis that climate alarmism is the manifestation of a (false) religious perspective that, in its undiluted form, constitutes the idolatry of nature worship. That its adoption by ‘the world’, through media narrative dominance, vast subsidies and censorship of sceptical voices should also set alarm bells ringing. Hence, Christian adoptees of the alarmist agenda need to recognise that they are allying with forces hostile to the flourishing of humanity and, ironically, the natural world through the suppression of cheap and reliable energy and hostility to the ‘rewilding’ of the CO₂ contained within fossil fuels. The warning of the apostle Paul concerning partnership with non-Christians (2 Corinthians 6:14-16) should be carefully considered when a church’s decarbonisation agenda takes resources from its gospel mission, as is now occurring with the Church of England. Instead, we can be thankful to God that greater CO₂ concentrations are resulting is a significant increase in the planet’s biomass and crop yields. [31]
Christians also need to be discerning about the huge costs, and technical impossibility, of decarbonisation relative to the negligible gains, even if climate alarmist assumptions about warming prove correct. [32] True stewardship involves carefully weighing costs and benefits of policy action in a fallen world. [33] Since there is no evidence that a moderately warmer planet poses an existential threat to humanity or nature, decarbonisation (except for the widespread adoption of nuclear power) would result in poverty, increased malnutrition and global depopulation. [34] Christians supporting this agenda should never again have the temerity to complain about, or campaign against, global poverty.
Final Pleas
For those Christians unconvinced by the preceding analysis, I would make various requests. First, please do not disparage fellow Christians who think differently on this issue. There are very good grounds for disbelieving the truth claims of climate alarmism. It is not a belief necessary to uphold the truth of the gospel or unity within a church fellowship and should be a matter of private belief and conscience over which brothers and sisters can legitimately differ (e.g. 1 Corinthians 8:4-13). Stewardship of the environment should never be conflated with support for ‘net zero’ emissions – indeed, in many ways, they are diametrically opposed. The pejorative label of ‘denier’ should be banished completely from our fellowships.
Second, please examine seriously the religious, scientific and economic claims underpinning climate alarmism. Just because a consensus has been reached amongst some academics [35] and policymakers doesn’t mean that it is correct, as the consensus in favour of eugenics in the 1930s, in believing in ‘global cooling’ and a population ‘bomb’ in the 1970s and lockdowns in the ‘pandemic’, demonstrate. Any science worthy of the name should welcome challenge to its received tenets, not cancel, censor and disparage sceptics. Christians above all should value intellectual humility, for only God is omniscient and only He knows what the world’s climate will be in a century (should Jesus tarry). Humanity is not yet close to forecasting weather with much accuracy for a week ahead, let alone decades.
Finally, resist the pessimism inherent in the alarmist mindset. The world will only end tomorrow if Christ returns. Before then, God has promised that seedtime and harvest will continue. Have children if possible, invest in the future, eat meat if you like and travel without any artificially generated feelings of fear or guilt. For these are the trappings of the false religion of climate alarmism.
Appendix: The Ten Propositions that a Christian must accept to move from Creation Stewardship to advocating Net Zero
Few currently doubt that the Earth has warmed overall by around 1-1.5 degrees Centigrade since the early Nineteenth century (the end of the Little Ice Age). But this is where consensus breaks down. In practice, multiple contentious propositions all need to hold true before one can justify saying that the adoption of national Net Zero targets for CO₂ emissions are a critical priority that Christians should support, and churches set targets for. These steps would entail accepting that:
CO₂ is the primary and overwhelmingly influential driver of global temperatures. This is difficult to maintain given that statistical analysis of historic data shows that trends in CO₂ lag global temperatures [36], not vice versa, and so cannot be causative. At current concentrations, warming is likely the primary driver of increases in CO₂ levels (through outgassing from warmer oceans) not the other way around. Also, we are gaining greater understanding that the cycle of the Earth’s distance to the Sun, cyclical variability in the Sun’s output, ocean currents, cloud cover [37] and volcanic activity each have significant impacts on global temperatures. The warming attributable to greenhouse gases likely has only a minor impact on current changes in temperature.
Human-induced CO₂ emissions have an overwhelmingly disproportionate effect on global temperatures. In practice, human emissions are a small proportion of the total stock of CO₂ in the atmosphere, and of its increase.
The temperature impact of human emissions does not diminish with increasing concentrations in the atmosphere. In practice, however, it is possible (/probable) that the marginal warming effect of CO₂ declines with increasing concentrations as the limited number of wavelengths of light at which it operates become saturated. [38] This may be one reason why conventional climate models are all over-predicting global temperatures.
A warmer planet is deleterious for humanity and the natural world. While an increase in temperature has localised impacts on habitats, a gently warmer planet has in practice more cultivable land, longer growing seasons, fewer temperature-related deaths and a more verdant biomass. We are emerging from a very cold period of human history with most harvests now at record levels, sufficient to sustain a human population of eight billion with record low levels of malnutrition. There are, in practice, numerous benefits from a warmer planet and we should thank God that we no longer live in the Little Ice Age.
The costs of increased CO₂ levels easily outweigh the benefits. Increasing CO₂ concentrations act as a natural fertiliser for plant-life and have significantly contributed to the 15-20% increase in global biomass enjoyed this century, and to those aforementioned record harvests. Their forecast detrimental impact through rising sea levels etc. need to be completely catastrophic to outweigh these benefits to nature and humanity. There is no evidence that they are, or likely to become so, given that deaths per million of population from extreme weather events have fallen over 95% in the past century due to improved forecasting, better construction, hardened storm shelters and flood defences. Global sea levels are rising at around 2.5-3mm per year on average, primarily as the land sinks. Such a small rise is hardly perceptible compared to tidal ranges and can be adapted to through improved sea defences.
Decarbonisation is technically feasible. There are viable, non-carbon emitting means of generating electricity – namely geothermal, hydro-electric and nuclear. Solar can make a contribution to generation where the sunshine is strong and regular (not the UK [39]) but still suffers from a storage problem. Wind is intermittent, expensive and impaired by a lack of large-scale storage capacity – it also requires costly back-up generation facilities to be on standby for calm conditions. No grid-scale electricity generation system exists that operates purely on intermittent renewables. [40] However, regarding other areas of decarbonisation, we have few alternatives to fossil fuels regarding heavy freight traffic, air and sea transport, plastics, steel and fertilisers unless we are prepared to return to the use of Nineteenth century technologies and the resulting catastrophic decline in population.
The benefits of decarbonisation clearly outweigh the vast costs. Few official cost:benefit analyses of adopting ‘net zero’ targets have been published. Many of those that have been done show vast costs to achieve minute reductions in global temperature, even assuming the conventionally modelled sensitivity to CO₂. Estimates for the total costs the UK incurs to pursue decarbonisation now reach roughly £35-40 bn a year, with around £220 bn spent thus far (at 2025 prices). [41] Bjorn Lomborg [42] has long argued that, while he accepts the consensus view on warming, there are far more pressing needs for humanity to address (including nutrition, sanitation, health and education provision in the poorest countries) with scarce resources.
The benefits of decarbonisation clearly outweigh the alternative of adaptation to the effects of a warming planet. The more prudent alternative to very costly decarbonisation is to adapt to the impacts of climate change if/when they happen through sea and flood defences, improved building codes and better forecasting and warning systems.
The decarbonisation effort in any one country is worth the cost, despite being vastly outweighed by the rising emissions of other countries, who thereby gain economic and geopolitical advantages. The overriding policy priorities of the most populous countries (notably India, China, Nigeria and Indonesia) is economic growth to improve the living standards of the bulk of their populations. Their emissions continue to rise rapidly. Decarbonisation efforts made by the UK have had a trivial impact on human emissions, which are themselves likely trivial in the broader context of naturally rising CO₂ levels. The result is the transfer of industrial capacity to these countries thereby denuding the UK of the ability to retain strategically important skills and productive capacity in an increasingly dangerous and divided world.
Decarbonisation should be assessed on a narrow emissions basis, rather than a wider use basis. Current net zero targets focus on reducing emissions at their location of production rather than consumption. Hence the zeal of alarmists to stop new energy sources being developed domestically, but not the importation of manufactures using energy from less constrained countries. Ironically, this acts to increase overall emissions, through freight and transport processes, while making the consumer country vulnerable to the whims of energy exporters.
To advocate honestly for ‘Net Zero’ emissions targets, every one of these propositions must be held and sustained. If any one of these proves incorrect, the whole edifice of Net Zero advocacy collapses. To be truthful, Christians endorsing climate alarmism need to be explicit about these embedded propositions and the vast costs that they are asking others (especially the poorest) to bear.
The views and opinions expressed above are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of the Jubilee Centre or its trustees.
References
[1] The belief that human influences on the climate will lead to catastrophic outcomes through the emission of greenhouse gasses if unchecked.
[2] https://thedailyeconomy.org/article/inside-the-church-of-climate/; “The climate panic is the work of a cabal of narcissistic worshippers of fear and force, cloaking themselves in the sheep’s clothing of planetary guardians.” Jordan Peterson: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/22/net-zero-is-a-mental-illness/
[4] “Decarbonisation must permeate every aspect of our lives” - The Bishop of Norwich, 21st September 2023: https://www.churchofengland.org/media/press-releases/bishop-norwich-responds-net-zero-statement. The CoE has subsequently chastised a church for installing new gas-fired heaters rather than less efficient and more expensive heat pumps: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/26/church-of-england-reprimands-parish-buying-gas-heaters/. “Some people [within the CoE] would rather our churches were empty so long as they were more green”, Rev. Marcus Walker: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/12/net-zero-destroying-church-of-england-boilers/
[5] Laudate Deum, 2023. https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2023-10/laudate-deum-pope-francis-climate-crisis-laudato-si.html
[6] “Evangelical Scientist Warns”, Evangelicals Now, 1st July 2022: https://www.e-n.org.uk/world-news/2022-07-evangelical-scientist-warns/
[7] https://www.e-n.org.uk/features/2025-02-why-arent-christians-leading-on-climate-change/
[8] The use of artificial fertilisers created through the Haber-Bosch process alone is estimated to sustain a quarter to a half of the world’s current population. It is, perhaps, appropriate that the ‘pale’ horseman of the apocalypse - given the power to bring death, famine and disease over a quarter of the Earth – should more accurately be translated as ‘green’ (Revelation 6:8).
[9] CO2 is frequently described, and legally categorised, as a ‘pollutant’ despite being essential to life on the planet and exhaled by each of us every breath.
[10] See The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (https://www.vhemt.org/); https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6599207/The-worldwide-crusade-people-choose-humanity-die-save-planet.html
[11] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/environment/2019/09/28/greta-thunberg-first-saint-cruel-new-environmental-religion/; https://thecatholicherald.com/tv-wildlife-presenter-poses-as-st-francis-of-assisi-in-new-portrait/
[12] John Kerry – the former US climate envoy – justified the flights for thousands of delegates to annual climate conferences by saying that it facilitated their essential work: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/they-are-working-harder-john-kerry-defends-climate-activists-who-fly-private-to-davos/
[13] For instance, even effective and safe anaesthetics are under threat from the NHS’ 2040 Net Zero carbon target (https://dailysceptic.org/2025/02/02/no-laughing-matter-as-net-zero-nutters-target-your-anaesthetics-and-painkillers/ ).
[14] Carbon dioxide currently constitutes around 430 parts per million (ppm) of atmospheric gases, roughly 0.04%. It’s effects are dwarfed by water vapour – a far more powerful greenhouse gas. It has risen from around 270ppm since the mid-C18th. Of this 160ppm rise, the large majority has likely been natural. (Skrable K., Chabot G., French C., 2022, ‘World Atmospheric CO2, Its 14C Specific Activity, Non-fossil Component, Anthropogenic Fossil Component, and Emissions (1750-2018)’, Health Physics,122(2):291-305. https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/abstract/2022/02000/world_atmospheric_co2,_its_14c_specific_activity,.2.aspx)
[15] Current carbon capture technology doesn’t even cover its own emissions: https://heimildin.is/grein/24581/
[16] https://climatecosmos.com/climate-news/10-times-climate-experts-got-it-completely-wrong/ ; https://www.survivalworld.com/outdoors/33-climate-predictions-that-never-happened-a-history-of-inaccuracy/
[17] https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/news/majority-of-under-12s-worried-about-climate-change-survey-shows/
[18] The Brazilian host city of the 2025 climate conference COP30 cut a 13-mile, four lane road through protected Amazon jungle in preparation (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9vy191rgn1o).
[19] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0034425724005200?via=ihub;
[22] “It is astounding that one of the most complex questions in physics (namely, the behavior of a multi-phase, radiatively active, turbulent fluid) should be labeled by the government - and funding agencies it controls - to be so settled that skeptics are silenced.” Lindzen, R., and Happer, W., 2025, Physics demonstrates that increasing greenhouse gases cannot cause dangerous warming, extreme weather or any harm, CO2 Coalition, June: https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Lindzen-Happer-GHGs-and-Fossil-Fuels-Climate-Physics-2025-06-07.pdf
[23] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/22/experiments-to-dim-the-sun-get-green-light/
[24] In June 2025, the UN rapporteur on human rights called for the phasing out of all fossil fuel production and use and the criminalisation of the publication of anti-alarmist opinion: https://docs.un.org/en/A/HRC/59/42
[25] Only a rapid build-out of new nuclear technologies can offer the hope of practically and cost effectively reducing reliance on gas- or coal-fired electricity generation.
[26] https://watt-logic.com/2025/05/19/new-report-the-true-affordability-of-net-zero/
[28] J. Cook et al., 2013, ‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the scientific literature’, Environmental Research Letters, May. This literature survey was highly selective. Of the 11944 abstracts considered, only 65 (0.5%) "mention that human activity is a dominant influence or has caused most of recent climate change (>50%)”. The study’s 97.1% endorsement figure was obtained by excluding abstracts that rejected or made no mention of AGW, implying that the remainder were an implicit endorsement. For a statistical critique, see Tol. R.S.J., 2014, “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis”, Energy Policy, Vol. 73, pp 701-705. Also, Mountford, A., 2014, Fraud, Bias and Public Relations: The 97% ‘Consensus’ and its Critics, Global Warming Policy Foundation.
[29] Over 40% of the US weather stations reportedly part of NOAA’s weather station network do not currently exist – their data are interpolated from nearby stations using methods that display clear upward bias. The temperature series from the 20 highest quality stations have shown no trend in the overall average temperature of the mainland US this century. https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/national-temperature-index/time-series/anom-tavg/1/0
[30] Including the IPCC’s variable for human emissions worsens climate equations’ ability to predict global temperatures, whereas a variable for solar activity markedly improves the ability to forecast temperatures: Green, K.C., and Soon, W., 2025, ‘Are Climate Model Forecasts Useful for Policy Making? Effect of Variable Choice on Reliability and Predictive Validity’, Science of Climate Change, Vol.5.1.
[31] Gutiérrez-Hernández, O., and García, L.V., 2025, ‘Uncovering true significant trends in global greening’, Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment, Vol.37, January. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352938524002416; https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w29320/w29320.pdf.
[32] It has been calculated that if the UK were to achieve ‘net zero’ emissions by 2050, this would reduce global temperature by an imperceptible 0.001 deg C at a cost of $3.8 tn equivalent (c.£2.8 tn – the current size of the UK’s national debt). https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/06/13/how-much-warming-would-net-zero-by-2050-prevent/
[33] Even assuming that the projected costs of climate change transpire, the environmental economics literature projects total global GDP to be 3.6% lower by 2100. This compares to a projected increase of 450% from 2020-2100. Lomborg, B., 2020, ‘Welfare in the 21st century: Increasing development, reducing inequality, the impact of climate change, and the cost of climate policies’, Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 156, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162520304157
[34] DeAngelo, Harry, and Judith A. Curry. 2025. “A critique of the apocalyptic climate narrative.” Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, p.1–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/jacf.12665
[35] There are numerous, eminent earth scientists, physicists etc. who disagree with the assertions of climate alarmism; see the Clintel Declaration: https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/. Perhaps the most prominent are Prof. Richard Lindzen (MIT), Prof. Will Happer (Princeton) and John Clauser (Nobel prize for physics).
[36] Humlum, O., Stordahl, K., and Solheim, J-E., 2013, ‘The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature’, Global and Planetary Change, Vol.100, January, p.51-69. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921818112001658; Davis, W.J., 2017, ‘The Relationship between Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration and Global Temperature for the Last 425 Million Years’. Climate, 5(4), 76. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli5040076; Barral, A., Gomez, B., Fourel, F. et al., 2017, ‘CO2 and temperature decoupling at the million-year scale during the Cretaceous Greenhouse’, Scientific Reports 7, 8310. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-08234-0
[37] A recent study has attributed the majority of C21st warming to a decline in cloud cover: Tselioudis, G., et al., 2025, ‘Contraction of the World's Storm‐Cloud Zones the Primary Contributor to the 21st Century Increase in the Earth's Sunlight Absorption’, Geophysical Research Letters, 52. https://doi.org/10.1029/2025GL114882
[38] Lindzen and Happer, 2025, op.cit., p.8-15.
[39] https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/energy/publication/solar-photovoltaic-power-potential-by-country. Out of 205 countries ranked by optimality for solar power, the UK was placed 204th worst, ahead only of Ireland.
[40] Spain and Portugal suffered nationwide blackouts on May 28th 2025 as a result of solar farms’ curtailment of supply when the grid had insufficient back-up generating capacity from reliable sources: https://watt-logic.com/2025/06/18/should-neso-be-allowed-to-lower-its-minimum-inertia-requirement/
[41] https://watt-logic.com/2025/05/19/new-report-the-true-affordability-of-net-zero/
[42] Lomborg, Bjorn, 2020, False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet, Basic Books.
