The climate “hoax,” as President Donald Trump calls it, and the “green new scam,” also in Trump’s words, have spawned a plethora of bad ideas and policies.

In the transglobal elites’ attempts to direct the world’s economy by controlling average people, they have pushed the idiotic and dangerous vision of the nations of the world going net zero. The elites’ words and actions suggest they think of people beneath their station in life, those in lower income strata or not part of the educated technocracy, as unwashed, ignorant proletarians in need of direction and control. I’m sure it is purely coincidence that the policies developed to meet net zero just happen to benefit those same elites financially and in terms of political power.

For many developing countries, going net zero won’t be hard since, being mired in poverty, they already emit little of greenhouse gases. All their governments and people have to do is agree to remain impoverished, to watch their children and their children’s children continue to die prematurely from preventable causes, to struggle day-to-day to find food and clean drinking water, and to live without reliable electricity and the wonders of modernity, such as advanced medical care, agriculture, transportation, and refrigeration. Those who continue to live in abject penury will become climate heroes simply by eschewing expanded use of fossil fuels and continuing to die young. Dead people, after all, don’t use resources. The climate elite will sing praises of their simple, traditional, lifestyles.

For people in developed countries to hit net zero, all they have to do is give up all the modern, high-emitting technologies that have been developed since the early 1800s. Giving up the modern conveniences that have benefitted people for the past 180 years should be easy, right? Who wants modern agricultural systems and the reduced hunger and starvation they have delivered, or modern medicine, heavily dependent on plastics and reliable electricity, which has doubled lifespans, or modern transportation and communication systems (computers, cell phones, iPads, Kindles, etc.), that many people seem to be plugged into or monitor for hours each day. Give them up, and voilà, we hit net zero—with all its attendant problems such as high infant mortality, starvation, disease, and premature death.

Of course, average folks will have to sacrifice even more for the country to meet net zero while allowing the elites to continue their high-emitting lifestyles of five-star meals, travelling first class or in private jets and yachts, and owning multiple lavish, large, reliably powered mansions. It turns out, even under net zero, some people remain more equal than others. Among the ways the rich and powerful really are different from the rest of us is how little they have been willing to change their own lives while calling on average folks to sacrifice, despite emitting many times more greenhouse gases compared to us peasants.

Among the net zero policies pushed by the former Biden/Harris administration were de facto electric vehicle mandates, greenhouse gas restriction diktats forcing the premature closure of reliable coal-fueled power plants, restrictions on the types of home appliances that could be sold (especially those powered by natural gas), except for the most expensive appliances that only the elite can afford, and urban planning policies pushing density, crowding people into densely crowded areas in small homes near mass transit, regardless of their personal desires for open space and free movement.

One policy pushed by the net-zero cabal that has gotten relatively little attention is mandated carbon capture and storage (CCS). Under that scheme, carbon dioxide generated during hydrocarbon production and use is captured before it can be released into the atmosphere, and is then stored underground. Capture is located at sources of significant carbon dioxide emissions, such as power plants and industrial facilities.

Carbon capture has long been used in the oil and gas industry, where the captured CO2 is pumped into marginal or flagging wells to enhance oil recovery. This is carbon capture and utilization (CCU). CCU is not the same as CCS—enhancing oil recovery does not necessarily result in permanent storage.

The whole motive for CCS—the uneconomic capture of CO2 for permanent storage rather than use—is to fight climate change and hit net zero. The fossil fuel industry, particularly coal, has embraced it as a lifeline they believe will allow them to continue to operate, a lifeline that happens to come with generous subsidies.

Climate grifters have embraced CCS as a way to garner big bucks. They get money from federal subsidies for constructing and operating the network of carbon capture plants and the spiderweb of pipelines needed to deliver the captured carbon to supposedly secure underground permanent storage reservoirs. Even bigger bucks come from the generation of “carbon credits” they can then sell to high-CO2-emitting industries, allowing them to continue operating while burnishing their green ESG credentials for their shareholders, the public, and various regulatory agencies.

Interestingly, most if not all green groups oppose CCS. For them it was never about CO2 or preventing global warming; they were always interested in shutting down the fossil fuel industry and the Western lifestyles of high consumption that their use makes possible. They are misanthropes who want people to live with less: in the motto of one group, “back to the Pleistocene.” That’s the same reason they oppose nuclear power, which does not emit CO2.

A recent study by The Heartland Institute, which I coauthored, shows CCS to be not just unnecessary but positively dangerous, both to fundamental property rights and possibly to human health.

CCS is unnecessary because data does not support claims that the world faces a climate crisis or that climate change poses an existential threat to human existence. Despite daily mainstream media lies, the weather is not worsening, food supplies are increasing, and people are living longer, healthier lives amid modest warming.

The government push for CCS threatens individuals’ property rights. The developers and operators claim the pipelines provide a public good or public benefits in the reduction of CO2, and thus they should be allowed to exercise eminent domain to take land for pipeline rights of way from unwilling sellers.

The problem is, removing carbon dioxide is not a public good, because climate change is not threatening human health, welfare, or the environment. CCS is also not a public use, and the pipelines aren’t common carriers (a condition for the exercise of eminent domain in most states), since private companies own and operate the pipelines and associated facilities. Those companies restrict access to their pipelines and storage facilities and profit handsomely from doing so. This is politically connected companies trying to get state governments to allow them to obtain private gains by exercising a government power that is supposed to be used sparingly and then only for extremely limited purposes. The gain also doesn’t benefit the public in any meaningful sense, because no goods or services used in commerce are produced. On the contrary, the CCS grifters benefit tremendously at taxpayers’ and private property owners’ expense.

The push for big CCS is dangerous for a couple of reasons. First, it increases the cost of energy and makes the electric grid less reliable. CCS systems are expensive, and when they have been attached to power plants for large-scale testing, they broke down regularly, resulting in the power plants going offline. Because they are expensive and fail, utilities have eschewed widespread adoption, ultimately shuttering reliable coal plants prematurely and replacing them with intermittent and expensive wind and solar facilities. In either case, costs go up and energy reliability declines. A failing, expensive electric power system endangers people’s lives. People who can’t afford backup generators for when the power system fails, or who can’t afford to pay their power bill, are left shivering in the dark or sweltering in the heat. When either of these things happen, some people die, research shows.

The second danger comes from the transport and storage of the CO2. While CO2 concentrations at present or reasonably expected levels pose no danger to humans, and the evidence suggests it is actually benefitting plant life, there can be too much of a good thing: highly concentrated releases of CO2 can and have killed in the past.

For instance, in 1986, a lake in Cameroon released a massive amount of carbon dioxide that had formed from volcanic activity. The released killed nearly 1,800 people, 3,500 livestock, and countless birds and insects. A CCS project in Algeria—which cost approximately $2.7 billion to build in 2004—had to be shut down in 2011 because of concerns about leakage.

A 2015 blowout at California’s Aliso Canyon gas storage facility caused the largest greenhouse gas release in U.S. history, displacing thousands of families, forcing schools to relocate, and causing significant health problems for those living near the facility. Though the gas released was methane rather than carbon dioxide, the same type of failure can easily occur for CCS pipelines or storage reservoirs, especially as pressure mounts within them.

The world isn’t coming to an end due to climate change, and policies intended to fight it rob people of choice and property and increase the cost of living. CCS is one of those policies. Trump should ensure CCS receives no more federal subsidies and the government does not encourage or endorse more carbon trading schemes or limit CO2 from power plants, which incentivizes CCS as a way to keep reliable power systems and large factories online.

Withdrawing the EPA’s endangerment finding, which allows the government to limit CO2 and provides teeth to the net zero scheme, would be a big step toward that goal.

This article is reprinted from Climate Change Weekly and is used here by permission.