Net Zero is a Recipe for Economic Ruin, followed closely by Lawfare
STU TURLEY
In the relentless pursuit of Net Zero emissions, governments around the world are making bold promises about green jobs, sustainable growth, and a cleaner future.
But for the UK and California—two regions aggressively pushing these policies—the reality is starkly different. Both are witnessing the erosion of their oil and gas sectors, skyrocketing energy costs, and a wave of deindustrialization that’s hammering their economies. Meanwhile, just across the North Sea, Norway stands as a counterexample: a nation that has balanced energy security with fiscal prudence, transforming potential decline into a booming industry that now powers much of Europe.
This article explores these contrasts, drawing on recent developments to show how Net Zero zealotry is intertwined with economic self-sabotage.
Lawfare has become a huge tool for the Net Zero crowd, and this may be the straw that breaks the back of California’s total economy. This is critical, as the main pipeline system in California is losing 2 million gallons per month due to insufficient oil flow, and the new permits issued by Gavin Newsom for Kern County will not be enough to keep it operational.
This morning, Josh Young posted on X:
California’s Net Zero Policies: A Recipe for Economic Ruin
California has long positioned itself as a leader in the fight against climate change, mandating carbon neutrality by 2045 through aggressive renewable energy targets and restrictions on fossil fuels.
But this green dream is turning into an economic nightmare, with high energy prices driving manufacturers away and leaving behind “ghost factories”—abandoned projects that symbolize failed promises. The state’s industrial electricity prices hit an average of 15.34 cents per kWh in 2024, far above the national average and more than double rates in energy-diverse states like Texas (7.82 cents per kWh).
This surge stems directly from California’s heavy reliance on intermittent renewables like wind and solar, which require expensive backups and grid upgrades. Energy-intensive industries, including manufacturing, are bearing the brunt: factories are shutting down or relocating to cheaper jurisdictions, accelerating deindustrialization.
A prime example is the broader fallout from Net Zero-driven subsidies and mandates. Federal incentives under the Inflation Reduction Act initially spurred announcements for green manufacturing hubs, but recent rollbacks—such as the early phaseout of solar and wind tax credits in July 2025—have led to widespread cancellations.
In California and beyond, projects like EV battery plants and solar facilities are stalling, with 9% of $261 billion in announced green investments shelved since 2021.
Critics argue this creates “stranded assets” and fiscal strain, as billions in taxpayer-funded subsidies evaporate without delivering the promised jobs or growth.
The economic toll is evident in California’s manufacturing sector, where high costs erode competitiveness against low-energy-price rivals like China, which relies on coal for cheap power.
Trade unions and analysts warn of long-term damage, with communities left with empty lots and lost opportunities. As one report notes, the pursuit of Net Zero has been sold as economic salvation but is instead fostering volatility, with clean energy returns lagging far behind oil and gas (5-8% vs. over 15%).
California’s oil and gas industry, once a powerhouse, is also crumbling under bans on new drilling and fracking, leading to reduced production and increased import dependency—further inflating costs and undermining energy security.
The UK’s Windfall Tax Debacle: Killing the North Sea Golden Goose
Across the Atlantic, the UK mirrors California’s woes through its own Net Zero obsession, compounded by punitive taxes on the oil and gas sector. The North Sea, once a symbol of British energy independence, is in freefall, with production down 40% in the past five years and projected to halve again by 2030.
The culprit? A volatile tax regime, including the Energy Profits Levy (EPL), a windfall tax introduced in 2022 and hiked to 38% under the Labour government in 2025.
This tax, combined with the scrapping of a 29% investment allowance for oil and gas operations, has shattered investor confidence.
Major players like Ineos Energy and Apache have halted investments or announced exits, with Ineos calling the UK’s fiscal regime “the most unstable in the world.”
As a result, 2025 marks the first year since 1960 without a single new exploration well in the UK North Sea.
Tax revenues from the sector have plummeted, dropping from £9.9 billion in 2022/23 as investments dry up.
The UK’s “net-zero-obsessed” policies, including halting new licensing rounds, have accelerated this decline, forcing greater reliance on imports and exposing the economy to global price shocks.
Offshore Energies UK (OEUK) estimates that reforming the windfall tax could add £137 billion to the economy and support 23,000 jobs, but without changes, deindustrialization looms as infrastructure is prematurely decommissioned.
Three years of windfall taxation have not only reduced production but also destabilized the supply chain, echoing California’s manufacturing exodus.
Norway’s North Sea Triumph: From Steady Producer to EU Energy Lifeline
In sharp contrast, Norway’s approach to the North Sea demonstrates how sensible policies can sustain an oil and gas sector while navigating energy transitions. Norway discovered oil in 1969 and began production in 1971, with output peaking at 3.4 million barrels per day in 2001 before a natural decline in oil fields.
By 2010, gas production surpassed oil, positioning Norway as Europe’s second-largest gas supplier.
Far from shutting down, Norway resisted calls from Green parties for a phase-out, maintaining cross-party consensus to protect the industry as a source of jobs and revenue.
Post-2022, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Norway ramped up exports to fill the void left by curtailed Russian supplies. Today, it provides one-third of Europe’s gas, with record exports hitting 1.4 trillion kroner ($130 billion) in 2022.
Investments are set to peak in 2025, supported by stable taxes (including 71.8% refunds on exploration losses) and annual licensing rounds that encourage new discoveries.
Unlike the UK, Norway’s predictable regime has attracted operators, with new fields online and exploration expanding into frontier areas like the Barents Sea.
This strategy has bolstered Norway’s $2 trillion sovereign wealth fund, ensuring long-term economic stability.
As Energy Minister Terje Aasland put it, “Norway wants to be a long-term supplier of oil and gas to Europe,” prioritizing energy security over hasty phase-outs.
The Harsh Reality: Net Zero Equals Deindustrialization and Fiscal Collapse
The tales of the UK and California versus Norway lay bare a critical truth: aggressive Net Zero policies, when decoupled from energy reliability and fiscal sense, lead straight to deindustrialization and economic downturns.
California’s ghost factories and the UK’s emptying North Sea rigs illustrate how high costs, unstable taxes, and regulatory overreach chase away investment, erode jobs, and balloon deficits. Norway’s success shows that sustaining oil and gas isn’t incompatible with sustainability—it’s essential for it.
As global energy demands rise, regions ignoring this lesson risk fiscal collapse, greater import dependency, and weakened economies. Net Zero, as pursued in the UK and California, isn’t just an environmental policy; it’s an economic hazard. For true progress, balance is key—something Norway has mastered while others falter.
Michael Tanner and I covered Norway shutting down all of their natural gas before the Ukraine War, and at least they turned their plans around, and we will see how the elections in Norway go. They do not like the electrical interconnects with the UK as their prices for Norwegian consumers have gone up.
This article (What Does the UK and California Have in Common? Both Are Destroying Their Economy and Oil and Gas Sectors) was created and published by Stu Turley and is republished here under “Fair Use”
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply