Airlines and banks admit net-zero promises were pure fantasy

We were promised a “green” utopia, free of fossil fuels, powered by sunshine and breezes. However, the net-zero hobbits living in this imaginary Shire were blissfully ignorant of hard realities dictated by physics, engineering, and economics.

Once trumpeted by corporate giants and governments alike, the vision of a world without greenhouse gas emissions is crumbling. It’s pseudoscience coupled with false assurances incapable of sustaining the weight of one reality after another. Major airlines, energy companies, and financial institutions are abandoning net-zero commitments that were always destined to clash with the demands of business imperatives and people’s needs.

Becoming mainstream again is the understanding that affordable and reliable energy, prosperity, and human freedom are inextricably linked — a non-negotiable connection.

Anti-fossil fuel crusaders assured the public that jet travel could be reshaped through “green” fuel and futuristic aircraft. But in 2024, Air New Zealand shattered that illusion by declaring its 2030 emissions target impossible to achieve.

Another blow to the green version of a Middle-earth fantasy came from Airbus, which pushed into never-never land fantasies with its plans to deliver a hydrogen-powered aircraft by 2035.

The necessary technology simply does not exist — neither for airplanes nor so-called sustainable fuels in commercial quantities.

The airline industry’s capitulation is not an isolated incident. It’s a major domino falling in a long line of corporate and governmental U-turns signaling a great awakening.

Over the past 24 months, major banks and investment firms have staged an exodus from climate alliances, no longer willing to bear the costs or regulatory risks of practices that discriminate against enterprises such as traditional energy companies.

The Net-Zero Banking Alliance, once a beacon of green aspirations, has lost some of its largest members, including HSBC and UBS, and all the largest U.S. banks, among them J.P. Morgan, Wells Fargo, and Citigroup.

The climate industrial complex, through its organs at the United Nations, sought to impose anti-fossil fuel goals on the global shipping industry via the International Maritime Organization. However, in 2025, the United States took a bold stand by formally opposing the IMO’s position.

Across the Atlantic, Scotland made headlines in April 2024 by abandoning its ambitious target to cut emissions by 75% by 2030. At Germany’s Munich Motor Show in 2025, Stellantis — parent company of brands like Jeep, Peugeot, and Vauxhall — declared it would no longer aim to produce only electric vehicles by 2030.

The company called the European Union’s 2035 zero-emission mandate “unrealistic.” Others have cut back or canceled production of EVs, most recently Acura’s ZDX, which was sent packing shortly after the Japanese manufacturer and General Motors ended a joint EV venture.

RELATED: Trump’s climate policy shift could save American farmers from disaster

Photo by JamesBrey via Getty Images

The Science-Based Targets initiative was supposed to be the gold-standard arbiter of net-zero commitments. Yet energy giants like Shell, BP, and Enbridge have quit advisory groups linked to the Science-Based Targets initiative, recalibrating their strategies toward pragmatism in the development of oil and natural gas. BP, for example, slashed future spending on net-zero ventures while upping investments in traditional hydrocarbons by nearly 20%.

All these reversals share a common cause: the profound disconnect between activist goals and economic reality. On paper, it sounds charitable to promise emissions cuts and decarbonized operations by mid-century. However, these pledges assume nonexistent technology, rely on unaffordable energy sources, and require disruption to economic activity that no rational executive team can tolerate. Financial institutions have realized that lending to developers and users of fossil fuels is vital for national security, especially in times of geopolitical uncertainty. Oil and natural gas continue to be essential for infrastructure, industrial processes, and the daily lives of billions. “Green” lending strategies that sounded good at climate summits failed to deliver returns under market pressure.

Becoming mainstream again is the understanding that affordable and reliable energy, prosperity, and human freedom are inextricably linked — a non-negotiable connection. The great climate scare is not ending with a bang, but with quiet, commonsense calculations.