EIA 2019 report shows developing nations CO2 emissions increasing 8.4 billion metric tons by 2050

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

The recently released EIA IEO 2019 report forecasts global energy use and emissions growth from year 2018 through year 2050.

The report shows the world’s developing nations CO2 emissions climbing upward by an enormous 8.4 billion metric tons by year 2050 from year 2018 levels.

clip_image002

This huge increase in emissions is driven by increased global energy use with the developing nations accounting for over 87% of world future energy growth as estimated by this forecast.

clip_image004

In sharp contrast the report forecasts the world’s developed nations will decrease CO2 emissions by 651 million metric tons by year 2050.

Thus the huge world increase in global CO2 emissions based on the IEO forecast are accounted for solely by the world’s developing nations.

The developing nations are forecast to significantly increase energy use from both fossil fuels and renewables with fossil fuel growth exceeding the increase in renewables growth.

Conversely the developed nations energy growth as forecast in the report shows decreased use of fossil fuels with significantly increasing renewables.

This developed nation energy use outcome is driven by the assumption of continued government mandated preferred renewable energy policy actions.

Fossil fuels continue to dominate global energy use in year 2050 accounting for over 68% (down from 80% in 2018) of total global energy consumption despite the assumption of mandated government dictated policy actions to support increased renewables during the 32 year long forecast interval.

clip_image006

Globally fossil fuel use in 2050 is forecast to grow by about 25% from year 2018 levels with all of that growth accounted for by the world’s developing nations.

Renewable energy is forecast to provide about 28% of total global energy use in year 2050.

Renewable energy in 2050 is forecast to grow by about 266% from year 2018 levels based upon continued government mandated renewable energy use policy actions.

Wind and solar resources are forecast to account for only about 17% of global energy use in year 2050 clearly establishing that climate alarmist demands pushing 100% zero emission global energy use outcomes are absurdly unrealistic pipe dreams.

Government renewable energy policy actions include continued use of production tax credits, investment tax credits, numerous rebate schemes and government mandated use requirements with none of these policy actions reflected in energy market pricing provisions for renewables.

Given global experience showing that the removal of renewable subsidy provisions dramatically reduces the use of renewables the IEO reports assumptions that such provisions will continue unabated for the next three decades is questionable given the growing recognition by governments of how costly and unaffordable these subsidy provisions have become.

clip_image008

clip_image010

Additionally the significant and negative environmental impacts of renewable wind energy projects on species conservation especially the threat to endangered bird and bats has resulted in legal challenges that have reduced wind projects in Germany this year by 82% from the already weak period of the prior year.

clip_image012

The EIA IEO 2019 report confirms the global reality of unrelenting use and growth of fossil fuels as the dominate energy resource for providing for the world’s existing and future energy consumption needs. The world’s developing nations overwhelming dominance in increased global energy use and resulting emissions dictate this outcome.

Despite decades of government policy dictated mandates requiring renewable energy use along with extensive and costly subsidy actions these resources have been shown to be incapable of meeting the majority of global energy needs in a cost effective and reliable fashion

The EIA IEO 2019 report results clearly demonstrate these global energy use and emissions realities.

Fortunately continued global energy use growth with increasing emissions does not create “a climate emergency” as falsely claimed by climate alarmist propagandists as proven by actual climate data outcomes versus alarmists erroneous claims based on their use and reliance upon unvalidated flawed and failed computer projections.

Advertisements

75 thoughts on “EIA 2019 report shows developing nations CO2 emissions increasing 8.4 billion metric tons by 2050

    • Once she gets her $1M fopm the Nobel Committee she’ll scowl all the way to her climate-controlled bank, then roll around guffawing on the floor.

    • On this rather dry subject, am I the only person who can’t look at the double acronym EIA IEO without thinking of the traditional – possibly British in origin – children’s song about a farm?
      I’m sure it’s still a favourite in Scandinavia, although looking at these figures, one wonders if a more up-to-date version would be “Greta Thunberg had a fit, EIEIO”.

    • And AOC said we will be all dead by then. EIA should tell Greta that she can at least become 47 years old if she doesn’t get a sailing accident.

        • One retired alarmist told me that the perfect climate was the one he remembered from his childhood. (Yes, he was serious)

          • My Childhood memories include my Pop crying over a frozen calf. -It was March 23rd.
            we lost about 7 calves that spring ot of that particular herd of 15….

        • To a warmist, the perfect climate is the one we have now, where according to them, climate doom is just around the corner.

      • Greta has a much higher chance of being a Muslim by 2050, than being dead. Unless, of course, she refuses to convert to Islam. She really is worrying about the wrong thing.

  1. This is truly a double benefit. The increased CO2 emissions will come from increased industry which will lift millions or even billions of people out of poverty and ill health, and the increased CO2 emissions will afford greater plant growth, tree growth and increased food supply. A true Win-Win outcome.

  2. Effectively this means that nearly all the co2 emissions from 1970 to 2050 or 80 years will have come from the developing nations.
    And at the cost of untold trillions of $ for a rolled gold ZERO return on the so called investment and ZERO change to temp or the climate.
    This has to be the greatest con trick and fraud in human history. Just thank the loonies who kept voting for green left parties, whether they called themselves conservatives or progressives.

  3. World coal production soared from 4.6 billion tones in 2005 and topped 8 billion tonnes in 2010.and has been thereabouts since .
    China is using close to half of all coal mined , around 4 billion tonnes.
    The combustion of coal averages around 2,75 tonnes of CO2 for every tonne used and that equates to 22 billion tonnes of CO2 emitted plus a lot of fugitive methane during mining .
    Whatever other countries do will be swamped if CO2 is really the control knob of the climate.
    Politicians around the world are sending virtual smoke signals on pretending to go carbon neutral .
    The world has only warmed 1 degree Celsius in the last 140 years and CO2 has most probably the cause of a quarter of that .
    Nothing to become concerned about and certainly no reason to declare climate emergencies .
    I wonder how long this scam will go on ?
    Graham

    • Gwan – September 30, 2019 at 1:18 am

      I wonder how long this scam will go on ?

      Gwan, ….. it will go on …… as long as people continue making claims like you did, to wit:

      The world has only warmed 1 degree Celsius in the last 140 years and CO2 has most probably (been) the cause of a quarter of that.

      —————
      Daily CO2
      Sep. 26, 2019: 408.05 ppm
      Sep. 27, 2019: 407.96 ppm
      Sep. 28, 2019: 408.09 ppm

      • Reply to Sam C Cogar,
        Show this forum that what I have written is false .
        No one is arguing that CO2 levels are increasing but there is no proof that CO2 is the control knob of temperature , none at all ,zilch .
        The doubling of CO2 will only raise the earths temperature by six tenths of one degree Celsius.
        Any more than that relies on unproven theories that involve the tropical hot spot and water vapour feed back.
        Neither have been proven to exist .
        Climate models all run hot as any one would expect if CO2 was entered as the control knob over warming .
        I have seen no proof or substantiated evidence to the contrary .
        Catastrophic man made warming will not happen and is a scam.
        Graham

        • The doubling of CO2 will only raise the earths temperature by six tenths of one degree Celsius.

          Gwan, atmospheric water (H2P) vapor, which is 2X more potent GHG, can easily reach 40,000 ppm and it doesn’t raise the earth’s temperature by six tenths of one degree Celsius. And it is 39,600 ppm greater than the 400 ppm of CO2.

          Gwan, you could increase the atmospheric CO2 to 10,000 ppm and it wouldn’t affect the earth’s temperature.

          ————–
          Daily CO2
          Sep. 26, 2019: 408.05 ppm
          Sep. 27, 2019: 407.96 ppm
          Sep. 28, 2019: 408.09 ppm
          Sep. 29, 2019: 408.22 ppm

          • I wonder why I am wasting my time with you Sam Cogar,
            The science says that the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere is logarithmic and the effect of each extra millionth part decreases .
            The first 100 million parts has the greatest effect and the next 100 million parts only has half as much effect and the next 200 millionth parts has only half of that effect again .
            I do not ignore science and I am well aware that water vapour is the dominant GHG but the theory of runaway global warming is false as it depends on positive water vapour feed backs .
            I am saying that there is no evidence of positive water vapour feed backs as if there were the climate would have runaway in the past .
            This is the scam that is being pushed and there is no proof that it can ever occur

          • “Gwan September 30, 2019 at 4:01 pm

            I do not ignore science and I am well aware that water vapour is the dominant GHG but the theory of runaway global warming is false as it depends on positive water vapour feed backs.”

            The hypothesis is it is the ~3% of ~413ppm/v CO2 that is the driver of that runaway warming. As you quite correctly state, the effect is logarithmic. It was Knut Ångström in 1900, criticising Arrhenius who estimated CO2 IR figures, published the first modern IR data on CO2 after experiment and determined two of the bands were already saturated. He was correct then and his results stand correct today.

          • I wonder why I am wasting my time with you Sam Cogar,

            But Gwan, ….. just think how much CAGW science you have been learning me.

            Gwan claims this to be factual science, to wit:

            The science says that the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere is logarithmic and the effect of each extra millionth part decreases .

            Patrick MJD agrees, also claims this to be factual science, to wit:

            The hypothesis is it is the ~3% of ~413ppm/v CO2 that is the driver of that runaway warming. As you quite correctly state, the effect is logarithmic.

            OK, Gwan, …… Patrick MJD, …. assuming that both of you are correct ….. and ole Sam C is the DA, …… please, please, PLEASE tell him …… at what atmospheric CO2 ppm quantity did your afore claimed ”logarithmic” effect become activated?

            T’was it immediately after the 1st molecule of CO2 escaped into the atmosphere, or the 10,000th, or the 1,000,000,000th ….. or was it AFTER the hundred gazillionith CO2 molecule escaped?

            Iffen said logarithmic ”thingy” didn’t kick-in until, …. say, …. after 200 ppm level was attained, …. then wouldn’t that absolutely, positively NEGATE any future “warming” post 400 ppm?

            Or are you all claiming that said logarithmic ”thingy” didn’t kick-in until AFTER atmospheric CO2 attained 400 ppm?

            “DUH”, I think that I will try that logarithmic ”thingy” the next time my wifey puts too much sugar in my coffee. Da ya pose it would “un-sweeten” my coffee?

          • Some light reading for you;

            Shur nuff, Patrick, ….. but me thinks it’s from the “twilight zone”.

            Weazelwording is denoted below by my “BOLDFACE”, to wit:

            It is interesting that the radiative forcing, i.e., the change in the radiation energy flux at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) or at the tropopause, caused by some greenhouse gases has a logarithmic dependency on the concentrations of these gases. For example, it is widely recognized that for every doubling of carbon dioxide (CO2), the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) is decreased by about a fixed amount (see Figure 1); logarithmic equations for calculating the radiative forcing of CO2 are given by the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change

            In analyzing the water vapor feedback, such scaling estimations are widely adopted

            The logarithmic dependency is intriguing, considering that the dependency on the absorber concentration is exponential rather than logarithmic —————– for optically thick atmosphere

            it is known that the spectral mean absorption of an absorption line can be approximated as a logarithmic function of absorber amount given certain line shape functions https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014JD022466

            And Patrick, …… do you not comprehend what is meant by …… “for optically thick atmosphere”?

          • I can’t show you CO2, …… you will have to get Greta Thunberg to do that for you because she is the only person I know that can optically see the thickness of the CO2 atmosphere.

            **************************

            Today is October 03, 2019 …… and the “green growing” biomass in the Northern Hemisphere is still “dark” green in many locales (mid-eastern latitudes) which means it is still absorbing great quantities of CO2 ……. and temperatures have been extremely “warm to hot”, ….. both day and night, ….. and with very little rain it has been extremely “dry” thus prohibiting the decaying of any dead biomass, therefore no outgassing of CO2

            But someone forgot to tell the atmospheric CO2, …. because it did what it always does after the autumnal equinox in late September, …. to wit:

            Daily CO2
            Sep. 26, 2019: 408.05 ppm
            Sep. 27, 2019: 407.96 ppm
            Sep. 28, 2019: 408.09 ppm
            Sep. 29, 2019: 408.22 ppm
            Sep. 30, 2019: 408.41 ppm

            CO2 stopped its summertime decrease, right on schedule, this year t’was September 27th, with a YTD minimum of 407.96 ppm ……… and began its wintertime increase, ….. which will terminate after the March (spring) equinox with a YTD maximum occurring in mid-May 2020.

            The Mauna Loa Record tells us it has been doing that very same thing for the past 61 years without any help from man or beast..

  4. The biggest explosion of life, ever, on the planet happened during the Cambrian period when CO2 levels were @ around 7000ppm. The future looks brighter.

  5. Wonderful news. With effects on birth rates of course. A further factor affecting the future for wind and solar will be the exposure of the CO2 scam.

  6. In sharp contrast the report forecasts the world’s developed nations will decrease CO2 emissions by 651 million metric tons by year 2050.

    Thus the huge world increase in global CO2 emissions based on the IEO forecast are accounted for solely by the world’s developing nations.

    So the developed nations are out-sourcing manufacturing to lower wage developing nations.

    But the production is driven by the demand in the developed countries.

  7. The projected growth in developing countries seems like a cornerstone argument against the extreme policies being put out by the UN. I think policy may be the weakest point of the overall alarmist framework that projects high levels of warming, high costs of warming, and finally absurd policy responses that make no sense under their own terms of costs and benefits.

    Economists seem to typically argue for a carbon tax that would start low and rise fairly slowly, beginning at around $10/tonne at this time. However the key problem with a carbon tax is that as it grows it becomes more crucial that it is applied evenly worldwide. If half the world has a severe tax, high emitting industries will migrate to the other half of the world.

    Politically I would consider it a pretty fair bet that there will not be a worldwide carbon tax at least until developing countries are well up the ladder. Probably post 2050 even in an optimistic pro-carbon tax outlook. This means that even though a moderate carbon tax is a reasonable climate change policy at low levels it will neither make a significant difference now when the cost effective level is quite low or later if it doesn’t go worldwide.

    Meanwhile, given the UN’s projections both for expected warming and expected costs of warming, the Copenhagen Consensus group rates direct spending on research and development as having a benefit of $11 – $15 dollars per dollar spent. I think this is without taking into account side benefits like the fuel cost savings an actually viable replacement for fossil fuel energy would entail. (The report estimated this benefit alone could be greater than the money spent on research)

    The policy bottom line is that subsidies, blocking development, and similar policies aimed at directly constricting CO2 output are not efficient or effective policies, especially so if you believe warming is likely to cause serious costs because they distract from actually effective policies. We know this for instance from the Paris Accord’s own projections of costs and effect – 1 -2 trillion a year to reduce 2100 warming by a third of a degree Fahrenheit. A carbon tax is theoretically ideal over the timescale of the century but will both have little immediate impact because with current technology a high tax would not have a cost effective impact on CO2 and it depends on basically all countries signing on. Meanwhile research and development might pay for itself independent of proposed warming costs. It also would potentially be funded by general taxes rather than directly imposing greater costs on civilians which has a much greater impact on low income people.

    R&D is the best policy for the next few decades regardless of your viewpoint on global warming. It has the potential to find an energy replacement to displace the huge projected increase in fossil fuel use by developing countries. It has the potential to hedge against fossil fuel costs rising or starting to run out and a definite potential for improving future air quality.

    I feel like policy is potentially the weak spot in the global warming semi-religious complex that has emerged with the UN calling for immediate cuts in CO2 aiming for zero emissions by 2050, a mere 20 years after China’s emissions are projected to peak.

    The science of how much it will warm is contentious, and not something that is definitively falsifiable. It’s a worthwhile fight but the alarmist viewpoint seems to be baked in at least temporarily.

    The science of how much warming is likely to cost seems reasonably set and has a lot of potential for debate because it does not predict disaster and it does not predict that high cost near term efforts are cost effective. The UN predicts costs of 2-4% of GDP in 2100 which contrasts very strongly against claims we should spend a similar amount of our likely much smaller current economy to ineffectively prevent.

    It seems to me the science of what policies should be preferred is clear cut and absolutely not what the alarmists are proposing. Economists such as the Nobel winning Nordhaus propose that the most efficient century scale policy in response to projected 4 degree warming is to aim for 3.5 degrees with a carbon tax that starts fairly low. The Copenhagen Consensus group includes 7 Nobel laureates and proposes that the only effective current policy is research and development at a level of .5% of GDP, or Bjorn Lomborg’s suggestion of 100 billion dollars per year. Ten to twenty times less than the Paris Accord proposes, much more effective, and with likely benefits regardless of future temperatures. To me this may be the weakest point of the catastrophist/alarmist movement. Even if alarmism were actually completely true, the scientifically supported policies are not severely costly and may be beneficial regardless.

    Maybe there’s an end run we can do around the debate here to prevent more wasteful policies that aren’t effective even in the alarmist framework.

  8. Will any mainstream media report this?
    Probably to decry that things are worse than we thought.
    Let’s do even more extreme things and pay even more money as developed countries to no effect.
    Yes, you can’t fix stupid.

  9. Does Swedish water have a massive amount of nuclear runoff from Chernobyl in it perhaps?
    It would seem so from the hallucinations emanating from that part of the world.
    Now we have Greta as the successor to JC according to the Swedish Church.
    One can only return to the old adage,
    Laughter is the best medicine

  10. European Union countries CO2 emissions went down (on average) by 23% between 1990 and 2016, while GDP went up by 53% in the same time. USA, Canada, Japan, South Korea and Russia had similar results. All mainly due to improvements in technologies e.g. engines and machines that are both more efficient and less fuel consuming (of course the two things are linked) and to economic growth in non-industrial sectors (of course IT servers drain a lot of energy, but anyway less than many factories).
    Why then don’t they foresee a similar path to 2050? Just to keep pressure on us and make us believe that global warming is our fault for taking the car instead of catching the bus? I can joke about the latter, but I am serious about the former.

  11. From the article: “Thus the huge world increase in global CO2 emissions based on the IEO forecast are accounted for solely by the world’s developing nations.”

    Greta and her followers should focus on the developing countries, since they are worried about CO2 production. They need to go to the source of the “problem”.

    Unfortunately for Greta and the rest, China’s leaders, the biggest CO2 producers in the world, don’t like human-caused climate change protests. I don’t know what the developing nations think about any protests. I’m guessing they are like China and not all that supportive.

    Greta and friends have a “long row to hoe” to get CO2 reduced.

    • Greta and her followers should focus on the developing countries,

      But, but, but that is not where “the money is”.

      ————-
      Daily CO2
      Sep. 26, 2019: 408.05 ppm
      Sep. 27, 2019: 407.96 ppm
      Sep. 28, 2019: 408.09 ppm

  12. By 2050, the CO2 hysteria will have been long over, with long-abandoned wind turbines, rusting and leaking oil standing as reminders of a time when the world almost went full retard wrt energy, only pulling back thanks to sites like WUWT heroically putting out the truth about climate, and to Trump. Nuclear energy will take the place of “renewables”, with coal still very much in use, and of course NG. Solar installations will also have been largely abandoned as expensive and unreliable. Any rooftop solar still in use will only provide the homeowner or business with electric power they themselves use. None would go into the grid. Also by 2050, a period of significant cooling of perhaps 0.5C or more will be ongoing, possibly even rivaling LIA conditions by then.

    • @Bruce Cobb
      2050 is just 30 years away (in 3 months). A reason to hope for a long life.

      Add to that forecast the crushed reputations of climatology, alarmism, government-sponsored science, the media, the UN, and the left. Hopefully a wall of shame will be built naming them all, with photos and appropriate quotes. Maybe a whole disneyland village with their pompous lectures, videos, awards, etc. And monumental statues mocking them, designed after Josh’s caricatures.

  13. I’ve been following the EIA for years. What they used to put out was valuable for investing in oil and gas. What they put out today is practically useless. I can’t figure out if they are doing it on purpose, incompetent or it is just currently impossible to forecast or summarize due to the many moving parts.

    Their weekly natural gas report is a good example. With pipeline packing, LNG tankers leaving and entering the US and increased (and decreased in some areas) storage capacity, sometimes their “adjustments” move the needle up and down quite a few percentage points in one week. You see big draws for three weeks and then they throw in an adjustment which basically negates it all.

    So as with climate forecasting, if they can’t get next month right, how are they ever going to get next decade right? Just another bunch of money thrown at a group of people putting out worthless information.

    • I am also someone who watches the EIA numbers very closely. Their weekly oil production numbers have become a joke. They are running several hundred thousand barrels ahead of actual production every month. I used to think it was incompetence but am starting to believe its done on purpose. As the drilling rig count drops they just make up for it in the weekly numbers by increasing the initial production number for the fewer number of wells being drilled. The current administration tries to keep oil prices as low as possible and the EIA is cooperating by cooking the books each week. Interestingly, this irritates many of the climate zealots who would prefer much higher oil prices to make EVs more cost competitive.

      When I first saw their 2050 projection that renewables would be the worlds single largest source of energy by 2050 I had to do a double take. That seems very aggressive to me. But what also struck me is that even with huge growth projected for renewables for decades to come, fossil fuel consumption was still projected to grow at a steady rate. That has got to give the climate zealots serious heartburn and should be a wakeup call to them on the near impossibility of a carbon neutral world by 2050.

  14. Greta to China is a great idea. Gore went to India on behalf of ‘renewables’ instead of coal. And that was a TREMENDOUS SUCCESS! Wasn’t it? Check out his second film – forget its name.

    • Coeur de Lion: “[…] Gore went to India on behalf of ‘renewables’ instead of coal. […] Check out his second film – forget its name.”

      Was it “The Great Blizzard of India”?
      ;o)

  15. So more coal , more natural gas , more petroleum. How is that supposed to lower the byproduct of combustion, CO2 ?

    Even if renewables would grow by 1000% in 2050 there would be more CO2 in the atmosphere than today.

    Don’t tell Greta she could have a nervous breakdown.

  16. I will gladly condemn my grandchildren to the fate of starving in the cold darkness although it will not compensate for the increased fossil fuel usage of China , India and the third world. My feeling of virtue will make their misery worthwhile. Thanks so much , Greta. New meaning for the term regrettable.

  17. I am really dubious of the 2050 projections for “Renewable Energy” cited above. There is almost no way to generate 250 Quads of energy from solar and wind…unless they plan to cover most of the (shrinking) Sahara Desert with solar panels…and the population has gotten used to weeks in the winter without power.

    It’s common to see numbers indicating that 2.08 Acres of Solar Panels produces 1 Gigawatt Hrs of energy annually. That might happen in a lab somewhere, but not in reality. Over a 20 year period of actual use, that 1 Gigawatt Hrs. of energy annually requires AT BEST 3.3 Acres of solar panels, and that is intermittent energy.

    250 Quads of energy is 75 Million GigaWatt-Hrs of energy.

    [And remember that the Climate Alarmists tell us that we need to generate 900 QUADS OF ENERGY ANNUALLY by 2050 else we all die…to get to Zero Emissions — and actually that isn’t even good enough because the CO2 emissions between then and now will persist for several centuries – something I agree with…and that could kill us all- something that has no scientific basis and I do not agree with).]

    At 3.3 Acres per 1 GWh annually…75 million × 3.3 is over 247 million acres…or 386,000 square miles.

    USA share is 25% of that and equates to a square 310 miles on a side BEFORE REDUNDANCY REQUIRED FOR THE SUN’s intermittency…so realistically, that would require a square area of solar panels over 780 miles on each side.

    That square would cover an area almost 3 times the size of TEXAS (268,600 square miles). AND THAT ASSUMES WE EVER GET A WAY TO DO BATTERY BACK-UP AT GRID POWER LEVELS….AND WE HAVE 100% CONVERSION TO EV’s which is required to eliminate fossil fuels (and absorbing the cost of scrapping a few hundred million ICE vehicles before their end of life.) Don’t ask about Aviation fuel (the elitists WILL NOT give up air travel in private jets).

    Remebner that the Alarmists say that 900 Quads of energy has to be “Renewable”…not just the 250 Quads cited here as a projection for Renewables in 2050…So more than 8 Texas areas for the USA!!!

    I’m not even going to get into the costs involved as compared to Nuclear…or the Environmental Devastation of covering hundreds of thousands of square miles with panels.

    BOTTOM LINE: The Climate Alarmists have INVENTED a problem that is impossible to fix…AND none of their Rx’s even “come within a light year”v of fixing it.

    Did I mention the tens of billions of tons of toxic waste that the solar panels would produce every decade? WITH NO HALF LIFE…Cadmium is carcinogenic FOREVER…compared to a very tiny volume of waste that Gen4 Nuclear would produce…safe after 300 years.

    The whole CLIMATE CATASTROPHE story taken together doesn’t hold together.

    The costs involved and the level of mobilization required to get to Zero Emissions IS NOT SOMETHING ANYONE IS TALKING ABOUT…Nobody.

    Reducing your number of trips to Starbucks to save energy “to save the Climate” probably isn’t going to be enough. The Alarmists have invented a problem that would entirely change the lives of everyone…for a CO2 problem that, as yet, is not even detectable. Let alone an existential threat.

    And then there is the Asia thing.

  18. What you mean here? Should Greta have directed her words at nations like China instead of dumping on the developed world? But China has not allowed her minions to express their feelings. The US and all the other developed countries do. Could Greta not walk to China (she is the reincarnation of Jesus now so she sure can walk on water) and convert those unbelievers? Or does the developing world simply not buy what she has to sell?

  19. re: “EIA 2019 report shows developing nations CO2 emissions increasing 8.4 billion metric tons by 2050

    Straight-line projections never withstand the passage of time, and this time will be NO different.

    Besides, the Hydrino-reaction /reactor is seeing utility-scale heat/energy production these days as the designer performs ‘parametric’ calorimetry tests in 120 gallon capacity water tanks:

    https://brilliantlightpower.com/time-lapsed-two-hour-duration-steam-production-run-powered-by-the-suncell/

Comments are closed.