Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Are some House Republicans going soft on climate policy? The house defied President Trump on cutting wasteful R&D spending on renewables, R&D which cannot possibly deliver value for money. What else is happening behind the scenes?
What a Republican Climate-Change Agenda Might Look Like
By ALEX TREMBATH
February 13, 2020 6:30 AMRepublican leaders in Congress have started to hash out policies to address the problem. Here’s what they should focus on.
For the first time in a long time, Republicans seem engaged on climate change. As concern over the issue surges among younger Republicans and sweeping Democratic proposals demand an answer from the right, GOP lawmakers have come forward with bills of their own to address the problem. The top Republican in the House, Kevin McCarthy, recently sat down with Axios’s Amy Harder to outline the biggest goals of a Republican climate-change agenda, namely:
• Carbon capture, with a focus on natural solutions such as more trees and improved soil-management (what President Trump called the “trillion trees initiative” in his State of the Union Address);
• Clean-energy innovation; and
• Conservation and recycling, with a focus on plastic waste.…
Start with innovation: Republicans should demonstrate a commitment to it beyond “basic science,” backing carbon capture, nuclear energy, renewables, and other clean-energy technologies. And, by all accounts, they appear ready to do just that. They have reliably rejected President Trump’s proposals to slash clean-energy RD&D (research, design, and development) funding from the budgets of the Department of Energy and other federal agencies. In just the past two years, they have co-sponsored, introduced, and/or helped pass policies to accelerate demonstration and deployment of nuclear-energy and carbon-capture technologies, including the Nuclear Energy Leadership Act (NELA), the USE IT Act, and the Section 45Q tax credit for carbon removal.
…
An agenda resembling what I’ve laid out here would boost American investments in technology and enterprise, increase American exports, improve American energy independence, support the development of a domestic clean-energy industry that can compete globally, support the domestic agriculture sector, and eliminate one of the biggest and most widely hated of all subsidies. Add it all together and you have not only a credible package of climate policies but a credible Republican one.
Read more: https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/02/republican-climate-change-agenda-innovation-carbon-capture/
Obviously there is a lot of speculation in the article, so we can’t know for sure what is really happening in the heads of senior house republicans. But what a waste of resources the proposed policies would be.
- Carbon capture would make electricity far more expensive, and would potentially create terrifying new risks. Large concentrations of CO2 near inhabited areas are dangerous – a large natural CO2 release in Africa in 1986 killed most people and animals within 15 miles of the source, causing a loss of life comparable to the effects of a large nuclear explosion.
A release of this magnitude near a densely populated US city would be an unimaginable disaster. The sheer volume of CO2 which would have to be managed by a serious carbon capture scheme would create a substantial risk of a major accident.
Unbreathable concentrated CO2 is denser than air. After a large release the CO2 tends to hug the ground, displacing normal air and suffocating anyone unlucky enough to be caught in the cloud. - Innovation won’t fix renewables, so innovation spending on renewables is a waste of money. Even 100% efficient renewables would not be a viable replacement for fossil fuel. They’re just too intermittent, require too much material to construct, and take up too much space. In 2014 a group of Google engineers discovered to their horror there is no viable path to 100% renewable energy.
- Conservation and recycling – why? I don’t think any of us have a problem with commercially viable recovery of material, funded by private companies. As a kid I used to make pocket money collecting soda cans, until the government messed up my pocket money business with taxpayer funded recycling bins. Money governments waste on taxpayer funded recycling schemes is money which cannot be spent on hospitals, police, roads or schools.
There is no route to pleasing everyone on this issue. If House Republicans openly make a break for bipartisan climate policies, their support in coal states and manufacturing centers will evaporate.
Worse, anything more than token climate action inevitably leads to economic hardship and job losses If there is one thing which will lose a politician votes, that thing is tanking the economy.
What about those young climate activist Republicans whose heads have been messed up by the education system? They exist, especially in universities. But the right thing to do is surely to try to help them get their heads straight, rather than promoting token climate policies in an effort to appease their global warming delusions.
Republicans that believe in Alarmist Global Warming are like the caterpillar victims of the parasiic wasps which attack caterpillars by stinging it and laying eggs in the caterpillar implanting it with wasp eggs. When they hatch, the larval wasps devour their host caterpillar from the inside, eventually bursting out to spin cocoons and transform into adult wasps. These compliant Republican Democrat-Stooges are being politically consumed by Alarmism wasps and will bring poverty, darkness and environmental disaster to the public.
“a focus on natural solutions such as more trees and improved soil-management”
Kind of like what Dr Moomaw calls “natural solutuons to the climate emergency”. But to do that the Moomaw way, first you have to declare a climate emergency.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/12/23/climateemergency/
What’s the surprise?
All these activities are supported by businesses & big businesses at that.
Write your Congress critter and tell them to pull their heads back to where the sun shines.
Senate Climate Solutions Caucus Republican members
Sen. Michael Braun (R-IN)
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT)
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)
House Climate Solutions Republican members
Francis Rooney (R-FL-19) – Co-chair
Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY-01)
Rep. Mark Amodei (R-NV-02)
Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA-01)
Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY-21)
Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL-18)
Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE-02)
Rep. Rodney Davis (R-IL-13)
Rep. Peter King (R-NY-02)
Rep. Tom Reed (R-NY-23)
Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-WI-08)
Rep. David Joyce (R-OH-14)
Rep. Jack Bergman (R-MI-01)
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL-01)
Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI-06)
Rep. Amata Radewagen (R-AS-00)
Rep. Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon (R-PR-00)
Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL-08)
Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY-02)
Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL-16)
Rep. Rob Woodall (R-GA-07)
Rep. David Schweikert (AZ-06)
Rep. Denver Riggleman (VA-05)
politiciabs get rich by investing in companies they know will get free money and contracts from government. It is a money laundring scheme. Of course both dem and rep do it. They have the power to give themselves millions of tax dollars, they cant resist. And its for a good cause. Saving the world and get rich, perfect.
Interesting reporting, Eric. However, I am a little conflicted and uncertain about the actual goal of this Republican agenda. Maybe it is a reactivate nuclear in disguise? Carbon capture by planting trees, which you could harvest at some point? Clean energy research (like nuclear pebble-bed reactors that are fail-safe?). One thing for sure is that essentially all politicians want to bring federal dollars to their district to enhance their re-election chances, sometimes without any obvious consideration of appropriateness. Whatever the agenda, a vote for Republicans is a vote against socialism.
Republicans should demonstrate a commitment to it beyond “basic science,” backing carbon capture…
Sequestration of carbon dioxide is entirely without merit.
Yet another depressing post here at WattsUpWithThat.
Read this editorial – worthwhile.
“TRUMP – Existential Threat to New World Order”
Published: 01 October 2019 Written by James D. Veltmeyer, MD
https://www.bigvalleynews.com/index.php/features/guest-editorials/2216-editorial-trump-existential-threat-to-new-world-order
[excerpt]
EDITORIAL – The ongoing attacks by the political establishment on President Donald Trump –which began even before he was elected – are without parallel in history. The savagery, frenzy, and outright hysteria displayed by the President’s enemies within the Democrat Party, the media, and the various power centers of the globalist elites have no prior precedent.
This President has been spied on, lied about, made the subject of phony foreign dossiers, insulted, ridiculed, scorned, mocked and threatened. We have witnessed Hollyweird celebrities advocate for blowing up the White House, demand the President be beaten, jailed or even assassinated, and his children tortured and sexually abused.
We have seen politicians in Washington try to convict the President of non-existent crimes, investigate him and his family members for everything from tax returns to guests at his hotels, project on to him crimes that they themselves have committed, and seed his Administration with leakers and double-agents.
No other President in American history has been treated in such a shameful manner. Not Lincoln. Not FDR. Not Nixon. Not Reagan.
What is it about this President that has roused such demons in his political foes? What is it about this President that drives his opponents to the brink of insanity? What is it about this President that so terrifies and terrorizes the Pelosis, Schiffs, Schumers and the George Soroses?
The main problem with the “official” Republcian position on human-caused climate change is they accept the notion that CO2 is doing harm to the Earth’s atmosphere and causing the climate to change in unacceptable ways and that something needs to be done about it.
These Republicans have bought into the Hunan-caused Climate Change Lle.
When you suggest carbon dioxide capture is a good idea, you have bought into the Lie.
When you suggest that windmills and industrial solar are solutions, you have bought into the Lie.
Republicans need to be brought up to speed on the science of human-caused climate change because they currently have a very distorted view of the non-problem. They think it is a problem that needs to be solved.
Republicans need to have a long talk with Dr. Happer. They should follow Dr. Happer’s advice about CO2 and the Earth’s atmosphere.
Remember: The Leftwing Media controls the agenda of the nation (simply because they have the loudest voices) and villifies anyone who doesn’t go along with their agenda, and Republicans know this and don’t want to be villified unnecessarily, so this causes them to pander to the agenda of the Left and that includes the issue of human-caused climate change.
Of course, Trump has not weighed in and called Human-caused Climate Change a Hoax lately, so this gives some Republicans leeway to pretend CO2 is a problem that needs fixing. The best thing that could happen would be for Trump to again call CAGW a hoax. But, for some reason, he doesn’t seem to want to do that. Instead he does “One Trillion Trees”, which only gives energy to the Human-caused Climate Change crowd because “One Trillion Trees” can be seen as an acknowledgement that there is a CO2 problem. Trump should not acknowledge that there is a CO2 problem because there is no problem. Trump needs another talk with Dr. Happer.
Trump did call CAGW a hoax but apparently there are those in the White House (I assume family members) who do not want Trump to dismiss CAGW for one reason or another, and he is abiding by that.
About now would be a good time for a “Manhattan Project” equivalent for the Earth’s climate. We need a task force to decide whether CO2 is a danger or not and get everyone on the same page.
Republicans want to be loved by the Leftwing Media, so they pander to them and they are doing this with the CAGW issue, too. Here’s a hint Republicans: The Leftwing Media will never love you. They will use you, but never love you. Give it up and make decisions based on facts, not on how your decisions will be recieved by the Leftwing Media.
Pro life folks can tell you many examples of R politicians who talk the talk then disappoint. Tom Abbot says they want to be loved, which is true, but they seem more motivated to avoid attacking groups that produce loud protests. So many find it easier to stay in office by avoiding fights, and won’t take the time to learn that fighting renewables that can’t work can be a winner with voters if they see courage and conviction. That is lacking.
Everyone is following everyone else’s lead and pulling a Sargent Schultz on the MOTIVE for CAGW: to create an eco-totalitarian world government. And every globalist in government supports it. And until the truth is stated it continues to be a threat; once the cloak is removed it’ll fail. The truth shall make us free.
Carbon: 6 protons, 6 neutrons, 6 electrons.
huge difference between a republican and a conservative (as it relates to US politics) as we can tell.
many of the gop party as dependent on the old status quo as the opposing party is.
one huge mess of inter-related copulation…
Carbon Capture: A fool’s errand, inspired by progressive nuts. Nature would put it right back in as fast as humans could remove it.
https://youtu.be/b1cGqL9y548?t=41m52s
https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/what-is-really-behind-the-increase-in-atmospheric-co2/
A marvelous formula for waste and corruption. But then it’s only taxpayers’ money: Solyndra II.
The absolute best thing for the Congress to do about “climate change”: NOTHING.
The Oak Ridge National Lab study on biomass availability shows that there is just over 1 billion tons/yr available but they don’t discuss cost. 1B tons can produce about 4 million bbl/day of hydrocarbon fuels. This is about 25% of the US consumption of fuels which is in the range of 14 Million bbl/day with total crude consumption of about 17 million bbl/day.
The good part of this is that a lot of forest residue would be harvested reducing the chance of extreme wildfires. The bad part is that it will take about 1900 individual production facilities to process this amount of feedstock. In forested areas, this would create many jobs harvesting forest materials. Forests provide a rich source of feedstocks. Energy crops, not so much as great areas have to be harvested to provide feedstocks for a plant that operates 24/7/365.
A reasonably sized biofuels plant uses 1500 tons/day of biomass all year long. Considering op days, this is about 510,000 tons/yr and the plant can produce about 29 million gal/yr of hydrocarbon fuels (diesel, jet and naphtha).
So this is technically doable and will employ rural people needing jobs and not produce more ethanol which is not needed. But it will be a costly effort with plants costing north of $500MM each.
As usual, the Devil’s in the details.
Carbon capture in conjunction with a GTL / CTL operation would work pretty well, especially when the CO2 is used to pressurize wells. On the AK North Slope, the shallow oil is pretty viscous (think shoe polish) and a natural gas is used for gaslift and reservoir pressurization. If GTLs are adopted as a Plan B to a LNG pipeline, the CO2 output from the Fischer – Tropsch process can be used to pressurize the wells and for gaslift allowing the natural gas to be produced.
Solar / wind renewables are an obvious economic disaster. OTOH, if the new technology being discussed are Gen IV nuclear, it will provide a way to bypass green climate concern over energy generation. Widespread adoption of Gen IV nuclear will address both the emissions-free electrical generation demands of the greens and the obvious concerns of the rest of us over what we rightfully view as fact-free demands for renewables. Think of it as a way for Trump to give them what they are demanding, but not in the way they are demanding it, an ultimate win-win. Gen IV nuclear also solves the used fuel storage problem. And we need a bit of research to bring these things to market. Cheers –
Unfortunately this may be a fundamental difference in generational attitudes. If that is the case the outcome leans toward an accommodation with the new view.
As a fairly hardline person on energy and climate that will lead to bad policy. Maybe we can BS them like the GOP leadership BS’d us on illegal immigration for years
Republicans can advocate for policies with global advantages, such as exporting LNG to reduce gas prices and move countries away from coal. Since American farms use less land and produce fewer GHGs and nitrogen pollution per unit of food than anywhere else, we could develop policies to export more food, which could slow global deforestation. Both these ideas could boost our economy as well. Lots of good ideas here.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/02/republican-climate-change-agenda-innovation-carbon-capture/?fbclid=IwAR1-AJ94dHGtwtgxYmzXqgWmXVJlkTBDRS3d6vrQbasa_yfph_4mwmDgHG0
One-Term-Trump has climate policies? That’s hilarious!
338 days and counting…
One of the unexpected gifts of President Trumps election,the Uni-Party are self exposing.
So many so called Republicans have shown us where their true allegiance lies.
Their horror over a President who actually keeps promises has exposed them for the career sellouts they really are.
Quite an eye opener.
Mr. President needs to educate the GOP Congressional members regarding climate change. CO2 simply cannot, has not, and does not do what they claim. There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas, a concept derived from junk science. These gases are actually “radiative gases” that convert internal energy to IR radiation that is radiated in all directions and ultimately to space. The trick is that the atmosphere is always warmer than the upper tropical troposphere, which they claim to be heating Earth’s surface. Gases at -17ºC can radiate all they can, but they cannot heat the surface at 15ºC. This is thermodynamically impossible, largely because the energy levels in the surface equivalent to -17ºC are already full and incoming IR is simply reflected back upward and lost to space.
I suspect there are few reasons:
1) In their ignorance they accept the ” scientists say” misinformation at face value.
2) Greed. For themselves personally, for their cronies, and for Gov coffers.
3) The political capital they think they can buy from virtue signaling. Never mind that hugely expensive climate action policies are hardly virtuous.
“Carbon capture would make electricity far more expensive, and would potentially create terrifying new risks. Large concentrations of CO2 near inhabited areas are dangerous – a large natural CO2 release in Africa in 1986 killed most people and animals within 15 miles of the source, causing a loss of life comparable to the effects of a large nuclear explosion.”
Very true. Though if we could drill a hole in the ground greater than 81,000 feet deep (assuming it is isothermal at 70 deg F), we could fill it with CO2 such that all of the downhole CO2 was above the critical pressure, and thus liquid, and the top of the hole would always be at slightly less than 1 atm. Release would then be impossible.
Unless, of course, heat transfer into the liquid CO2 caused it to rise above the critical temperature (87.8 deg F). Or the storage chamber below 81,000 feet collapsed. Or we couldn’t figure out how to drill to 81,000 feet from the current record depth of 40,230 feet.
Honestly, it would be easier and safer to store it at the bottom of the Mariana Trench (temperature 91% of critical, pressure nearly 15 times critical). That stuff isn’t going anywhere!
?????
I have no idea where you believe republicans are endorsing climate activism because some young Republicans are buying into the hoax, Eric.
You can not trust 98% of the news sources! If any f the major news networks or newspapers makes the claim, take it with a pound of rock salt, with a lot of included rock.
Recently, when the 2020 election campaign kicked off back in 2019, respected members of both parties made the statement that supporting climate global warming policies doomed that candidate’s election chances.
Since then, most of the democrats have gone into freefall trying to be more pro climate activist policy than their opponents. This nonsense has not peaked, yet.
Democrats rabidly chasing public rapture delusions also means that attention seeking young republicans are showing their egocentric envy and respond by hopping onto the wagon that gets the most play in the news; not matter how idiotic the statements seem.
It is also a method to appease the lunatic democratic House leadership that rigidly adhere to the opposite of whatever President Trump desires..
Keep very much in mind that in the midterm 2017 elections, a group of activist Republicans were pointedly ignored by President Trump, targeted by Conservatives and they subsequently lost their reelection attempts.
A fact that cheered most Conservatives immensely.
Nor has American views of civilization destroying job killing climate policies improved over the last two years.
Even the dullest Conservative can see America’s economic and morale resurgence results from President Trump cancelling excessive false environment burdens; e.g. bans on fracking; oil lease red tape concrete barriers; government intrusions causing distress to people’s lives; etc.
The dullest republicans mouth similar claims to the green activists but get hammered in any townhall meetings or open debates. Something about there not being evidence or logic to support their demands.
Especially that little tidbit fact, that voters do not voluntarily select “climate change” as an important issue. Concerns about ‘climate’ are only noted when the pollster force people to supply an opinion because the pollsters included climate in their “concern” list. Conservative responses are very lackluster.
I’ve driven a few poll takers daft, because I refuse to respond to nebulous question; especially questions phrased such that people are abject deniers or “are concerned” about ‘climate change’.
Carbon capture dreams…
Or maybe promote more modern and economical fission (forget fusion dreams).
And go back to HEU. Ignore the petitions of the Nobel has beens most of whom have zero demonstrable competence in nuclear energy or terrorism prevention.