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.
nt: too true. I emailed Matt Gaetz (in the list below) on this topic. Some Republicans seem to think they can hop this train but only pay a fraction of the fare. But, as you say, they are actually stung and will realize it only when its too late.
There is a House GOP rule that no bill shall be moved to the floor, by House Republicans, if it cannot get a majority of the House Republicans to vote for it. How does it make any sense to have that rule and a Republican house leader who comes from the most Democrat state in America? It’s gonna be funny when Kevin McCarthy loses his butt after Congressional reapportionment next year. His state is going to lose a House district for the first time ever in its history next year. Fool.
Future young Republicans AREN’T on college campuses today. They’re at work or are going to work. Working class millennials were 2016’s key swing voters, not Harvard University college Republicans. The sooner that these Congressional idiots start representing the voters that actually vote for them and not the voters who don’t vote for them, but who they want to vote for them, the sooner that they’ll actually win a House majority.
And when I say campuses, I mean what people who have Bachelors degrees + think of as college. Not technical or trades degrees or certifications from technical or community college. In very reliable polling that I’ve seen from a key Midwest swing state recently, President Trump’s highest approval comes from people who have associates degrees and high school diplomas. It’s very weird because there’s much more similarity between people who have high school diplomas and associates degrees than there is between people who have bachelors degrees and associates degrees or even between people who have “some college” and associates degrees. By and large, the people who have associates, but not bachelors, degrees got some sort of job-specific technical degree.
“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/
oh- I was wondering if I’d ever see any mention of Moomaw on this or any other skeptical blog. He lives in western Mass. as I do. I’m a forester so I like seeing forests managed. Moomaw doesn’t. He wants to lock up all the forests. A few years ago he wrote an article in The Dogwood Alliance propaganda journal saying we must protect the forests. I keep asking him what he means by “protect” but he won’t explain. He truly hates the wood products industries. Of course he lives in a nice 4,000+ sq. ft. wood house in elite Williamstown, the home of elite, leftist Williams College. He strongly supports a bill pending in the state legislature to permanently lock up several hundred thousand acres of state owned forest. He detests biomass as a energy source. He says that it’s better to build with steel than wood. I could write much more about him but I’m a bit busy at the moment.
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)
Stop a minute and look at the list in the Senate. Now look at the list of House members. How many of the Senators are strong in science, how many of the House members are? We need to get them strong support with real scientists, and serious understandable presentations which are available from writers on this site.
Without the support, pandering will win the day as always. Don’t forget, to get appointed to something, you generally need to be interested in it. The Senators are BIG problem.
Sky, thanks for compiling this list! I intend to write to some of these people, especially the ones to whom I have contributed funds! We need to let them know that this is unacceptable. The reason I walked away from the Democrat Party was because of climate change alarmism. Over a year ago, I made a #WalkAway video, which got 46K views, explaining why I did this. I’m now making weekly videos. The one I posted yesterday pointed out how President Trump is ever-so-slightly speaking out more on this issue: https://youtu.be/TbOYPTmaW_o
Ha, I found a way to send an e-mail to Congresswoman Elise Stefanik — in order to reach her staff, it is necessary to appear to be in her district…. oh well, sometimes one must skirt the rules a bit…. Here is what I wrote:
Dear Congresswoman Stefanik,
I was very impressed with your demeanor and tough questions during the attempted impeachment of our President Trump. I immediately contributed $500 to your re-election coffers to show my strong support and admiration for your efforts.
I used to be a very strong Democrat, and even served in Bill Clinton’s administration as Deputy Secretary of Defense for Command, Control and Communications. I have a strong background in engineering (MSEE from Caltech). After years of researching the issue of “climate change,” I walked away from the Democratic party and voted for President Trump in order to get the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Accords and fight “climate alarmism.” I learned from a post on WattsUpWithThat that you are a member of a Republican committee focusing on so-called climate change solutions!! What a disappointment. I had considered you, Matt Gaetz, and a few others to be possible future Republican Presidential candidates, but I and many others like myself could never sanction someone who supports the Left on this issue.
I gave my address as being in Plattsburgh, because when I served in the U.S. Air Force back in the 1970s, I was stationed at Plattsburgh AFB. It was a SAC (Strategic Air Command) base back then, and my speciality was as an avionics technician (these jobs had just recently been opened for women!) for the F-111 aircraft.
I still have hopes for you, as you are young enough — perhaps, with time, you will grow to see these so-called “green” policies to promote “renewables” to be counterproductive and harmful.
Thank you for your time.
My YouTube #WalkAway video is titled: “Climate Alarmism made me #WalkAway.” It has 47.5K views and can be found at: https://youtu.be/5KFcAPsAXRI
Sincerely,
Deborah R. Castleman
PS I apologize for the faux Plattsburgh address, but I didn’t know how else to make sure that you saw this. My actual address is: 14629 Hilltree Road, Santa Monica, CA 90402-1009.
“I still have hopes for you, as you are young enough — perhaps, with time, you will grow to see these so-called “green” policies to promote “renewables” to be counterproductive and harmful.”
I was her and read your patronising comment, (above) I would ignore everything you said.
Fortunately she’s not a close-minded ideologue like you Simon, so there’s actually a chance she’ll give the letter all due consideration (assuming she ever actually sees it and it isn’t filtered out by her staff).
When they read she doesn’t actually live in the area, coupled with the patronising superior tone, my bet is they will file it in the round cabernet.
Quite likely, As I said “assuming she ever actually sees it and it isn’t filtered out by her staff”
Simon’s really achieving Chuck Schumer-level smarminess today.
Thank you, Deborah!
Your tale of enlightenment and honest testimony are valued by our Representatives. I encourage all here to respond to our Representatives similarly. As for the petty attempts to attack you by our resident fool, please forgive him. His comments self-illustrate why he is referred to as ‘simple simon’….
“simple simon’…. and you call me petty.
Petty or not, it’s a nickname you’ve earned though your inane posts. Don’t like it, stop being so simple, Simon 😉
John Endicott
Rather than resorting to Tumpian name calling, why don’t you do the big boy thing and tell me where I am wrong, so we can have an adult conversation.
I say the sentence “I still have hopes for you, as you are young enough — perhaps, with time, you will grow to see these so-called “green” policies to promote “renewables” to be counterproductive and harmful.” was incredibly patronising. It’s about the worst thing an older person can say to someone younger. Imagine if I said that to you. “John, I know you think CC is not real, but when you do a bit more reading and really understand the world, well then you will see how wrong you have been.”
Simon, stop being so simple-minded. (Call it “Trumpian name calling” all you want, you’ve earned the nickname several times over through your posts her at WUWT over the years, like it or not). Why don’t you do the big boy thing and point to where J Mac was wrong in his (correct) observation: “As for the petty attempts to attack you by our resident fool, please forgive him. His comments self-illustrate why he is referred to as ‘simple simon’….”?
And thank you for referring to me young, you must be ancient in comparison, which means your don’t have youthful inexperience to blame for your simple-minded postings. Unlike Congresswoman Stefanik, there’s little hope, then, of you growing and learning. and if being “patronized” is the worst thing the congresswoman has to face from those who disagree with her position on CC or any other issue, she can count herself lucky.
John
“As for the petty attempts to attack you by our resident fool, please forgive him. His comments self-illustrate why he is referred to as ‘simple simon’….”?
Is just a childish comment doesn’t deserve to given air.
And I didn’t say you were young, please don’t misquote me. It is clear you are an older person by the way you write.
And I see the new Tesla Roadster about to be released. “If” the stats are right, it will be the fastest production car ever made (0 – 60 in 1.9 seconds) and with a range of 1000km’s it … well… just keeps getting better. And while it is a not cheap, it is by comparison to other cars that can, well, nearly compete with it. I see a profit here for someone.
I do have to hand it to Musk – issuing new shares, mere weeks after claiming Tesla did not plan to raise any more capital, to take advantage of the bubble in Telsa’s stock prices was certainly a wise business move on his part. Kudos to him for that. He keeps managing to find ways of raking in OPM to keep his annual losing company chugging along. He’s certainly the Svengali of the investing world.
‘Rather than resorting to Tumpian name calling’
Actually the TUMPian name-calling as you put it, is a long-standing progressive tactic that TRUMP has been putting back in their face – and boy, you crybabies can’t take it, can you?
The other “Republican” Senators ought to be pressed on whether they approve of associating with Mittens, since this is that Democrat’s big issue. He hates the working class. His job at Bain was making himself $20,000 for every real American job destroyed. Do they associate with the “Republican” who voted to impeach President Trump? https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/02/05/mitt-romney-made-20k-for-every-american-laid-off/amp/#click=https://t.co/O7MDdppccD
Congressman Dan Crenshaw is also extolling the virtues of carbon capture. I have tweeted him about how bad an idea this. No reply.
I is an extreme disappointment to see him and others do this.
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.
Just ask Joe Biden ( or his son ah but wait his daughter is in the loop for millions of government money ) why no news about the daughter is Shea drug addict as well ???
That is a fundamental problem. Democrats in particular lament the influence of “big” money and call for campaign finance reform. What is really needed is a smaller government that does not wield so much power and money itself.
And their lead candidate is 65 billion in and owns major media outlets.
They don’t ‘lament’ it – they use it for their own ends.
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.
Ron, a politician suggesting they have to do something in a disguised way usually means they have no intention of acting on what you want, but don’t want to tell you so to your face.
Very good point, Eric. Moreover, this has to be the weakest method of reactivating nuclear energy that there is.
“Ron, a politician suggesting they have to do something in a disguised way ” would that be like when you wont allow witnesses or documents to be presented at a trial?
No that would be like when you won’t allow the minority to call witness or ask certain questions for the defense, when you hide away in the basement to conduct pre-screening of what witness you will have and then refuse to release all the transcripts of those basement interviews to the defense, and when you won’t give the defense advanced notice of what witness will be called so that they can prepare questions. In short when you deny all due process and then whine that the slam-dunk case you claim you have requires witnesses that you refused to take the time go through the process to get in the House won’t be called in the Senate. It’s not the Senates place to do the job the House refused to do (and refused to do properly).
You mean like that shame of a House trial?
It’s not hard to see how you push for all this green crap – you’re dishonest.
Ron,
Even planting trees is a squishy, vague, and potentially expensive strategy. Those proposing it are speaking of a billion hectares of replanting and afforestation. What resources will be consumed in the effort — fertilizer, labor, fuel, etc. ?
Only people who cannot plan, who have done little physical work themselves, and cannot calculate become enthralled with these ideas. Mitt Romney is very wealthy, but he appears brainless in many ways. Yet, you are correct that some of this may simply be pandering to stay elected. Susan Collins, for example, always seems to be walking a political tightrope.
I have thousands of acres of trees/forest under private management ownership and management, and am probably getting close to having planted a million trees myself (with hired help) over 40 years. I have friends on the prairies that have taken a 160 acres of rocky pasture land and converted to growing hybrid poplar trees and are harvesting after 15-20 years, for hardwood lumber, pulp and sell the cull for firewood or make pellets for the wood burning pellet stoves. Others are growing birch, conifers or commercial saskatoons, choke cherry, and dozens of other species for their local climate zone. My grandfather planted a hardy maple tree back in the 30’s on the original prairie homestead that was tapped for maple syrup, on the prairie that previously grew a native stunted poplar tree that took 100 years to grow 30 feet high. Birch also makes a good syrup. Agro-forestry is a very viable industry and profitable, and should require no subsidy unless it is a city growing trees like Elms, Maples and Oaks on streets, boulevards and parks. Visit any of the dozens of cities in the northern prairie USA or Canada, and there is an urban forest where only bald prairie existed before.
It doesn’t really store carbon long term (perhaps wood homes and furniture is locked up longer term) unless you had a design to pelletize it and store as a future energy supply for generations and then that would be a subsidy of sorts, if it really was required at some point to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, but you would get a lot of energy back when we figure out that we probably need more CO2 in the atmosphere when it was burnt. Sort of like the strategic petroleum reserve, if it ever came to that. Kept dry at a moisture content below 8% and it will last forever if properly maintained.
If there is any purpose to Man having evolved on this planet, it was to put more CO2 into the atmosphere to alleviate the inevitable that life will perish when some future ice age has CO2 dropping below 150 ppmv. But if there was any long term necessity to remove CO2 long term, (which I don’t think there is) then genetically modified fast growing trees combined with adding some water irrigation would probably be the easiest, cheapest and the best for the planet considering the biodiversity that comes with growing trees. Think of birds, animals, insects and all the critters that makes woodlands their homes. And the oxygen production. Cleans the air…
If there was one thing that Trump got 100% correct was his former statements that we need the cleanest water and air on the planet, which is a true statement that no one could argue with and is what we actually require. It is unfortunate that somehow ‘carbon and CO2 got mixed up as pollution, but it really is a metaphor for everything else that is wrong with people and what is going on with the good Earth. Not only is CO2 the least of our problems, it is probably a miracle and blessing if we can to a doubling of CO2 by 2100. I fully support his Trillion Tree Initiative, and if it shuts up some of the yapping from the alarmists, then that is an extra bonus. But then I have to admit I am very biased, being in the forest industry and understanding how valuable forests are, even beyond the profitability factor. A much better plan than gathering up all the CO2 and pumping it underground without using it for any commercial benefit. Ok..rant over.
Good thing you aren’t in Massachusetts where climate radicals are fighting to stop all forestry. They think doing so will save the Earth. I and other foresters battle them every day.
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.
Highly concentrated CO2 can be valuable. You can use it in greenhouses to improve plant growth. Oil industry can utilize it in recovering more oil ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_oil_recovery) You can even synthesize methane (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction), which gives a way to hydrocarbon fuels in a fully closed carbon cycle. Creation on urea is one industrial use of CO2 (https://sciencing.com/uses-carbon-dioxide-gas-6364016.html)
It is a question of economic viability? Government should mess it with subsidies and regulations.
Greenhouse growers generally provide their own co2 as a side effect of burning gas for heating.
CO2 for enhanced oil recovery is only valuable if the the source of the CO2 is very close to the oil field where it is going to be used.
“Carbon Capture” by planting millions of trees is a great idea…Especially if you can cut them down in 10 years and start again !
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.
Tom, excellent point! I’ve been puzzling over what to do about this myself. For example, I pan to write to the Washington Examiner magazine, an otherwise excellent magazine, to complain about their coverage of the climate change issue (they more or less buy into it). President Trump himself is good on the issue and is ever-so-slightly addressing it in a more forthright manner, as I point out in my vlog posted yesterday: https://youtu.be/TbOYPTmaW_o
Deborah,
Glad you’ve finally found your way over here to WUWT. (I ran across your walkaway vid last year.) Hope you continue to add your point of view to the conversations here…and maybe some backbend too, for good measure. 😉
Regarding the coverage, and the larger point Tom was making, this is truly the case where everybody has been screaming for so long that the sky is falling, that normal people cannot even conceive that this message might be wrong. It’s so deeply ingrained at this point, it’s just assumed to be true. I’m convinced that someday far in the future, our time will become a case study of a civilization tricked into believing a lie by a small cabal of self righteous scientists blinded by confirmation bias, self serving politicians seeking an increase in power, and self loathing anti humanists steeping in a noxious stew of rancid malthusian hate.
rip
“Right-wing” Fox News broke into programming this weekend with a “Fox News Alert” barking that climate change will eliminate 50% of species by 2050!
The takeover of media by climatistas is complete.
I didn’t see the Fox News Alert you refer to but Fox News Channel does *not* currently promote human-caused climate change as an organization. I imagine the Fox News Alert was a report about someone other than Fox News making that outlandish claim. Fox News was just reporting what was said or written.
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 including Republicans knows it is good when the Leftwing Media sings your praises. It’s validation, because the Leftwing Media in effect speaks for American society.
What Republicans want: To be validated by the Leftwing Media and “Society” because they believe the Leftwing Media represents the majority thiinking in the United States. I would contend that the Leftwing Media actually represents the minority opinion in the country, they just sound like the majority because they make the most noise, because they have the most noise makers.
The only way a Republican will be validated by the Leftwing Media is if you throw your principles out the window and join up with them. Then they’ll praise you. Think Mitt Romney;
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.
I don’t trust neutrons. Why can’t they commit?
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.
Yes. Nothing is best. Watchful waiting is the thing to do. Building new nuclear powerplants would also be the thing to do. That way you cover your bets.
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.
A friend of mine, who is a civil and mechanical engineer, is a manager of a 72 Mw biomass steam generator that burns just bark and sawdust from sawmills that used to be burnt up in giant beehive burners just to dispose of it. Overall efficiency is about 25%-30% with steam for wet biomass and a lot of hot water going through the cooling towers. He is working on a small prototype to gasify the wood waste and burn it in a CCGT and get 55%-60% efficiency. Still in R&D, and an obvious cost to gasify the wood waste, but if they can gain an overall 10%-15% efficiency by doing so, then they plan long term to convert to gasification of wood waste and burn it with CCGT technology. Improvements in technologies will add to the bottom line, as well as reduce or eliminate the micron size fly-ash, which would be a lot better than the current burner and much better than the old beehive burners. There will always be viable biomass as long as we have a viable healthy forest industry. And it should be used as smart as possible to make the best return on investment.
Gassification was attempted in WW2 in Australia, some people fitted gasifiers to automobiles because of gasoline rationing. My grandpa said the gas was extremely corrosive, damaged the engines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_gas_generator
For sure things were far more crude in the 1940’s, and the raw gas from the wood gasifier was barely scrubbed of impurities. And of course, the old Model T carburetor was even more forgiving than anything we have now so it worked, sort of. All over the world, including Germany in WW2. My Grandpa also had a tractor he had jerry rigged together from an old barrel doing the same. Still better than horses, which they still had. Many people did this because of necessity. The only reason why the tech wasn’t pursued more was because crude oil and nat gas was a much better solution after the war when massive oil fields were found everywhere and gasoline/diesel were available widely and cheap.
But this is a multi billion dollar market cap company and are doing their own R&D and not subsidized other than normal tax accounting available to everyone. This is trying to increase the efficiency of utilizing the wood waste from massive forestry operations which is currently steam/thermal based for electricity generation. They won’t commercialize this if it isn’t profitable but it is an interesting exercise in improving CCGT technologies to 21st century possibilities. Plus it is base load spinning reserve electricity, so much better than the junk asynchronous electricity from solar or wind.
Sounds like a good utilization of those wastes.
Yes, woody biomass is a great product. Unfortunately, for me anyway, is that here in Massachusetts, a state totally dedicated to climate change fanaticism, is a movement to kill biomass. And a related movement to stop all forestry. The leader of the biomass hating is Dr. Mary Booth. Her enterprise is called “Partnership for Policy Integrity”: http://pfpi.net/. Many forestry organization across North America have spoken up against her. Her influence goes far beyond Massachusetts.
Woody biomass is a great thing for excellent forestry as it allows trees that have no other value to be removed from the forest so we can grow better trees which will have future timber value. If those low value trees are not removed- the forest will slowly become degraded.
Two 50 mw biomass facilities were planned in western Mass. but were prevented by these biomass hating fanatics. If they had been built- it would have been a boom for excellent forestry, resulting in a growing forest products industry. Many people in this state have pellet stoves but the pellets all come from far away. No pellet industries are allowed here. It’s crazy.
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
However, we need to stop using food to make fuel. Biofuel programs use perfectly good farmland and their produce to make ethanol. This takes more energy to make than one gets by using it as fuel. It is a broken-window economy and doomed to just waste our time and money. Also, using 40% of our corn to make biofuel raises the cost of all grains and starves people in other countries. It’s an evil idea that should be canceled.
“However, we need to stop using food to make fuel.”
I agree.
We should begin phasing this out right after the November elections. 🙂
The above about the November elections was a joke, but I really do agree that we shouldn’t be using food to produce fuel. It’s not necessary.
One-Term-Trump has climate policies? That’s hilarious!
338 days and counting…
Mmm he may not be one term, that is yet to be seen, but he certainly has no policies (or clue)on climate, except “it’s all a Chinese hoax.”Like everything with him, he will use what he can when he wants to…
https://www.vox.com/2018/11/27/18114338/trump-climate-change-assessment-golf-course-ireland
Trump has delivered more than anyone. Including the political hero of my youth Reagan. Even if they have a video of him holding up a gas station I will work and vote for his re-election.
Never thought I would get to that approach but the Klimate Kooks have me there. Thanks for the motivation.
“Trump has delivered more than anyone. Including the political hero of my youth Reagan.”
Without a doubt. Trump will end up being one of the greatest presidents and he is probably the most honest president, or at least the most extensively vetted (and found innocent) president in history.
It’s just remarkable what Trump has been able to accomplish and he has done it in the face of unprecedented resistance from the opposing political party, the Democrats, and the Deep State Democrat bureaucrats.
Trump needs to round up all those Democrat holdovers in the Executive Branch and put them in positions where they can do no harm, or fire them if he can do so legally.
Yesterday, Trump did a lap around the Daytona 500 speedway in the presidential limosine called “The Beast”, right before the race started. The crowd roared their approval.
It’s just remarkable what Trump has been able to accomplish and he has done it in the face of unprecedented resistance from the opposing political party, the Democrats, and the Deep State Democrat bureaucrats.
Indeed. None of his 44 predecessors ever faced the level of resistance and resentment that he has from deep state bureaucrats, the opposition party, activist courts, and even, at times, members of his own party (RINOs). And despite all that he’s managed to do more in 3 years than most of them ever did in 4 or even 8.
“Indeed. None of his 44 predecessors ever faced the level of resistance and resentment that he has from deep state bureaucrats”
None of his 44 predecessors behaved the way he does. No republican or democrat president has mislead the American people so openly.
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/12/the-whoppers-of-2019/
Tweeting the way he has to sway the judicial system so a “friend’ of his can get a lighter sentence. That has been rightly condemned from numerous people on the left and right.
You can approve of what the man has done (I don’t) but you can’t moan about the treatment he brings on himself.
If only the resistance was limited to pushback against a tweet. Don’t be so simple-minded, you know that we’re talking about more substantive issues than a tweet you didn’t like. Pretty much every thing (every single thing) Trump does as President gets push back from deep state bureaucrats, the opposition party, activist courts, and even, at times, members of his own party (RINOs). Name me one other president in our history that has had that same level of push back on their policies. You can’t. Not even Obama has had that level of resistance (and certainly not from his own party).
The republicans gave Obama a tough time, but I agree not as tough a time as Trump has had. But Obama was a whole lot more careful with what he said and did, and he didn’t cross boundaries like Trump does. I think he deserves all the bollocks he gets, but then I think he is an adulterous, fraudulent, bullying, narcissistic, lying, scumbag…. other than that he is alright I suppose.
Can you describe those “boundaries” that Obama was prudent not to cross?
“Refusing to give up on the debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 elections”
Simon, please
1) provide evidence that Russia interfered
2) disprove the evidence that Ukraine interfered
“The company did its analysis by making an exact copy of everything on the DNC’s hard drives through a process called “imaging.””
How would that “process called “imaging.”” work absent the physical devices?
“support of the international community”
There is no such thing as “international community”.
“Trump also tweeted a bogus theory that the whistleblower rules were “changed” right before the complaint was submitted”
The form was changed. The rules were changed.
Your own source makes no sense what so ever. The above prove is batshit crazy.
http://www.factcheck.org is garbage propaganda that’s so lame not even a semi retarded 11 years old would buy it.
Simon, please
1) provide evidence that Russia interfered
2) disprove the evidence that Ukraine interfered
There are multiple lines of evidence that Russia interfered. Robert Mueller’s report details this clearly. the FBI has also concluded that Russia interfered. Hell Trumpy said the words “Russia if you are listening..”
There is no evidence whats so ever that Ukraine interfered. None. Both recent ambassadors to the Ukraine said this is hogwash invented by the Russians to delude the simple minded (as if that would work).
“Trump also tweeted a bogus theory that the whistleblower rules were “changed” right before the complaint was submitted”
They weren’t changed and certainly not in the way Trump tried to say. The independent Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community said there had been no such change in law or policy. If you think there were changes then detail them. Don’t just throw words around that mean nothing. Here is a more detailed breakdown for you…
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/fact-check-were-whistleblower-rules-changed-ukraine-complaint-n1060481
“http://www.factcheck.org is garbage propaganda that’s so lame not even a semi retarded 11 years old would buy it.”
Mmm, if you think they are wrong say why and how. Read it and be critical of the content. Just saying it’s propaganda is nonsense and frankly lazy.
niceguy
“Can you describe those “boundaries” that Obama was prudent not to cross?”
Sure. He was diplomatic and knew the audience before he spoke. He didn’t call African countries shit holes. He didn’t resort to school yard bullying like Trump. Names Little Rocketman or Lyin Ted. Name calling should be (and was for Obama) beneath the office of POTUS. He didn’t screw porn stars then pay them off so he could keep it quiet from his wife and the American public before an election. He didn’t draw on weather maps with a sharpie to hide his own ignorant statement. He didn’t insult war heros like John McCain. A man who fought for his country (unlike private bone spur Trump). That enough for ya?
Obama “was diplomatic”
Was not!
His attitude during his stay in France was very insulting for President Sarkozy.
You have zero idea what you’re babbling about. As usual!
niceguy
Nice try niceguy… but this is what Obama said….
“I want to make mention that this is our first meeting since the arrival of the newest Sarkozy, and so I want to congratulate Nicolas and Carla on the birth of Giulia,” Mr. Obama told reporters shortly after his arrival at the G-20, with Mr. Sarkozy at his side. “And I informed Nicolas on the way in that I am confident that Giulia inherited her mother’s looks rather than her father’s, which I think is an excellent thing.”
He added, “And so now we share one of the greatest challenges and blessings of life, and that is being fathers to our daughters.”
How could anyone compare that to Trump’s continual blunders?
President Obama was invited by President Sarkozy, but instead went to eat alone. Obama basically dismissed the French President.
That was very badly received in France.
Il s’est comporté comme un gougeât.
He has no manners.
“There are multiple lines of evidence that Russia interfered.”
Yet you can’t cite any. Interfered how? When is “interference” illegal? When it isn’t the US doing it?
No evidence was produced. Nothing is verified.
Why would the Special Whatever indict Russians, if he really had actionnable evidence?
The very fact that he got grand jury indictment for foreign nationals, the argument used by brain dead Muh Russia apologist to pretend there was a case, proves he had no case. Like the “consensus” proof of globul warmin proves there is no case. When you have a case, you don’t indict or invoke consensus.
Justice is not about indicting people. It’s a dereliction of duty.
“The independent Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community said there had been no such change in law or policy”
Adding the word “independent” doesn’t make an entity less a deep state anti-“populism” seditious actor. The use of words like “independent” “non partisan” … that’s just adult-style childish.
Why was the form changed, again?
“Hell Trumpy said the words “Russia if you are listening..””
Yes please remind us that the FBI went out of the way to protect Hillary while she was obstructing justice to hide the fact she had TS SCI… on a completely unprotected server, that didn’t even have a valid TLS (aka HTTPS) certificate while she was in China, which suggests that the access to the server was done with a completely un-encrypted, or unsafely encrypted link, and that she acid washed thousands of emails as Donald Trump correctly said during the debate (which was described as fake news by your propaganda fact checkers)… a server the wiener selfies sending guy had access to.
It’s pretty clear the FBI colluded illegally and obstructed justice.
In fact the only thing that prevented the FBI itself of being criminally guilty is probably that the FBI doesn’t even exist as a normal legal entity.
At that point I don’t see how anyone can still not call for the total removal (or splitting?) of the FBI as currently known, as the FBI proved many times not be capable of not being a national shame. And we haven’t even started talking about school shootings.
Does Crowdstrike have relevant expertise?
If so, what are its areas of expertise? What are the areas where it does not claim to have special expertise?
If they were experts, we would know that. We don’t because they are a sham security corporation that works in the PAaaS area: Phony Attribution as a Service.
There is zero evidence NOKO hacked SONY.
It’s a scam.
Please pay attention to French weinergate (zizigate), former Macron press spokesman (Benjamin “grivois” Griveaux) sending dick vids to a woman.
Apparently “the Russians” did it. (Which mean Putin ordered it.) Although it looks like Benjamin Griveaux’s hand was holding his wiener, not Putin’s.
“The republicans gave Obama a tough time”
Actually, the Republicans gave Obama just about everything he wanted. They allowed him to run up the national debt by 10 Trillion dollars. Obama and the Republican Congress accumulated more debt during Obama’s two terms than all previous presidents and congresses combined.
‘Tweeting the way he has to sway the judicial system so a “friend’ of his can get a lighter sentence’
You mean on that railroad job your progressive fascists put on him? Anyone that can watch what the democrats have done and not see an utterly disgusting slime-job is either a moron, or a particularly loathsome kind of slime themselves.
It’s a hoax to pretend China has any restriction or serious target of “de-carbonation”!
Simon, I’d say you lose all credibility when you link to garbage sites like vox, but you didn’t have any credibility to begin with. After all, you can’t lose what you never had in the first place.
“Simon, I’d say you lose all credibility when you link to garbage sites like vox”
yeah yeah yeah… but I suppose you think Fox is all good. Don’t look at the source, look at the material. Even though most of what is on Fox is right wing propaganda there are some there who look to be impartial, Chris Wallace for examaple.
What for example is propaganda on Fox?
When did I *ever* mention Fox news? In all the links I’ve ever posted here at WUWT, I don’t think I’ve ever posted a Fox News link. Not once! Not because I share your blinkered view of any news organization that isn’t on the far left (and unlike the click-bait garbage of Vox, Fox is an actual, legitimate news organization, even if you don’t like their particular political bias), but because I know that people like you would dismiss such links out of hand. You want to convince those on the other side of something, you need to use sources that they’ll consider legitimate and acceptable. Vox doesn’t pass that test, just as you apparently wouldn’t consider Fox of passing that test.
Simon is demonstrating how progressives live and act on stereotypes they themselves create – it’s how they simultaneously preserve their arrogance, ignorance, and elitism.
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.
You would have lost most Congress creeps at the word “concept” and all of them at “radiative gases”.
Now, if you could explain to them how they could get rich by just leaving things alone, then you might get a nanosecond of their mili-second attention span.
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!
Salute!
Good point about the trenches. They are out there and the tectonic plates keep on sliding under each other.
Have oft talked with a friend about using the subduction zones that can be the easiest to reach for nuclear waste disposal. You know, put the stuff back where it came from and let Mother disperse the isotopes and such where she wishes. Ditto for the evil CO2, but someone has to determine how much we store and how much we need to keep – aye, there’s the rub. Who decides? Do we depend upon the alarmists and ignorant folks? Hmmm…
Gums sends…
?????
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’.
I have no idea where you believe republicans are endorsing climate activism because some young Republicans are buying into the hoax, Eric
where did you get the idea that Eric was claiming “(all) republicans are endorsing climate activism” when Eric’s article specifically said “some”? (see the opening sentence: “Are some House Republicans going soft on climate policy”).
The fact is feckless Republicans have a history of offering up “democrat lite” policy proposals. This is just the latest example: Democrats offer up the Green New Deal, so feckless Republicans think they need to come up with a Green deal of their own.
The only surprise is the names of some of the Republicans falling into that old trap this time. After some of them found their backbones during the Impeachment nonsense, It’s disappointing to see them misplace those backbones over Climate nonsense.
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.
Follow the money. There is lots of money to be made from public climate policy and much political funding is therefore associated with it. Climate provides a great excuse to open the public purse and pour the contents into somebody’s pocket. And it allows a politician can funnel money to wealthy supporters while pretending to virtue and concern for the future.
“Are some House Republicans going soft on climate policy?”
Are any House Republicans NOT going soft on any other policy?
If my congresscritter was a believer in Human-Caused Climate Change and proposed to spend taxpayer money to do something to fix it I would ask them this question:
“Could you tell me what bit of evidence you used to reach the conclusion that it was necessary to restrict CO2 production?”
I wonder how many congresscritters have even considered this question. The assumption has to be that they have not considered any evidence (since there isn’t any) and are just basing their opinion of CO2 on the narrative and not on any facts.
If you don’t have any hard evidence that CO2 is a problem, then you shouldn’t be spending money to fix something that doesn’t need fixing. Conversely, to spend money to fix CO2, you should have solid evidence that this is necessary.
I don’t think these congresscritters are quite there yet. And they should be challenged on how they arrived at their beliefs. They should not be allowed to assume CO2 is a problem without evidence.
Query your congresscritters about this if they are believers.
Don’t pay:
https://www.google.com/search?gs_ssp=eJzj4tFP1zcsNjAtiS80KDZg9OJMyc9TL1EoSKwEAF8JB5Y&q=don%27t+pay&oq=don%27t+pay&aqs=chrome.