The social costs of carbon cancelation

Banning carbon-based fuels will impose enormous costs that Team Biden deliberately ignores

Paul Driessen

Fearing that incessant warnings about manmade climate cataclysms would not be enough to end US fossil fuel use, the Obama-Biden Administration instructed a special Interagency Working Group to concoct a “social cost of carbon” concept. The SCC would “scientifically” calibrate the dollar value of damages that a ton of carbon dioxide emitted today in America would inflict on the USA and world in the future.

The price tag was set at $22/ton in 2010, raised to $36/ton in 2013, and just as arbitrarily increased to $40, before finishing the Obama era at $51/ton. President Trump disbanded the IWG and had the SCC slashed to less than $10/ton. Within hours of taking office, President Biden resurrected the working group, reinstituted $51/ton as a starting point, and directed federal agencies to devise a definitive SCC by 2022.

This “updated” version will reflect “recent developments in the science and economics” of climate change, including the costs of other greenhouse gases, the White House said. It will also factor in US commitments under the Paris climate treaty, and especially “considerations of environmental justice and intergenerational equity.” Climate “scientists,” economists, “ethics experts” and “diverse stakeholders” will all participate in the process, which many expect will devise a final SCC of $100 or even $200/ton.

The IWG methodology for developing SCC estimates is so infinitely flexible, so devoid of any rigorous standards, that it could produce almost any estimates that Biden and his climate czars feel is needed. Adding “justice” and “equity” to the mix makes it doubly malleable, doubly prone to abuse by an administration and Democrat Party that are obsessed with “manmade climate change” (even Securities and Exchange Commission and Department of Defense appointees must be committed to ending the “climate crisis”) and are determined to make America “carbon neutral” by 2050.

Social cost of carbon is intended to advance that agenda and a 981-page “CLEAN Future” bill requiring that electricity generators provide 80% carbon-free energy by 2030 and 100% “clean” power by 2035.

Right now, over 80% of all US and global energy come from fossil fuels – and China, India and other countries are building thousands of new coal-fired power plants, on top of the thousands they already have. So even total cancelation of fossil fuel use and CO2/greenhouse gas emissions by the United States would be imperceptible and irrelevant amid the world’s enormous and increasing levels of both.

Social cost of carbon is a key tactic in a war on reliable, affordable American energy; on jobs, human welfare and human rights; and on US and global lands, wildlife and environmental quality. It will be used to justify raising carbon taxes and prices to at least $160 per ton of CO2 and imposing Covid-on-steroids lockdowns every two years, supposedly to keep average global temperatures from rising more than 1.5 degrees C from pre-industrial/post Little Ice Age levels, which alarmists claim would be catastrophic.

The SCC enables agencies and their allies to attach any price they wish to every conceivable cost of using fossil fuels: hotter and colder, wetter and drier climate and weather; more frequent and intense hurricanes; reduced agricultural output; forest health and wildfires; floods, droughts and water resources; “forced migration” of people and wildlife;  worsening health and disease; flooded coastal cities; even “reduced student learning and worker productivity,” due to warmer planetary temperatures.

The SCC also lets practitioners completely ignore the obvious and enormous benefits of using fossil fuels, and emitting carbon dioxide – such as enhanced productivity via affordable air conditioning in summer and heating in winter; improved forest, grassland and crop growth (and greening deserts) due to more CO2 in the air; greater home and human survival rates amid extreme weather events; and having the jobs, mobility, living standards, healthcare and longevity of modern industrialized life.

In fact, hydrocarbon and carbon dioxide benefits outweigh costs by 50:1, 400:1 or even 500:1! Will Team Biden and others in the anti-hydrocarbon movement acknowledge any of this?

Unless compelled to do so by our courts, the odds are probably 500:1 against it. They won’t even admit that the sun and other natural forces still play dominant roles in climate and weather, as they have throughout history. In their minds, every SCC cost is directly and solely due to fossil fuels. (For a reality check, read Indur Goklany, Patrick Moore, Gregory Wrightstone, Marc Morano and Jennifer Marohasy.)

In fact, eliminating carbon-based energy and carbon dioxide emissions will impose far greater human and ecological costs. It is fossil fuel replacements that will inflict incalculable damage to people and planet.

Replacing coal, oil, natural gas and internal combustion vehicles would require millions of wind turbines, billions of solar panels, billions of battery modules, millions of acres of biofuel plantations, a complete overhaul of electrical grids and infrastructures, on millions of acres. That will require billions of tons of steel, aluminum, copper, lithium, cobalt, rare earth elements, concrete, plastics and other materials – which will require digging up and processing hundreds of billions of tons of ores and minerals.

Under Team Biden, Democrats and Big Green, little of this will take place in the US, under our rigorous laws and regulations. It will be done overseas, in China, Mongolia, Africa, Bolivia – often with slave and child labor, and with few or no workplace safety, air and water pollution, toxic substances, endangered species or other rules. Don’t their health, human rights and environmental quality mean anything?

The technologies may be clean and emission-free in the USA – but won’t be in any of these countries.

Even manufacturing the turbines, panels, batteries and other technologies will be done overseas – again with few or no pollution, health, safety or fair wage rules – because expensive, unreliable, weather-dependent, blackout-prone electricity will send America’s manufacturing and other basic industries into oblivion, along with millions of good jobs. Minority and blue-collar families will be hammered hardest.

The proliferation of “clean, climate-friendly” wind and solar energy will pummel wildlife and habitats. Wind turbines already slaughter a million birds and bats annually in the USA – far in excess of what Big Wind admits to – and that’s from a “measly” 60,000 turbines. The same thing is happening in Europe.

With the best wind sites being along migratory bird flyways, raptor hunting grounds, bat habitats, and Great Lake and sea coasts, the slaughter will get worse with every passing year. I just put new bluebird, hummingbird and wood duck nest houses around my home and neighborhood. It is terribly depressing that such efforts in suburban areas will be overwhelmed by a tsunami of death in our wildlife kingdoms. As forests, grasslands and deserts get torn up for turbines and blanketed by solar panels and biofuel crops, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates and wild plants will also disappear.

Team Biden, Democrats, Big Green and Big Media will loudly deny these realities. They will insist that any wildlife losses are “inadvertent.” As though the wildlife are less dead because it was inadvertent; as though negligible inadvertent deaths from fossil fuel extraction and pipelines were bad, but these are OK.

Wind turbines, solar panels and batteries have short life spans – and are difficult or impossible to recycle. Where will we bury millions of 300-foot-long fiberglass-composite turbine blades? billions of solar panels? Will we just keep sending solar panels overseas, where parents and children burn them in open fires to recover the metals – breathing toxic fumes all day long?

This is just the tip of the iceberg of adverse impacts from SCC/Green New Deal policies. Any honest, accurate, complete social cost of carbon analysis would require that every one of them be fully accounted for, before we make any decisions on fossil fuels. Will oddsmakers even take bets on that happening?  

Will courts step up to the plate? Will state attorneys general? Will Republicans become better informed about our energy lifeblood, better organized, less focused on less critical issues – and more willing to mount passionate, principled opposition to this irresponsible insanity? Or will Democrats just ram this through, because they can, because they control the House, Senate, White House and Deep State Executive Branch – perhaps with bare 1-10 majorities, but arrogant totalitarian control nonetheless?

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books, reports and articles on energy, environmental, climate and human rights issues.

4.9 20 votes
Article Rating
68 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ResourceGuy
March 15, 2021 10:24 am

The social cost of advocacy groups setting the agenda in the Party is rising monotonically.

Bryan A
Reply to  ResourceGuy
March 15, 2021 2:12 pm

We still have the filibuster to aid in scrapping legislation

MarkW
Reply to  Bryan A
March 15, 2021 5:03 pm

The Democrats have indicated that they are willing to use Reconciliation to get around the fillibuster whenever they need to.

JSMill
Reply to  ResourceGuy
March 15, 2021 3:09 pm

… monotonically in crime … sorry, time. Wait what …

n.n
Reply to  ResourceGuy
March 15, 2021 4:21 pm

Yes, progressive: unqualified monotonic process.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  n.n
March 15, 2021 4:50 pm

You misspelled moronic.

Joseph Zorzin
March 15, 2021 10:32 am

“Team Biden, Democrats, Big Green and Big Media will loudly deny these realities.”

When the Massachusetts “climate czar” admited it- he got fired. Lost his $130,000/yr job.

Klem
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 15, 2021 1:13 pm

We have a receptionist/data input clerk who earns that much every year.

Mining, it’s where the money is.

March 15, 2021 10:32 am

“President Biden resurrected the working group, reinstituted $51/ton as a starting point, and directed federal agencies to devise a definitive SCC by 2022.”

The actual economic ‘cost’ per ton of emitted CO2 is negative when you consider what must replace it. Unfortunately, no federal agency in an administration with Pelosi as dictator in chief is capable of acknowledging any truth that opposes the ideology.

Robert of Texas
March 15, 2021 10:40 am

Our culture is now building a “Pyramid” made of Carbon that will dwarf anything the ancients wasted effort on – all for a mandated religious belief that only a few elites benefit from.

n.n
Reply to  Robert of Texas
March 15, 2021 10:54 am

Quasi-religious: selective, opportunistic, relativistic (“ethical”), politically congruent (“=”).

Peta of Newark
Reply to  Robert of Texas
March 15, 2021 12:32 pm

I’ve thought of the Pyramid thing also.

My pyramid comprises Chiefs and Indians
Classically you need a lot of the latter, at the bottom, to support a select few of the former at the top.

But what I see is that the pyramid is now turning upside down, standing on its point = more Chiefs than Indians.

There is no other possibility than for it to topple over.

I accept as a perfectly feasible idea on what happened to Ancient Rome.
Everyone wanted to be A Patrician (Father of the City) and in due course, got their wish.
Those that weren’t Patricians became well-fed Cronies.

In Modern Times, it’s called “Government Creep”
All previous attempts at Civilisation have fallen foul of it.

It defines Socialism. Fortunately, Socialist pyramids fall over quite quickly.

And via desperate means employed by the Ancient Civilations to try save themselves, (the burning/destruction of Biomass by perfect example) they totally trashed their farm and surrounding lands and then, no surprise to some of us here, Changed The Climate.

Hello Texas, whaddya reckon.
Did rampant bureaucracy inside your energy supplier and widespread use of Roundup (Roundup Ready Corn =biomass destruction) ‘change your climate’ recently

Last edited 2 months ago by Peta of Newark
Drake
Reply to  Peta of Newark
March 15, 2021 2:27 pm

One positive about the latter Roman empire. Whenever there was a change of leadership, most of the previous bureaucracy was eliminated (killed) and their acquired wealth “redistributed” leveling the playing field for many out of the loop under the previous “administration.

The problem in the US is since Clinton the dems have been filling the bureaucracy with minions while expanding it continuously. Bush did not push back. Trump did not have time. The next congress with a rep. pres. needs to cut the staffing by at least 80% in DC. Watch Baltimore and the VA suburbs collapse.

BTW, how do the staffers perform. Little story. My family traveled to DC to see the sights, but didn’t try for WH tickets until it was too late to get them. Friends of my mother, both long time congressional staffers, were able to provide the tickets, delivered to our hotel room, by a senatorial runner. It is not what you know, it is who you know. We went to the WH for my daughters benefit, but I was not comfortable about it. I had not asked for the help.

Drake

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Peta of Newark
March 15, 2021 4:56 pm

My pyramid comprises Chiefs and Indians”

Raysis!

“Fortunately, Socialist pyramids fall over quite quickly.”

Because they’re upside down.

JSMill
Reply to  Robert of Texas
March 15, 2021 3:10 pm

A Carbon Calf ?

Bill Everett
Reply to  Robert of Texas
March 17, 2021 8:26 am

calculate the average annual human activity contribution to the atmospheric CO2 level and you will find it is only about one tenth of one ppm of CO2. This can only be described as microscopic and irrelevant as regards global temperature change.

n.n
March 15, 2021 10:51 am

The social, environmental, and human cost of the Green Blight.

shrnfr
March 15, 2021 11:04 am

The social cost of a reduction in the global temperature will be immense. Shorter crop seasons will create a lot of hunger. The plants probably have enough CO2 for the moment, although more probably helps. This thing has become an End of Days cult more than anything else.

Klem
Reply to  shrnfr
March 15, 2021 1:17 pm

End of Days cult? It’s easier to simply say Marxist, the terms are interchangeable.

Bryan A
Reply to  shrnfr
March 15, 2021 2:18 pm

A self fulfilling prophetic pathetic end of days cult

Reply to  shrnfr
March 15, 2021 2:45 pm

The social cost of a try of reduction in the global temperature will be immense.

I changed your sentence to reality

Bill Rocks
March 15, 2021 11:04 am

Orwellian.

Editor
March 15, 2021 11:08 am

The price tag was set at $22/ton in 2010, raised to $36/ton in 2013, and just as arbitrarily increased to $40, before finishing the Obama era at $51/ton. President Trump disbanded the IWG and had the SCC slashed to less than $10/ton. Within hours of taking office, President Biden resurrected the working group, reinstituted $51/ton as a starting point, and directed federal agencies to devise a definitive SCC by 2022.

A $51/tonCO2 carbon tax would yield a $0.44/gal tax on gasoline, more than doubling the gas tax in Texas.

The average retail price in Houston is currently about $2.40/gal, including state ($0.20) and federal ($0.184/gal) taxes. Even worse for people who like electricity, it would double the cost of natural gas and make coal totally unaffordable.

Carbon Tax ($/tonCO2)  $        10  $        30  $        50  $        51
Gasoline ($/gal)  $     0.09  $     0.27  $     0.44  $     0.44
Natural Gas ($/mcf)  $     0.53  $     1.59  $     2.66  $     2.71
Coal ($/short ton)  $   21.01  $   63.02  $ 105.04  $ 107.14

John Bell
Reply to  David Middleton
March 15, 2021 12:47 pm

Gas is $3.00/gal here in SE Michigan, and that is 87 octane.

Reply to  John Bell
March 15, 2021 2:01 pm

A $51/ton carbon tax would make it $3.44/gal.

AndyHce
Reply to  David Middleton
March 15, 2021 11:54 pm

Then it would be almost in striking distance of current California prices

Reply to  AndyHce
March 16, 2021 7:22 am

You’d also add the $0.44/gal to California’s gas prices.

Bryan A
Reply to  John Bell
March 15, 2021 2:22 pm

Just drove by the gas station in Santa Rosa Ca yesterday
3.899
4.099
4.299
They always have to tack on that tacky 9/10¢ on the price

Reply to  Bryan A
March 15, 2021 2:41 pm

No, no, no… You have it backwards. They knock off 0.1¢/gal to make it seem like a bargain… 😉

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  John Bell
March 16, 2021 8:43 am

John,

I’ve always found it ironic that the people of the state best known for manufacturing cars consistently voted for politicians who consistently undermined the industry.

Klem
Reply to  David Middleton
March 15, 2021 1:23 pm

Gas is already $5/gallon in Canada, by the summer it could be $7. So don’t bother vacationing in Canada while the Leftists remain in control.

The best part will be when people who voted for Trudeau start whining that gas has gotten so expensive. Leftism truly is a mental disorder.

Drake
Reply to  Klem
March 15, 2021 2:41 pm

My diesel truck got me from the border to Montreal and back without needing to fill up in Canada.

lee riffee
Reply to  Klem
March 15, 2021 3:00 pm

I know people here in Maryland who depend upon oil for heating and who happily voted for Biden….talk about chickens voting for Col Sanders! That’s something I’ll probably never be able to wrap my mind around – those who vote for candidates who have openly promised to undermine said voters self interests.

AndyHce
Reply to  lee riffee
March 15, 2021 11:56 pm

Those are the idiots who believe that when there is enough wind and solar their costs will be much lower.

Drake
Reply to  David Middleton
March 15, 2021 2:37 pm

All gas pumps must be required to list all taxes. Also, for the benefit of all drivers, a standardized $ per mile, you know like the libs require for groceries on price per oz., etc. so anyone that wants to buy E85 or biodiesel will know they are MORE expensive than regular gas and diesel #2.

bigoilbob
Reply to  David Middleton
March 16, 2021 10:12 am

A $0.44/gal carbon tax on Houston gas would increase its price by ~18%. Using the highest available factor for it’s stabilized price elasticity – from a recent paper by 2 Dallas Fed’s which calculate a MUCH higher magnitude than what is generally accepted – the reduction in use would be ~5%. Mostly from trip aggregation.

https://www.dallasfed.org/research/economics/2020/0616

The EIA has economically estimated the impact of a doubling of the US natural gas price. It is in figure 4 of the link, and if you look closely, you can discern between the present and doubling case. I didn’t drill down, but I’m guessing that comes from better insulation, abandoning old office buildings and factories, and so on.

https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/buildings/energyuse/pdf/price_elasticities.pdf

Coal is hosed in any case. Feel free to resuscitate it…

It’s interesting that those who pearl clutch against the hydrocarbon extractors having to pay more of their own currently externalized costs are largely same folks who champion “substitution” as an excuse to minimize social spending on our poorest neighbors.

Bruce Cobb
March 15, 2021 11:13 am

The social cost of Gang Green and their lies on the other hand, is incalculable.

Leonard
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 16, 2021 9:51 pm

Gang Green. Very clever and very true. Thanks

TheMightyQuinn
March 15, 2021 11:39 am

Crushing the peasants while living high on the hog is what socialists do best.

gringojay
Reply to  TheMightyQuinn
March 15, 2021 1:10 pm

U.S.A. has foxes – in the hen house.

78FD02DD-28CF-46C1-B775-89EE2DA4A659.jpeg
Leonard
Reply to  gringojay
March 16, 2021 9:54 pm

Wonderful graphic gringojay! OK to copy?

March 15, 2021 11:55 am

Please see my article here:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/03/17/on-externalities-integrated-assessment-models-and-uk-climate-policies/

In my view, the “social cost of carbon” is a valid, if mis-named, concept. But calculating it depends on which of the integrated assessment models you choose. And that’s a political issue.

AndyHce
Reply to  Neil Lock
March 15, 2021 11:58 pm

Valid even when you deny all the overwhelming benefits?

mkelly
Reply to  Neil Lock
March 16, 2021 6:04 am

Neil, how can something be a “valid concept” if based on lies that CO2 is causing climate change?

Scissor
March 15, 2021 12:53 pm

Nice picture of socialized housing at the top of the article, resembles LA!

Steve Z
March 15, 2021 1:16 pm

Will they charge people $51 per ton to exhale? Hold your breath, everyone!

JSMill
Reply to  Steve Z
March 15, 2021 3:12 pm

I think I read somewhere that human respiration is around 8% of total “anthropogenic” CO2….

Tom in Toronto
Reply to  JSMill
March 15, 2021 4:19 pm

That’s what they’ve taught everyone. Feel guilty for being alive. Original Green Sin passed down from the first Oxygen-breathing organism.

Gregory Woods
March 15, 2021 1:17 pm

Reality has a way of being real. Long before we even eliminate a percentage of CO2 (Carbon capture) the physical impossibility of that happening will become apparent….how low can you go?

Bruce Ranta
March 15, 2021 1:17 pm

The impact of harvesting all that wind energy could and is likely to be disastrous. You just can’t remove the amount of energy flowing around and expect the result to be benign.

March 15, 2021 1:21 pm

It’s Zuckwellian….it’s demrat destruction of America….it’s invaders wearing Joey the Clown T-shirts illegally crossing the border…Joey calls ’em demrat mail-in voters. INVESTIGATE JOEY AND HUNTER….IMPEACH JOEY…LOCK BOTH OF ‘EM UP

Climate believer
March 15, 2021 2:35 pm

We’ve really got to stop calling this crap “green energy”, (even in quotations, I’m guilty).

Here in France they’re busy building the foundations for 71, yes 71! off-shore wind turbines. All 50 meters high, 32 metres in diameter, and weighing 5,000 tonnes, they will support the wind turbines that will be plonked in the sea off the Normandy coast.

How is this “green”?

Off shore wind turbine base.jpg
Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Climate believer
March 15, 2021 4:51 pm

They are “green” because, like naval battleships of lore, they will make great seeds for reefs when they decay and fall into the sea.

Chris Hanley
March 15, 2021 2:42 pm

The term ‘social cost of carbon’ is a purposeful exploitation of equivocation, an abuse of language intended to deceive and stock-in-trade of unscrupulous propagandists.
People would be aware that carbon particulates in the ambient air have negative effects on human health.
However there is no evidence that carbon dioxide in the concentrations at issue have any effects on health whatsoever.

JSMill
March 15, 2021 3:06 pm

Damn, Paul…! Starting with “Don’t their health, human rights …” I couldn’t help voice-in-head-style thinking of the movie Network and it just kept getting better. I’m seriously going to read this aloud next and every chance I get just to get on that roll. Excellent discourse!

Last edited 2 months ago by JSMill
Tom in Toronto
March 15, 2021 4:12 pm

Necessity is the bedfellow of tyranny. The climate scam gives cynical politicians the blank check they’ve always wanted to implement economy-destroying pet projects all in the name of the ‘settled science’.

Gordon A. Dressler
March 15, 2021 4:45 pm

The “social cost of carbon” . . . the greatest money-making idea for bureaucrats of all kinds since the Catholic Church came up with the idea of “indulgences” and began selling them to the all-too-eager-to-follow masses.

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” George Santayana

observa
March 15, 2021 4:58 pm

How long can the doomsters keep up their plant food delusion?
Greenland ice sheet: Plant fossils suggest region was once ice-free (msn.com)

Leonard
March 15, 2021 6:57 pm

Excellent post. Quoting the summary like paragraph near the end.

“Will courts step up to the plate? Will state attorneys general? Will Republicans become better informed about our energy lifeblood, better organized, less focused on less critical issues – and more willing to mount passionate, principled opposition to this irresponsible insanity? Or will Democrats just ram this through, because they can, because they control the House, Senate, White House and Deep State Executive Branch – perhaps with bare 1-10 majorities, but arrogant totalitarian control nonetheless?”

We saw what the federal courts, especially the Supreme Court”, did in the recent election scandal, I think turning to the courts is futile. The Supreme Court is terrified of the Democrats because they have threatened to pack the Supreme Court if they do not kowtow to the Democrats. So the Supreme Court’s majority caved like a parer bag. Their ruthless and cowardly lust for power means they are Democrat stooges (except Thomas and Alito). Don’t look to the courts for help. And don’t count for help from the RINOs either.

Please pray for justice.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Leonard
March 16, 2021 8:28 am

The Supreme’s journey to scuttle any and all limits on Federal power has been completed. It began with the 1938 Carolene Products ruling and ended in 2020 when the court refused to consider Texas v. Pennsylvania. Here’s the connection:

1938 – Sets precedent that the Feds can do pretty much anything they want to (low scrutiny by court), provided that redress through the electoral process is not impeded (high scrutiny by court), Result – implement New Deal

2020 – Too bad about the electoral process! Result – implement Green New Deal.

john
March 15, 2021 8:49 pm

They won’t even admit that the sun and other natural forces still play dominant roles in climate and weather, as they have throughout history.”

They still believe the sun revolves around the Earth and the world revolves around them.

Vincent Causey
March 16, 2021 12:23 am

I still hope that, eventually, the UN agencies will bring this up as issues of serious concern, and that by doing so, the environmental damage will begin to permeate through the thick skulls of everybody. The damage will be too great to cover up. Perhaps environmentalists themselves will be shocked into lobbying against renewables. Who knows?

griff
March 16, 2021 2:27 am

ChinaIndia and other countries are building thousands of new coal-fired power plants, on top of the thousands they already have.’

That’s just not true any more.

Cancellations across the globe have brought the number of coal power plants in the pipeline outside India and China down sharply. For example, adding in proposed project cancellations in Indonesia, the GEM organisation estimates that the coal power pipeline in South and Southeast Asia’s four major emerging economies may have dropped by as much as 62GW in 2020. That leaves just 25GW under development, an 80% decline from just five years ago. 

Even India is cutting back: In 2019, the states of Gujarat and Chhattisgarh, the latter of which is home to India’s third-largest coal reserves, announced that they will not build any new coal generating facilities. Late in 2020, Indian power minister R.K. Singh said that the generating capacity from 29 coal plants scheduled to retire in the coming years would be replaced entirely by renewables.

China has 247 GW of coal power planned/under construction. Far too much: not ‘thousands’ of plants.

It would take minutes to actually check and quantify the actual amount of coal power plant being built, rather than toss out unfounded and alarmist notions like ‘thousands’

LdB
Reply to  griff
March 16, 2021 8:04 am

Do you actually read any real facts or do you just get what you print from some car salesman pretending to be a journo at the Guardian.

Search it you idiot … the current projection for India is 265 GW that is hundreds of plants and Australia will be exporting coal to them for years to come.

The current price of coal has surged in the middle of an economic downturn and despite China trying to hurt Australia (yeah that backfired big time).
https://stockhead.com.au/resources/asx-thermal-coal-rapidly-finding-new-homes-touches-20-month-high/

You can stick your head in the sand and drink all the green cool-aide you like but FACTS are FACTS.

Emissions will be going up until at least 2040 just from India and China … you in the UK can take one for the team and be all green and fuzzy but it won’t mean jack.

Climate believer
Reply to  LdB
March 16, 2021 9:02 am

It actually takes seconds to find the information, must be your fat fingers slowing you down.

Global Coal Plant Tracker from Endcoal.org, (hardly a climate realist website), puts the number at 1052, that includes Pre-permit, Announced, Construction and Permitted.

Heavily weighted towards Asia.

https://endcoal.org/tracker/

Global coal tracker.png
Howard Dewhirst
March 16, 2021 4:05 am

At least the Biden-Obama push will make sure that millions continue to continue to support the poverty of cooking and heating on camel, goat, sheep and cow dung

PETER D ANDERSON
March 16, 2021 5:18 am

All the pain for nothing. There is no GHE. It’s an impossibility.

PETER D ANDERSON
March 17, 2021 10:12 am

Green energy is a ridiculous waste of land and money with no offsetting benefit.

%d bloggers like this: