Goal of Carbon Neutrality by 2050?

Guest post by Roger Caiazza,

In an article about Enbridge Line 3 pipeline, Rachel Frazin of the Hill reported that:

“Asked about Line 3, a White House spokesperson said in an email the administration will evaluate infrastructure proposals based on energy needs, if they will help the country reach its goal of carbon neutrality by 2050 and whether they can create good-paying union jobs. The spokesperson didn’t say anything specific to the Line 3 project.” (Emphasis added)

Has anybody heard of an announcement that the United States has a goal of carbon neutrality by 2050?

The article was about an Enbridge pipeline upgrade project, Line 3, in Minnesota:

“The $4-billion U.S. portion of the Line 3 Replacement Program, known as the Line 3 Replacement Project, consists of replacing existing 34-inch pipe with new 36-inch pipe for 13 miles in North Dakota, 337 miles in Minnesota, and 14 miles in Wisconsin. The Wisconsin portion was completed in 2018, while the North Dakota segment was completed in December 2020.”

“In December 2020, construction began on the 337-mile Minnesota portion of the project, the only segment of Line 3 yet to be replaced with new state-of-the-art pipe.”

Activists unable accept that the oil is going to flow with or without this upgrade and unwilling to believe that the alternatives are higher risks for the environment are trying to block the segment in Minnesota even though construction began in December 2020.  Blair King explained why the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline was bad for the climate, the environment, and Canada and all of his arguments are equally applicable to this pipeline.

The Hill article explains that there are active lawsuits against the pipeline in Minnesota despite the fact that “both the federal and Minnesota state government assessed the pipeline’s impacts and approved it”.  This attempt to delay yet another pipeline is bad enough but the Administration’s response that the infrastructure project will be evaluated to see if they help reach its goal of carbon neutrality by 2050 is far worse.  Is it too much to ask that the politicians do a feasibility study to determine effects on affordability, reliability, and the impacts on the environment before committing to a political slogan?

—————————————————————————————————————————————

Roger Caiazza blogs on New York energy and environmental issues at Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York because New York politicians have enacted legislation to meet a carbon neutral goal by 2050 with including a feasibility assessment.  This represents his opinion and not the opinion of any of his previous employers or any other company with which he has been associated.

4.8 15 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
101 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Michael in Dublin
March 31, 2021 6:07 am

I laugh at this because if the US government is unable to deliver a balanced budget for 2022 then they most certainly will not be able to deliver carbon neutrality by 2050. The political leadership are simply deceiving the people and lying to themselves.

Last edited 13 days ago by Michael in Dublin
Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
March 31, 2021 6:51 am

“The political leadership are simply deceiving the people and lying to themselves.”

Stick with what you are good at.

fretslider
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
March 31, 2021 7:11 am

And making money.

You must have heard of our Lord Deben, for example. I still prefer to think of him as John Selwyn Gumboot.

Reply to  Michael in Dublin
March 31, 2021 8:01 am

“The political leadership are simply deceiving the people and lying to themselves.”

How else can these Socialists gaslighters get elected and stay in power? Truth, transparency and common sense undermine their agenda, so they must replace them with lies, secrecy and emotional manipulation as they apply self righteous indignation to convince themselves that they’re right.

It’s the same recipe that dictatorships have applied for centuries.

DonM
Reply to  co2isnotevil
March 31, 2021 12:42 pm

“Today, on this January day, my whole soul is in this: bringing America together, uniting our people, and uniting our nation …”

Giving Joe the benefit of the doubt … that he was being honest … simply shows that he has no soul.

I think that we have to give him the benefit of the doubt; someone other than Joe has what was his soul.

SMC
March 31, 2021 6:10 am

Carbon neutral by 2050, that sounds like a European goal. Hadn’t heard about it from the Biden Regime, yet. Not surprising though. As for the part about creating good paying union jobs, we know that’s a lie. The Biden regime is all about putting people out of work and shutting down businesses.

Ron Long
Reply to  SMC
March 31, 2021 7:52 am

SMC, not only is the “good union jobs” comment by the Biden-Harris Administration lying about the good union jobs, the very comment is against the “Right To Work” laws which many states have. I’m sure they court union votes (money) but they otherwise should allow States Rights to rule. Did you notice that I got the title “Biden-Harris Administration” correct? Makes me officially woke.

Reply to  Ron Long
March 31, 2021 8:43 am

More properly, it’s the Harris-Pelosi regime with Pelosi as dictator in chief. Biden is just a figurehead who’s perpetually confused and out of touch with reality which makes him easy to manipulate.

The goal of this regime is to turn America into Taxifornia under single party (i.e. dictatorial) leadership. Single party rule has destroyed California, so they want another chance to do it ‘right’ and figure that the bottomless pit of federal money will help which they can also use to bail out failed blue states and cover up their progressive malfeasance.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  co2isnotevil
March 31, 2021 11:35 am

If Biden is a puppet on a string, I wonder which woman is pulling the strings in this comedy of errors?

yirgach
Reply to  co2isnotevil
April 1, 2021 9:26 am

Obama is the one pulling all the strings.

beng135
Reply to  SMC
March 31, 2021 8:08 am

The Biden regime junta is all about putting people out of work and shutting down businesses.

Fixed.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  SMC
March 31, 2021 10:43 am

Doesn’t matter, if it’s in the California plan then that’s all that matters.

Cosmic
Reply to  SMC
April 1, 2021 1:02 pm

I hear it on XCEL ENERGY commercials here in MN. Idiots.

David Kamakaris
March 31, 2021 6:17 am

Carbon neutrality, climate disruption, irritable climate syndrome or whatever is the current nom de plume has nothing whatsoever to do with the climate. It is simply being used as a cover to socially and economically re-engineer the world.

Last edited 13 days ago by David Kamakaris
Editor
Reply to  David Kamakaris
March 31, 2021 6:22 am

“irritable climate syndrome”, David? THANKS!! That made me laugh.

Regards,
Bob

Michael S. Kelly
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
March 31, 2021 4:01 pm

Ditto!

philincalifornia
Reply to  David Kamakaris
March 31, 2021 7:31 am

I think re-engineering their bank accounts would be more accurate.

March 31, 2021 6:20 am

This is just as idiotic as we only have 9 more years ….

Scissor
Reply to  John Shewchuk
March 31, 2021 6:37 am

Kind of like 2 weeks to flatten the curve.

fretslider
Reply to  John Shewchuk
March 31, 2021 7:12 am

This is just as idiotic as we only have 9 more years ….

So I’m going to party like it’s, er, 2030

Last edited 13 days ago by fretslider
Richard Steward
March 31, 2021 6:21 am

Loved the photo, but where are the unicorns?

Reply to  Richard Steward
March 31, 2021 10:48 am

The humor in my photo-editorial decisions often goes unnoticed.

Scissor
March 31, 2021 6:36 am

That’s like 5 months in AOC years.

Bryan A
Reply to  Scissor
March 31, 2021 9:10 am

Or 5 Neurons in AOC’s brain, no wonder she’s feeling maxed out

Dr. Bob
March 31, 2021 6:53 am

I am just waiting for Earth Day for some more frivolous announcements. The fun is only beginning!

TonyL
March 31, 2021 6:54 am

It is good to see the US Govt. finally getting on board. Carbon neutrality is a topic of vital importance.
When carbon has one too few electrons, a positive ion is formed, known as a carbonium ion. These are highly reactive species generally found in chemical reaction transition states and are therefor very short lived. As a class, these are SN1 reactions.
It is easy to see that if large quantities of carbonium ions were produced and released into the environment, *bad* things could happen.
On the other hand, if a carbon atom has one too many electrons, a carbanion in formed. These are even more exotic and reactive than their cabonium ion counterparts.

With this background, it is easy to see why carbon neutrality is important. Aside from just a few exotic chemical compounds, we want all carbon atoms to have just the right number of electrons and so to be chemically neutral. This neutrality also ensures that once a chemical reaction is completed, all the carbon atoms have all covalent bonds of the required number and type. This, as you all can imagine, is a *Good Thing*.

Now we see that carbon neutrality is very important concept in organic chemistry. It is most encouraging that a topic once relegated to the chemistry laboratory is now out in the wider world and getting mainstream attention.

philincalifornia
Reply to  TonyL
March 31, 2021 7:40 am

… ha ha yeah, but even when neutrality is reached, it still bears the number of the beast – 666

Fraizer
Reply to  philincalifornia
March 31, 2021 7:47 am

Sometimes all you can do is point and laugh.

Bryan A
Reply to  Fraizer
March 31, 2021 9:13 am

Perhaps that’s what XR fests need. Crowd around them, Point And LAUGH

Derg
March 31, 2021 6:56 am

MN’s Governor Kim Jung Walz has pledged to be carbon free by 2050. No word on if he is building more nuclear power plants, but I see more and more solar installed. Solar in MN is truly stupid. In the winter, MN can go weeks without full sun. I have also seen these panels caked in snow and ice after snowstorm.

Reply to  Derg
March 31, 2021 7:06 am

By 2050, there is almost a zero chance that many of these people will still be around.

AndyHce
Reply to  Anti-griff
April 1, 2021 3:16 am

Could we hope for much sooner than 2050?

Cosmic
Reply to  Anti-griff
April 1, 2021 1:06 pm

I am actually 2yrs older than our pathetic governor here in MN and look about 10yrs younger. Dude looks like he’s Bidens age and he’s only 55. Fat, ugly leftist.

Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  Derg
March 31, 2021 7:58 am

Even worse here in AB, further north. On January 1 at noon on a sunny day, our solar installs produce about ~8% of rated, for all of ~4 hours.

And we are building more, because we are that smart

Bryan A
Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
March 31, 2021 9:20 am

So, if Nameplate Capacity dictates you need 36 panels on your rooftop to cover demand requirements, but your only realizing 8% capacity factor, you really need to have 480 panels on your rooftop.
You really do need to add more capacity.

You’re gonna need a bigger roof.

Or build a lattice structure covering your entire property and live in the shade cast by the panels

DMacKenzie
Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
March 31, 2021 12:16 pm

Pat, assuming your installs are wellsites, your backup (but really primary) is a Thermo-electric solid state generator using a natural gas flame. The solar panels are really for photo ops. If the flame goes out, someone goes and fixes it right away. If the solar panel goes out, it goes on next summer’s maintenance list.

griff
Reply to  Derg
March 31, 2021 9:29 am

solar actually works quite well while snow covered…

But nobody would propose relying only on solar: there would need to be wind power as well, plus a high degree of interconnection to other areas.

Editor
Reply to  griff
March 31, 2021 9:37 am

That is false!

My Father installed a large solar array at his ranch, which has an in time solar to power read out, when a cloud shows up, boom it rapidly drops, when it is covered in snow, it near zero.

I have seen it with my eyes about the small cloud effect, it is that sensitive when there is a drop in solar intensity on the array.

K. McNeill
Reply to  Sunsettommy
March 31, 2021 9:57 am

Don’t forget griff is speaking of British snow which is, apparently, non- existent or less than 2 inches not the 4 feet in our part of the world

Bryan A
Reply to  Sunsettommy
March 31, 2021 12:25 pm

Of course not Griff. Relying purely on solar, including importing solar from other areas would require that EVERY time zone, even the ones covered mostly by oceans, produce the average daily Global Demand over the 4 hour period when Solar actually produces its nameplate capacity. BUT there will always be times when the Wind doesn’t blow at night when or for extended periods when non solar back-up would be required to fill in 100%. Batteries wouldn’t suffice for a windless days long (96+ hour) period of no wind and limited winter Sun.
Nuclear is the ONLY way to go

RickWill
Reply to  Bryan A
March 31, 2021 9:48 pm

produce the average daily Global Demand over the 4 hour period when Solar actually produces its nameplate capacity. 

That is only possible with a tracking array. Even then it is only momentary because the output drops once the panels warm up.

With the current cost of storage, a stand alone solar battery power supply with fixed array will be optimum value at 4 to 5% capacity factor at 37 degrees latitude unless there is some form of backup power supply. Locations with more reliable sunshine will get a bit higher but aiming above 8% is going to need back up.

The standard rating for panels is 25C and output drops by around 0.7% per degree C rise in temperature. It is rare for systems to be rated for the actual temperature likely to be experienced.

Also a stand alone system should have the panels tilted to maximise winter input. At 37 latitude, the tilt for winter maximum is 50 degrees. Snow may just slide off if they are tilted that amount. At higher latitudes, more tilt is required.

Derg
Reply to  griff
March 31, 2021 10:04 am

You are the dumbest person on the site. It’s not even close.

Doonman
Reply to  griff
March 31, 2021 10:20 am

Solar also works quite well at night. Its not the panels fault there is no light reaching it.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Doonman
April 1, 2021 6:03 am

Good point. 🙂

Alan Robertson
Reply to  griff
March 31, 2021 10:37 am

That’s a bold statement.
Let’s see you defend it.

Earthling2
Reply to  griff
March 31, 2021 10:55 am

“solar actually works quite well while snow covered…”

That made me laugh Griff…you surely are a comedian.

DonM
Reply to  Earthling2
March 31, 2021 12:51 pm

again, given the benefit of the doubt, the griff was being honest and it meant that:

solar actually works quite well while snow covered … when comparing to how well it works over the average, when it is not snow covered”.

On average, snow is not a significant impact.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  DonM
April 1, 2021 11:10 am

Which is an asinine comparison. People need instantaneous power, not average power.

fred250
Reply to  griff
March 31, 2021 11:12 am

Yep, they would HAVE TO RELY ON FOSSIL FUEL BACK-UP

Like the UK does.

comment image

Last edited 13 days ago by fred250
meab
Reply to  griff
March 31, 2021 11:14 am

griff, your comment is not quite an outright lie because you didn’t specify the snow depth, but it is misleading. Given your history of lying, I’m comfortable claiming that it’s intentionally misleading.

The energy loss of Solar PV at 30 degrees of slope is 45% for snowfalls 1 inch thick or more on an average day. That’s down to about 1/2 of its power. The output during a cloudy day is off 59% with 1 or more inches of snow. The thicker the snow, the lower the solar array’s output. That’s not “quite well” by any stretch of the truth.

https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/5232456

See figure 6.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  griff
March 31, 2021 11:22 am

And lots of storage for backup when the sun does not shine and the wind is not blowing; and even more power generation to charge the storage systems when the sun and/or wind comes back. Add to that the need to provide frequency control, which so far only large spinning synchronous generators can provide, and millions of kilometers more of power lines added to connect all the widely dispersed generation sources. Sure, easy peasy; I’ll get started on it tomorrow. 😉

Lrp
Reply to  griff
March 31, 2021 7:20 pm

Lying again!

beng135
Reply to  griff
April 1, 2021 6:27 am

griff, where exactly were you educated? School of Numbskulls?

Cosmic
Reply to  griff
April 1, 2021 1:07 pm

Are you really this stupid or twice as much?

Mumbles McGuirck
March 31, 2021 6:58 am

No doubt, the WH spokesperson said aloud the part that was meant to be silent. Everyone in the Harris Administration knows what the goals are, as do their allies in MSM, but for public consumption the goals are Unity, Equity, and High-paying Union Jobs. Rinse and repeat.

fretslider
March 31, 2021 7:21 am

John Kerry is planning to travel to India and the United Arab Emirates in the coming days to increase the Biden administration’s pursuit of deeper international commitments to address climate change…

Kerry Headed to India, U.A.E. for Climate Talks – WSJ

…John won’t be following in Greta’s example, he loves his own [air charter company] jet, so much more, well, civilised.

It probably means he won’t get a statue….

University of Winchester has unveiled its almost £24,000 statue of Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg, angering staff who have faced years of cutbacks.

The £23,760 ($32,700) bronze monument to the teenager, who was elevated to international prominence by global leaders after she began skipping classes at her publicly-funded school on Fridays to protest a perceived lack of action on climate change, was slammed as a “vanity project” by staff at the university.

PICS: £23,000+ Statue of Great Thunberg Installed at British University (breitbart.com)

Oh well.

Last edited 13 days ago by fretslider
Notanacademic
Reply to  fretslider
March 31, 2021 7:51 am

One of those angered members of staff will be even angrier when given the job of cleaning pigeon sh*t off it. Immortalised for skiving, funny old world.

Bryan A
Reply to  Notanacademic
March 31, 2021 9:22 am

£24,000 that’s almost 12 tons, I didn’t know they could stack it so high

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  fretslider
March 31, 2021 8:10 am

C’mon, man! Not everyone can charter a boat.

Wade
Reply to  fretslider
March 31, 2021 9:22 am

John Kerry might fly commercial, take off his mask, while chiding us for taking off our mask.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  fretslider
April 1, 2021 6:07 am

“University of Winchester has unveiled its almost £24,000 statue of Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg,”

These people are insane!

Cosmic
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 1, 2021 1:13 pm

I hope to topple it some day. Then stomp on it.

Cosmic
Reply to  fretslider
April 1, 2021 1:12 pm

YOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU RRRRRRRRRRRRRRANG?

Tomsa
March 31, 2021 7:36 am

So those in MN again this upgrade would rather see continued oil flowing through an older, subject to possible failure pipeline than a new one???

The Canadian portion of the upgrade was completed to the ND line (not far from our home) last year as well.

garboard
March 31, 2021 7:40 am

so if the US ever got totally serious about solar electricity , how many square miles of pv would need to be installed in the desert south west to meet current national electricity demand ? and how large a battery array would be required to discharge necessary electricity overnite ? . and what industries are too energy intensive to use 100% solar ? im sure someone has discussed this somewhere but I was just looking for some back of the napkin numbers .

griff
Reply to  garboard
March 31, 2021 9:27 am

It is surprisingly little, compared to US total area according to this:
Amazing Map: Total Solar Panels To Power The United States (modernsurvivalblog.com)

But you should put a huge amount on rooftops, schools and over parking lots as well as in the desert… cuts transmission loss, distributes power to where its required… add batteries for domestic users

You would not be relying only on solar, so you would also build much more wind power, especially offshore wind…

fred250
Reply to  griff
March 31, 2021 11:16 am

And have ZERO ELECTRICITY at night or on cloudy days.

It really is a WHY WASTE THE MONEY non-option for the CO2 NON-PROBLEM, isn’t it griff-fool

Just use GAS, like the UK does a lot of the time

comment image

DonK31
Reply to  griff
March 31, 2021 2:08 pm

Griff has some ocean front property in Arizona to sell.
He bought it 2 weeks ago.

Bryan A
Reply to  griff
March 31, 2021 5:09 pm

You’re selling it like a Used Car Salesman Griff and I’m not buying it.

Just Manhattan island (NY/NY) would require covering Kings, Queens, The Bronx AND half of Long Island (based on Topaz Solar Farm area) just to replace current electric usage.

BUT solar requires Back-up Battery storage for night AND you can’t recharge the batteries from Solar if you’re using that solar generation during daylight hours SO you would need to cover the remainder of Long Island with panels to allow for Battery storage recharging.

Then, to eliminate fossil fuel usage you need to electrify transportation. Every car, bus and truck needs to charge and recharge requiring further battery back-up and Solar capacity.

Given Topaz Solar Farm area and production (prime solar site), to energize NY/NY from Solar, allow for night time battery recharging during daylight hours and replace transportation, heating and cooking fuel with solar electricity would require an area the size of Connecticut be covered with solar panels.

A little RED square in New Mexico is far insufficient an area to eliminate fossil fuel usage through Solar Panel generation

Lrp
Reply to  griff
March 31, 2021 8:33 pm

Cut transmission loss? So, you’re saying you don’t need interconnectors?

Cosmic
Reply to  griff
April 1, 2021 1:14 pm

Oh shut up!

Pat from Kerbob
March 31, 2021 7:56 am

just more insanity, build nothing while china eats our lunch. At some point, people need to figure out these are the enemies of humanity, need more examples of commuters beating XR activists like happened in London.
Its likely the only thing these crazies will understand and the only way to push back

Bryan A
Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
March 31, 2021 12:32 pm

Ridicule could do much if directly and liberally employed

Bruce Cobb
March 31, 2021 8:05 am

Carbon Lies Matter!

beng135
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
April 1, 2021 7:17 am

Anticarb.

March 31, 2021 8:17 am

China no-show at latest U.K. climate conference

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56584575

The first major country to jump off the pointless climate conference merry-go-round.

This is the predicted result of years of orchestrated racist hostility to China and Russia dressed up as various flavours of self-righteousness. China and probably Russia are going to give a very simple message in return:

To take the whole climate agenda and put it where solar panels don’t work.

Bryan A
Reply to  Phil SalmonHatter
March 31, 2021 9:24 am

China missed the boat, that would have been a perfect opportunity to disperse a new Covid Varient into the global population

diogenese2
Reply to  Bryan A
March 31, 2021 10:24 am

It was a video conference. Besides China has not developed a vaccine, as they did before the last one, but that got out too soon.

Bryan A
Reply to  diogenese2
March 31, 2021 12:33 pm

E-covid

WBrowning
March 31, 2021 8:46 am

I’m all for generating electricity carbon free, with NUCLEAR POWER. Get to that point and output of plant fertilizer aka CO2 for electricity will be zero, leaving plenty of room for using oil to power cars & trucks, making plastic, medicine and cosmetics, no matter what your take on “global (insert latest trigger word here)” . Cheap, clean, safe, Nuclear power would also help world fresh water shortages by making desalinization more economical in places like California, Africa, etc. Let us all get on the new nuclear technology train and start producing clean gigawatts.

Bryan A
Reply to  WBrowning
March 31, 2021 9:27 am

David Kamakaris
March 31, 2021 6:17 am

Carbon neutrality, climate disruption, irritable climate syndrome or whatever is the current nom de plume

This one gets my vote…Thanks David…

Mark BLR
March 31, 2021 9:47 am

Has anybody heard of an announcement that the United States has a goal of carbon neutrality by 2050?

Indirectly in the White House press release (from 5 days ago) for the “climate summit” in 3 weeks time (22nd + 23rd April).

By the time of the Summit, the United States will announce an ambitious 2030 emissions target as its new Nationally Determined Contribution under the Paris Agreement.

Key themes of the Summit will include:

  • Discussing opportunities to strengthen capacity to protect lives and livelihoods from the impacts of climate change, address the global security challenges posed by climate change and the impact on readiness, and address the role of nature-based solutions in achieving net zero by 2050 goals.”

My guess (and it’s only a guess !) is that the press release containing the concrete numbers (to 2030) for the updated NDC will “officialise” the “goal” (/ target / solemn pledge / …) for the USA of “net-zero by 2050” (and push China to revise its 2060 target towards the “consensus” value that “everyone else” has agreed to ?) …

Reply to  Mark BLR
March 31, 2021 12:56 pm

Thanks. I was not sure which back door would be used but your guess sounds good.

Beta Blocker
March 31, 2021 9:57 am

Climate activists are pushing hard for a 50% reduction in America’s GHG emissions by 2030. If that is the ambitious goal the Biden administration announces in April, the near term economic and life style impacts will be significant, to say the least. That kind of target can be achieved only through a drastic increase in the price of energy combined with a government mandated carbon fuel rationing scheme of some kind.

Tom in Toronto
March 31, 2021 9:57 am

What carbon neutrality? I see (blonde-and-blue-eyed) humans. Dirty, dirty, humans spewing toxic gases with every breath.

Enginer01
March 31, 2021 10:04 am

No problemo!

The U.S. Navy just Re-patented the original Hot E-Cat patent dating from over 10 years ago!

https://e-catworld.com/2021/03/26/us-navy-patent-application-published-for-low-energy-nuclear-reactor/

(Unfortunately, this old-hat technology is now tremendously obsolete. But it does work.)

Doonman
March 31, 2021 10:05 am

That picture at the top of the article is fake. The enchanted people and flowers are not casting shadows but the solar panels are.

People who purposely publish fake pictures are trying to fool you. There is no other reason.

DonM
Reply to  Doonman
March 31, 2021 12:58 pm

… those PR folks are not very up to date … no significant melanin in the photo either.

Bruce Cobb
March 31, 2021 10:43 am

Have no fear, Klimate Kerry will sign us up for “Carbon Neutrality by 5050” at the next Shamwow Climapalooza Shindig in Glasgow this November. You can bank on it.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
April 1, 2021 7:10 am

That Shamwow guy would make a good public spokesman for the IPCC. He can sell anything!

He came out with a “Shamwow face mask” early in the Wuhan virus pandemic. I don’t think it caught on, but I was kind of tempted to get one just for the laugh factor. The mask had “Shamwow” printed across the front of it in bold letters. Orange mask, black letters. 🙂

Last edited 12 days ago by Tom Abbott
Tom
March 31, 2021 11:04 am

I don’t know, but I recon to be carbon neutral by then, personally, that is.

Steve Z
March 31, 2021 11:56 am

Whether a given volume of crude oil is transported from Canada to the USA by pipeline, railcar, or truck has no effect on the amount of CO2 emitted when the oil is eventually refined and used as fuel.

Closing down a pipeline “to prevent global warming” is counterproductive from an environmental point of view. For a given volume of oil transported, there are far fewer spillages from pipelines than from freight train derailments or truck accidents, and trucks burn more fuel than freight trains, which also consume more fuel than pumps used to force the oil through pipelines.

If they were smart, those worried about “global warming” should encourage the construction of oil pipelines, because they consume less energy (and produce less CO2 emissions) than freight trains or trucks for the same volume of oil transported. But math is hard for them.

Of course, the railroad executives, with Warren Buffett in the lead, can do the math, and know that their profit$$$ would decrease if oil pipelines are completed. So they fight the pipelines to protect their profit$$$, even if the railroads emit more CO2 than the pipelines would. Follow the money!!!

Steve Z
March 31, 2021 12:41 pm

For the White House (especially for our current President of declining brain power), setting a goal is easy.

Now comes the hard part.

Jon R
March 31, 2021 1:01 pm

I recently flew on United, they are quite certain they will be carbon neutral soon. I was just thinking if I’m a good engineer and I work for a company saying crazy crap like this I’d probably rather work somewhere else.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Jon R
March 31, 2021 2:05 pm

nah, a bankrupt company can be carbon neutral without too much effort. Dementia Joe won’t rest until all companies are carbon neutral.

On the outer Barcoo
March 31, 2021 3:10 pm

Given that human breath contains around 45,000 ppm, does this mean that every citizen will become a criminal in the year 2050?

n.n
March 31, 2021 4:51 pm

The husband and wife, and their “Posterity” are excess carbon. A Planned Population is a Green environment. Choice matters.

Bulldust
March 31, 2021 11:49 pm

For lack of somewhere better to post, I just thought you guys might be interested in the most Australian drive for solar power to date:

Power drinkers – Aussie brewer offers beer for excess solar energy | Reuters

Aussie innovation at its best.

Tom Abbott
April 1, 2021 5:56 am

From the article: “This attempt to delay yet another pipeline is bad enough but the Administration’s response that the infrastructure project will be evaluated to see if they help reach its goal of carbon neutrality by 2050 is far worse. Is it too much to ask that the politicians do a feasibility study to determine effects on affordability, reliability, and the impacts on the environment before committing to a political slogan?”

The year 2050 is a long way off. The years 2022 and 2024 are much more important.

The Democrats can make all these grandiose plans and now that the nation sees the Democrat insanity they will elect Republicans to roll back the insanity.

The question is: How much damage can the Democrat Socialists do in two and four years? Will Senators Manchin or Sinema vote with the Democrats or against the Democrats? They are about the only hope we have of stopping the Demcrats on a national scale. But States still have their Constitutional rights, no matter how U.S. Senators vote.

Last edited 12 days ago by Tom Abbott
observa
April 1, 2021 1:44 pm

I see the war on the gas cooker has begun-
How your gas stove sparked a battle over climate change (msn.com)
Makes you wonder when the doomsters will cotton on to the notion that electricity isn’t natural and what about all the electromagnetic radiation?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  observa
April 2, 2021 4:54 am

Burning natural gas in the home is the most efficient use of the fuel.

The alarmists don’t care. All they care about is converting everything over to electricity to get rid of fossil fuels.

The alarmists are delusional. You knew that, didn’t you?

%d bloggers like this: