John Kerry, Biden’s ‘climate czar’ admits U.S. carbon dioxide emission cuts are pointless

Caught on video: John Kerry admitted U.S. CO2 emissions cuts are pointless at Joe Biden’s #LeadersClimateSummit.

Watch the video:

h/t to Steve Milloy.

He also said essentially the same thing back in 2015:

From the YouTube video:

“The fact is that even if every single American citizen biked to work, carpooled to school, used only solar panels to power their homes – if we each planted a dozen trees – if we somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions – guess what? That still wouldn’t be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world. If all the industrialized nations went down to zero emissions – remember what I just said – all the industrial nations went down to zero emissions, it wouldn’t be enough – not when more than 65 percent of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world.”

Reference for that statement:

4.9 26 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
April 25, 2021 12:38 pm

But Lurch will push for virtue signaling anyway. A dreadful though would have been Kerry as President in 2004. I think he would have made Carter or Wilson look wise.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Tom Halla
April 25, 2021 12:44 pm

Biden is already making Carter look good. He is that awful.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 25, 2021 5:48 pm

Obama prevented Carter from being the worst president in modern history, and Biden will save Obama from that fate.

Reply to  DrEd
April 26, 2021 5:28 am

Yup – the same keeps happening over here in the UK. Major – awful; Blair – unbelievably awful; Brown – even worse; Cameron – slight pause here, no worse than Blair; May – terrifying destructive and gave away almost everything to the EUSSR; Johnson – yikes, it’s all over!

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 25, 2021 5:55 pm

You’re only saying that because it is true!

Reply to  Tom Halla
April 25, 2021 12:53 pm

But he is a good wind surfer …

April 25, 2021 12:39 pm

Tw* t!

Alastair gray
Reply to  Notanacademic
April 25, 2021 12:46 pm

Which c***t you talking about the Un-Merry Kerry or Mr Halla

Reply to  Alastair gray
April 25, 2021 12:50 pm

The one with equine characteristics.

Reply to  Notanacademic
April 25, 2021 8:02 pm

They are both Jackasses so you will need to be more specific!!

Reply to  Notanacademic
April 25, 2021 8:05 pm

My apologies to Mr Halla I was not paying close enough attention, sorry again.

Steve Case
April 25, 2021 12:49 pm

In other words, it’s not about climate.

Richard Page
Reply to  Steve Case
April 25, 2021 1:05 pm

And never has been. It’s always been about financial parity – taking from the richer countries and giving to the poorer countries. Because that has worked ever so well in the past.

Reply to  Steve Case
April 25, 2021 4:39 pm

“In other words, it’s not about climate.”
 It IS about this – an update of my latest paper:
A Climate, Energy And Covid Primer For Politicians And Media
By Allan M.R. MacRae, April 21, 2021 UPDATE 1c


It’s ALL a Marxist scam – false enviro-hysteria including the Climate and Green-Energy frauds, the full lockdown for Covid-19, the illogical linking of these frauds (“to solve Covid we have to solve Climate Change”), paid-and-planned terrorism by Antifa and BLM, and the mail-in ballot USA election scam – it’s all false and fraudulent.

The Climate-and-Covid scares are false crises, concocted by wolves to stampede the sheep.

The tactics used by the global warming propagandists are straight out of Lenin’s playbook.

The Climategate emails provided further evidence of the warmists’ deceit – they don’t debate, they shout down dissent and seek to harm those who disagree with them – straight out of Lenin.

The purported “science” of global warming catastrophism has been disproved numerous ways over the decades. Every one of the warmists’ very-scary predictions, some 80 or so since 1970, have failed to happen. The most objective measure of scientific competence is the ability to correctly predict – and the climate fraudsters have been 100% wrong to date.

There is a powerful logic that says that no rational person can be this wrong, this deliberately obtuse, for this long – that they must have a covert agenda. I made this point circa 2009, and that agenda is now fully exposed – it is the Marxist totalitarian “Great Reset” – “You will own nothing, and you’ll be happy!”

The wolves, proponents of both the very-scary Global Warming / Climate Change scam and the Covid-19 Lockdown scam, know they are lying. Note also how many global “leaders” quickly linked the two scams, stating ”to solve Covid we have to solve Climate Change”- utter nonsense, not even plausible enough to be specious.

Regarding the sheep, especially those who inhabit our universities and governments:
The sheep are well-described by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, author of the landmark text “The Black Swan”, as “Intellectual-Yet-Idiot” or IYI – IYI’s hold the warmist views as absolute truths, without ever having spent sufficient effort to investigate them. The false warmist narrative fitted their negative worldview, and they never seriously questioned it by examining the contrary evidence.


The policy incompetence of Western governments over past decades is appalling. By attempting to appease extreme leftists who seek to destroy our economies and our freedoms, governments have adopted a failed strategy that makes us weaker, poorer and at much greater risk.

Allan MacRae, B.A.Sc.(Eng.), M.Eng.

Paul S.
April 25, 2021 1:05 pm

“Carbon Pollution” It’s carbon dioxide and it certainly is not pollution. Kerry is an idiot

Reply to  Paul S.
April 25, 2021 2:17 pm

Tell a big enough lie often enough …
It’s largely our own fault. We should have hit back hard, fast and every time “carbon pollution” was mentioned. And every time the media showed those dishonest cooling tower pics!
We gave them the inch and they’ve taken the mile. And then some!

Paul S
Reply to  Newminster
April 25, 2021 3:36 pm

Newminster, that is true, we haven’t been tough enough, but on the other hand our message gets censored.

Reply to  Newminster
April 25, 2021 5:54 pm

The Earth is a carbon-based planet! Without carbon, NOTHING could live here! At least, nothing that WE know about! I suppose there ‘could’ be some silicon based life forms, somewhere, that MIGHT be able to exist here, but WE, and every life form on earth NEEDS carbon, just to live! So, is their goal the total destruction of all life forms on earth? If so, then THEY should be first in line!

Reply to  IAMPCBOB
April 26, 2021 12:48 am

The spiral arm of the Milky Way Galaxy that planet earth inhabits is carbon based. This includes all forms of carbon in solid, liquid, gas and plasma. It is what it is!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  mikee
April 26, 2021 7:59 am

And the Democrats want to tax all of it.

April 25, 2021 1:07 pm

He really is quite, quite mad.

But then, aren’t they all. Only carbon based life forms like Kerry would declare war on Carbon dioxide.

Reply to  fretslider
April 26, 2021 12:50 am

Not quite. Lurch is a moron based lifeform!

Reply to  mikee
April 26, 2021 1:39 am

Lurch is smarter.

Richard Page
Reply to  fretslider
April 26, 2021 12:28 pm

Delusional megalomaniac narcissist with religious mania thrown in for good measure.

April 25, 2021 1:15 pm

Not only the U.S. but all CO2 emission cuts are more than pointless, they are damaging to the less well off people as well as biodiversity.

Reply to  Vuk
April 25, 2021 4:28 pm

Agreed Vuk.

Ian Rutherford Plimer is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide, and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies. He has published 130 scientific papers, six books and edited the Encyclopedia of Geology.
Born:                          12 February 1946
Residence:                 Australia
Nationality:               Australian
Fields:                        Earth Science , Geology, Mining Engineering
Institutions:               University of New England, University of Newcastle, University of Melbourne, University of Adelaide
Alma mater:               University of New South Wales, Macquarie University
Thesis:                        “The pipe deposits of tungsten-molybdenum-bismuth in eastern Australia” (1976)
Notable awards:         Eureka Prize (1995, 2002), Centenary Medal (2003), Clarke Medal (2004)
Source:                       Wikipedia
Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From?
Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better!  If you’ve read his book you will agree; this is a good summary.
PLIMER: “Okay, here’s the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland. Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet – all of you.
Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress – its that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.
I know… it’s very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kids “The Green Revolution” science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cent light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs… well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.
The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth’s atmosphere in just four days – yes, FOUR DAYS – by that volcano in Iceland which has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time – EVERY DAY.
I don’t really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.
Yes, folks, Mt. Pinatubo was active for over one year – think about it.
Of course, I shouldn’t spoil this ‘touchy-feely tree-hugging’ moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keeps happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.
And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year. Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus ‘human-caused’ climate-change scenario.
Hey, isn’t it interesting how they don’t mention ‘Global Warming’ anymore, but just ”Climate Change” – you know why?
It’s because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull**** artists got caught with their pants down.
And, just keep in mind that you might yet be stuck with an Emissions Trading Scheme – that whopping new tax – imposed on you that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer.
It won’t stop any volcanoes from erupting, that’s for sure.
But, hey, relax…give the world a hug and have a nice day!

April 25, 2021 1:22 pm

I’m scared, really scared….of John Kerry and his marching orders and message and understanding of science.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  ResourceGuy
April 26, 2021 8:02 am

That is a legitimate fear, I would say.

Joel O'Bryan
April 25, 2021 1:26 pm

John Kerry still insisting the US destroy its economy for climate virtue makes him the dumbest person in DC.
A Billy Madison Life-time Achievement Award doesn’t do enough justice to how dumb John Kerry is.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 27, 2021 4:12 am

It looks like John Kerry is in a little hot water for betraying his country to his country’s enemies. Par for the course for John Kerry. Maybe this time he will pay a price for undermining his nation’s interests.

There are many calls for John Kerry to step down from the Biden administration over his latest crime of secretly colluding with the Iranians.

It’s not so secret now, John.

Kerry dienies the reports of his traitorous acts.

Last edited 1 year ago by Tom Abbott
April 25, 2021 1:27 pm

Even if you had the technology and the taxpayer funded machines to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, could you be confident in Commander Kerry stopping the reduction on command for a whole planet? As Mad Magazine would say….Worry!

Richard Page
Reply to  ResourceGuy
April 26, 2021 12:30 pm

I’m more worried that (for once) he might be capable and might actually do it.

April 25, 2021 1:34 pm

“We still have to get carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere”

I had to watch the video twice … just to confirm Kerry’s complete and thorough idiocy. These people are a bigger threat to the environment than fossil fuels could ever possibly be.

Rob Robertson
Reply to  Kenji
April 25, 2021 1:50 pm

Staggering in its stupidity! Yes, let’s get CO2 out of the atmosphere and then watch the planet die.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Kenji
April 25, 2021 4:25 pm

Here in MA, which has too many “climate scientists”- many are now saying getting to net zero ain’t enough- we must become carbon negative and one way is to lock up all the forests! Sure, they say, who needs wood when we have cement, steel, plastic. Dumb f***s.

Reply to  Kenji
April 25, 2021 5:10 pm

Subject to interpretation, did he really mean remove all carbon dioxide?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Scissor
April 26, 2021 8:08 am

Kerry never has told us what the optimum amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would be. That should probably be settled before they set out removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

The alarmists just keep getting crazier and crazier. Remove the CO2! Dim the Sun! Based on no evidence that CO2 is anything other than a harmless, benign gas essential for life on Earth.

JL White
April 25, 2021 1:35 pm

To be fair, the headline ‘pointless’ is misleading.

He said, “That still wouldn’t be enough….”
(What did Kerry say in the paragraphs that followed this quote? What was he trying to demonstrate with this 65% statistic?)

Leaving aside whether CO2 has caused whatever warming may be occurring, the world’s politicians seems as locked into the religion of CAGW as was the mediaeval era in rejecting Galileo’s discoveries. Everyone believes!

Accordingly, doesn’t that create a large opportunity for the developped western world to help developing countries achieve our luxurious lifestyles by selling them our clean electrification products? Fewer fossil fuels means cleaner air, water & soil.

The alternative is to continue to let China Belt the 65% to their Road and then drive over them.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  JL White
April 25, 2021 2:38 pm

It took a while, but remember Galileo won the argument in the end.

Peter W
Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 25, 2021 4:19 pm

So did Alfred Wegener – but only a good 30 years or so after he died!

Reply to  JL White
April 26, 2021 12:03 am

At best, world electricity generated by renewables is around 2%, having gone after a world supplied by renewables for nearly 20years now.

It’s only 2% for very good reason; solar and wind are terribly inefficient and therefore very expensive ways to produce electricity. They also happen to be extraordinarily ‘dirty’:

Wind turbines, apart from the fibreglass blades, are made mostly of steel, with concrete bases. They need about 200 times as much material per unit of capacity as a modern combined cycle gas turbine.” (Ridley).

Professor Michael Kelly: Emeritus Prince Philip Professor of Technology at the University of Cambridge. Formerly Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Department for Communities and Local Government. A fellow of the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering tells us that: 
“If we replace all of the UK vehicle fleet with EVs, and assuming they use the most resource-frugal next-generation batteries, we would need the following materials: 
• 207,900 tonnes of cobalt – just under twice the annual global production; 
• 264,600 tonnes of lithium carbonate – three quarters of the world’s production; 
• at least 7,200 tonnes of neodymium and dysprosium – nearly the entire world production of neodymium; 
• 2,362,500 tonnes of copper – more than half the world’s production in 2018. 
And this is just for the UK. It is estimated that the manufacturing capacity for EV batteries would have to increase more than 500-fold if we want the whole world to be transported by electric vehicles. The vast increases in the supply of the materials described above would go far beyond known reserves.” 
This, of course, doesn’t include the vast amounts of these rare earth minerals required for all the battery storage for renewables farms Elon Musk wants to build.

But, according to you “Fewer fossil fuels means cleaner air, water & soil.”

Clearly not. Fossil fuels represent one of the cleanest ways of producing electricity.

Bruce Cobb
April 25, 2021 1:37 pm

We made, or helped make our Green sword, and now we must fall upon it.
To save the planet, that’s why!

April 25, 2021 1:37 pm

John Kerry in 2030:

Help!! I can’t turn off the CO2 drop machines. The knob is not working!! There is no response to the commands.

April 25, 2021 1:45 pm

Paying large U.S. companies to remove CO2 from the atmosphere with income tax credits is going to be a runaway train disaster.

Reply to  ResourceGuy
April 26, 2021 1:34 pm

It will be fine. Oil companies will use the CO2 to pressurize low producing fields to improve yield. And get a tax credit to boot.

April 25, 2021 1:46 pm

I didn’t mow the grass this weekend. Send my tax credit for that along with my stay home from work stimulus payment.

April 25, 2021 1:48 pm

Kerry is pointless ….clueless….and useless….but not faceless.

Reply to  Anti-griff
April 25, 2021 2:33 pm

Certainly not faceless.

I’ve got $10 on Kerry to ‘Place’ at Churchill Downs in the 4th.

Reply to  H.R.
April 25, 2021 5:12 pm

There are openings at the glue factory.

Reply to  H.R.
April 26, 2021 4:57 am

He is also not penniless….if he was, he would never have been heard of by most people.

AGW is Not Science
April 25, 2021 2:01 pm

US CO2 emission cuts are pointless on ALL levels; there’s no actual “crisis” to solve, so cutting CO2 emissions won’t “solve” it, and if there were any such “crisis,” it would be global emissions that count, not US emissions; since non-US emissions are rising and will simply (and happily) replace any cuts in US emissions (aka economic suicide), US emission cuts won’t do a damn thing.

April 25, 2021 2:02 pm

I really want to see which AGW trollete comes out supporting Kerry’s mad claim that..

.. “we still have to get CO2 out of the atmosphere”

Even they must know that this is the MOST STUPID STATEMENT EVER UTTERED BY ANYONE, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME in the whole of human history.

Last edited 1 year ago by fred250
April 25, 2021 2:10 pm

That will depend on whether we have some breakthrough technologies and breakthrough innovations.

Sometimes politicians do tell the truth.

The greenies acknowledge that we need breakthrough technologies. Breakthroughs can neither be planned or predicted.

Why do the greenies place their faith in breakthrough technologies to get to net zero and why do they have no faith that already existing technologies are sufficient to help us adapt to whatever climate change will beset us?

Climate change is a fact. It’s what the climate does. CO2 is irrelevant. The climate is going to change. We should be ready to adapt to climate change. We shouldn’t be squandering our resources trying to prevent it.

Every literate person should be familiar with the story of King Canute and learn therefrom.

April 25, 2021 2:16 pm

“…..admits U.S. carbon dioxide emission cuts are pointless” I don’t like those kind of headlines.
Where is the video where he says .. emission cuts are pointless?

Last edited 1 year ago by
April 25, 2021 2:19 pm

I’ll say they are pointless, And many on here will say that they are pointless.!

April 25, 2021 2:37 pm

If I can paraphrase what he said:

Getting to net zero will be really really hard and even if we do, we still have to get the CO2 out of the atmosphere.

Holy smokes, the ante has been upped. Kerry has said that getting to net zero isn’t enough.

So, is he saying that CO2 reductions are pointless without also removing CO2 from the atmosphere? That’s one reasonable interpretation.

Reply to  commieBob
April 25, 2021 11:36 pm

You are only hearing half the story. He says :

Remember what I just said, if ALL the industrial nations ….

That means “the West”. Those currently self-flagellating and bedwetting about CO2. It does NOT include China, which is a “developing nation”. THAT is the problem. The one country which single handedly controls future CO2 levels had been excluded from our deluded attempts to control climate via CO2.

He sadly avoids pointing the finger and saying it directly but that is what he is telling us.

Pat Frank
April 25, 2021 2:22 pm

Kerry is correct, though. Just not for the reason he thinks.

If the US stopped all emissions of CO2 today, the climate will do what it was going to do anyway.

Likewise, of course, if China also stopped emitting CO2. And the rest of the world. Nothing changes.

There’s no evidence that anything climate will change if they (we) all continue to emit CO2, either.

John Kerry — getting it right by being wrong. A step up, for him.

Reply to  Pat Frank
April 25, 2021 11:28 pm

China is not part of the “industrialised world”, it is part of the “developing world” as far as IPCC and Paris Accord are concerned. THAT is what he is saying.

Obama got China on board by agreeing to call them a “developing nation” and thus exempt for any meaningful constraints.

He’s not stupid ( even if you don’t like what he says, he’s not stupid ). He knows what the game is. The west self-immolates while China prospers because we can no long make anything of complete with slave labour economics.

At least he is being honest that all self destructive “carbon” BS, will get us nowhere in terms of climate. That seems to be great step forward towards what everyone has been saying here for the last DECADE.

If he says we need to get carbon dioxide out of the air that is because of a) the false premise that it is even a problem and b) there is no way China is going to stop being the largest emitter on the planet and we gave them a free pass to continue doing so.

April 25, 2021 2:37 pm

And still no comment on CO2 emissions from termites. Go ahead and deny the science established since the 1982 observational study. Science  05 Nov 1982: Vol. 218, Issue 4572, pp. 563-565 DOI: 10.1126/science.218.4572.563

Lee Scott
Reply to  Doonman
April 25, 2021 3:18 pm

Termites, though, are ‘sustainable’, as they are only recycling CO2 from wood. Same as cutting the forests and sending the wood chips across the sea in oil-burning ships to Europe to be burned is ‘sustainable’.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Lee Scott
April 25, 2021 4:21 pm

sending chips to Europe is INDEED sustainable

Last edited 1 year ago by Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
April 25, 2021 11:18 pm

… as long as you have some forests left, have lots of fossil fuels to dry the wet green wood down to <5% humidity and lots of smelly bunker oil to power the ships.

It actually makes a lot more sense to dig up trees which have been dead for millions of years. That’s sustainable for a few hundred years and at this point I don’t see us making it that far before the whole shit show implodes. So to all practical purposes that is “sustainable” for the time our current civilisation remains.

Enviros used to be all about “saving the trees”. They now seem to be intent on destroying native forest and pretending it is “sustainable”.

Last edited 1 year ago by Greg
Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Greg
April 26, 2021 3:58 am

“Enviros used to be all about “saving the trees”. They now seem to be intent on destroying native forest and pretending it is “sustainable”.”
Actually, I’m in the middle of this battle over woody biomass. The fact is that enviros HATE woody biomass. It’s the foresters and loggers who like it – not because it’s green and renewable and will save the climate – but because it’s a way to get rid of the trees we don’t want growing on the site so we can grow high value species and trees that are straight and healthy – and yes, for economic reasons. But, I don’t necessarily mean monoculture forests like in the American southeast. Woody biomass facilities are all over the north and there is little monoculture in the north. We don’t plant trees in the northern forests- it’s too expensive and most likely they can’t compete with the native vegetation. The forests don’t need replanting- they plant themselves.

So, here in the Climate Emergency Theocracy of Massachusetts- the enviros think woody biomass is “worse than coal”- that’s what they say. They hate it because burning it releases that horrible evil, CO2. We foresters know that if the forests are well managed- overall, the forests are holding as much carbon over time so that the forests are not a carbon source- yet the enviros look only at the chimney of the biomass plant. Here in Mass. they succeeded in killing off woody biomass. As often is the case, Mass. sets the enviro example for the rest of the nation. The state hired The Manomet Institute in Plymouth, MA to do a study on the biomass issue. It claimed that when burning wood you get a “carbon debt” and that it’ll take a long time for THAT SPOT OF GROUND to re sequester the carbon- forgetting that it’s the entire forest that makes up for the release of carbon, not that spot of ground where the tree(s) were growing. But, their report has now become scripture for those who hate biomass- and the state now won’t permit woody biomass facilities. However, that same report said the “carbon debt” is lower if the facility is cogen because if using the energy for heat- the carbon debt is lower. If using the energy entirely for heat, such as pellets, then the carbon debt is very low with a “payback period” of only about 7 years, then there is a carbon benefit.

But the enviros still refuse to tolerate even pellet production for locally grown trees- they continue to cry, “biomass is worse than coal”. Now, other states are moving in the same direction beginning with other New England states. So, the enviros really want to wipe out burning wood of any sort anywhere.

But, if we’re going to produce high quality timber so you and others can live in a nice wood home with nice wood furniture and nice paper products- then long term “silviculture” and “forestry economics” requires that once we harvest the good timber (high quality white pine, red oak, sugar maple and others) we need to take out the poor quality trees of all species that are crooked, deformed, diseased, hollow, etc. Some species simply have little or no market value but they’ll grow like crazy given the chance. So, given the reality that people like wood products- we must manage the forests and this requires a market for the poor quality trees- its the same as weeding on a farm or your garden. We don’t do it to save the planet, or because it’s “clean and green energy”. There used to be a market here for such low quality wood- pulp for paper but that industry has been dying here for decades and even at its peak provided a mediocre market paying almost nothing for the wood. Now, the only potential market is biomass for energy.

Therefore, we foresters who want to harvest woody biomass are in tune with those of you who like fossil fuels- we aren’t worried about CO2 being some horrible pollution. We like more CO2 in the air to feed the trees. We prefer to see forest land as forest- not wind and solar farms.

Thus, the interpretation of this issue- even by some people here is incorrect and certainly incorrect by Michael Moore- the enviros DO NOT like woody biomass the way they worship the wind and solar- because deep down they hate all forestry- they hate all tree cutting.

Worse, the enviros here now say we must lock up all the forests- because net zero, they realize, can’t stop all carbon emissions- and even if we could, that (they think) we must LOWER the carbon in the air- we saw Kerry say that the other day. So, a scientist here who claims to be a climatologist and who wrote some of the early IPCC reports, Bill Moomaw, now puts forth a theory he calls “proforestation”- which is that by locking up all the forests, they’ll suck out the carbon faster than anything else. He forgets of course that people love wood products- that if we lock up the forests there will be no wood for homes and furniture and paper products for future generations and we’ll have to replace wood with much higher carbon footprint cement, metal and plastic. And he does not understand that the forests can’t keep sequestering carbon forever. Forestry research going back centuries understands how forests grow- they follow a curve- that after a period of fast growth, the growth slows down and the total wood in a forest levels off and often will decrease as the older trees die off. And, he fails to understand that many big, old trees are diseased and hollow or if not hollow, are slowly rotting so their carbon content is decreasing.

Also, in Moore’s film- he interviewed a leader of the anti biomass movement- a guy I’ve debated for years. I kept posting on HIS web site until one day he called me. I said, “why do you show photos on your site of the some of the worst forestry in the nation and not of good forestry work”. He replied, “because we’re activists we don’t have to tell both sides of the story”. For photos of great forestry including biomass- check out a fellow forester (here in MA), Mike Leonard, who has the best forestry web site on the planet- his Facebook photo albums at:

By contrast, one of the major biomass AND forestry haters here in MA is Mary Booth- who has a web site slamming biomass though she really knows nothing about the subject: I’ve been arguing with her for years. The forestry people in New England hate her guts.

So, you and some others here who think enviros like biomass- need to get enlightened on the subject. Biomass doesn’t belong in the same league with wind and solar energy. It is great for the forests. It is indeed sustainable; it does have carbon emissions but unlike fossil fuels, it resequesters more carbon, not that I think carbon is a problem.

And ultimately, stop thinking enviros like biomass- THEY HATE IT

I know, I’m in the center of this biomass battle here where it’s most intense- where the craziest biomass and forestry haters live, here in the climate emergency caliphate of Massachusetts. I could write a book on the subject- so if anyone here wants the truth on forestry and biomass- don’t hesitate to ask.

And, as for shipping chips to Europe, so what? Everything gets shipped everywhere so that’s not much of a criticism. So it gets shipped with fossil fuel- I think most people here would agree, “so what?”. It’s efficient when you fill a huge ship- not much different than shipping oil across the planet- unless of course, you hate all fossil fuels and think any carbon in the air is pollution.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
April 26, 2021 11:10 am

Thank you.


Michael E McHenry
Reply to  Doonman
April 25, 2021 7:01 pm

I really think Biden and Kerry need to have a talk with the termite community about their negative behavior LOL

Albert H Brand
April 25, 2021 4:18 pm

Well here we are at it again and again. Let’s try this approach. Only plants can and do make the oxygen we use and is at 21% of the atmosphere. How can a 400 parts per million co2 be sufficient feed stock to make and hold a 21% level of oxygen? Think about it a while as no one has raised this question yet. It basically means we need more co2 or we will run out of oxygen maybe 2000 or 3000 parts per million will be sufficient but please tell me if I am missing something.

Reply to  Albert H Brand
April 25, 2021 5:34 pm

It’s a slow slow march. Oxygen was about 35% of the atmosphere about 300 million years ago. Percent level changes require millions of years to be observed, and the stoichiometry of photosynthesis is 1:1 for CO2:O2.

And any increase in CO2, results from a loss of O2 taken from the atmosphere. Left alone, CO2 and O2 are destined to decline as there are geological processes that remove both, although CO2 is also emitted by volcanoes, etc.

Fortunately, an animal (man) can make oxygen now, in addition to CO2.

Reply to  Albert H Brand
April 25, 2021 11:12 pm

How can a 400 parts per million co2 be sufficient feed stock to make and hold a 21% level of oxygen?

It’s not a case of how much oxygen there is, it is how much is being removed and thus needs replacing. It is the rates of change which need to match, not the absolute quantities.

Robert A. Taylor
Reply to  Albert H Brand
April 28, 2021 4:13 pm

Alfred H. Brand; about O2 source:
Check the details of photosynthesis. The O2 is all from water. CO2 goes round and round as carbohydrates and proteins in animals, and plants. This was suspected in the 1930s and proven by isotope analysis in the 1950s. Sorry I can’t cite sources. I learned this in the 1960s.

Peter W
April 25, 2021 4:38 pm

Back during the Medieval Warm Period CO2 was on the order of 290ppm in our atmosphere and the Norse were raising crops on Greenland. We are now up to around 410ppm and rising ever more rapidly, and in between the settlers were frozen out of Greenland. So explain to me in detail what this approximate 40% increase has done in the way of harm.

Some decades ago a fearmonger published a book claiming that by the 1980’s we would all be starving to death and provided mathematical proof for his claim. I wonder what went wrong with that calculated and provable prediction.

In the year 1700 Glacier bay in Alaska was completely occupied by a massive 65 mile long glacier, as shown by the early navigation charts made by seafaring explorers. Updates to their charts showed that by the year 1900 most of that glacier had melted, prior to the invention of the airplane and the mass production of the automobile. I wonder how we are going to stop that warming given all of the CO2-emitting vehicles plus the several times growth of the world population.

Perhaps Mr. Kerry can be requested to provide answers to these questions.

Reply to  Peter W
April 25, 2021 5:36 pm

As pointed out above, Kerry is an idiot.

April 25, 2021 5:50 pm

Kerry a f#@king idiot just making money for his mates. Wasting more energy extracting co2 from the atmosphere and it will be replaced by co2 coming out of the ocean
When is he closing the first power plant ???

April 25, 2021 10:34 pm

Why do anything at all?

Where is the climate crisis?

I look around everyday I go outside, I don’t see any indication we are in danger of a looming climate emergency, it is all propaganda that we have to deal with, the reality doesn’t help them wise up because many of them lack the critical thinking skills, we see that every time people like Griff post here, a man who seems very worried about something…., I am sure he hates ice breakers….

That is sad when people are scared of something that doesn’t exist as there is no climate crisis around the corner, but they see it all day long….. very sad…..

Last edited 1 year ago by Sunsettommy
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Sunsettommy
April 26, 2021 8:41 am

The alarmist who are True Believers live in a very scary world. An artificial world, but real, and scary to them still. I wouldn’t want to be them.

William Haas
April 25, 2021 11:05 pm

CO2 is not pollution but is required for life as we know it. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is plenty of scientific rationale to support the conclusion that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. Hence eliminating all human caused CO2 emissions will have no effect on global climate.

Richard M
April 26, 2021 6:22 am

CO2 does absorb surface IR and delays the time it takes for the energy to make it to space. Doubling CO2 will cause a little more energy in the IR radiation window to be delayed. This would have a warming effect except for other processes.

1) Since CO2 produces such weak photons and some energy does make it back to the surface, it enhances evaporation. This enhances the water cycle which likely utilizes at least half of the additional energy.

2) As everyone knows CO2 enhances plant growth. This also requires energy. The combination of CO2 with the enhanced water cycle produces far more green stuff which is continually absorbed into the surface of the planet through many processes. This is taking the carbon with it. Essentially, it is sequestering the carbon. It’s how fossil fuels were produced.

So, the energy made available by CO2 IR absorption is being utilized in the expansion of the biosphere. It is unavailable to cause any warming.

Last edited 1 year ago by Richard M
Richard M
April 26, 2021 6:54 am

If CO2 is not warming the planet, what is? Lots of ideas have been put forth and there is evidence to support many of them. I’ve been showing evidence that the warming since the depths of the LIA could have been due to increasing ocean salinity, particularly the Atlantic Ocean near the gulf stream where the warmer waters get carried into the Arctic.

Now I believe that micro-plastic pollution (or any pollution that stays near the surface) has pretty much the same effect as increased salinity. They all reduce evaporation which is a known cooling effect. Micro-plastics are also solids so they could also cause increased solar energy absorption near the surface.

So, ketchup bottles, ketchup packets or any condiment packaging, which are often discarded carelessly, could be a factor in the warming.

How ironic.

Last edited 1 year ago by Richard M
April 26, 2021 8:17 am

Other than being dishonest, he is the most boring speaker in government and that is an accomplishment. From the look on his face he is obviously boring to himself.

He will take on any cause if it gets him something and come up with any excuse for behavior contrary to his position.

April 26, 2021 11:41 am

I would count China among  industrialized nations 

Mike Maguire
April 26, 2021 4:30 pm

How long can the Climate Accord scam go on?

Answer: As long as the gatekeepers/politicians, MSM and social media that control our information want it to. People don’t look out their window and see climate change, like they do the weather. Weather forecasts from the local meteorologist get reconciled every day because we see the weather. Climate change is something we hear about on the news. 

We believe whatever they tell us on climate change….after all they also told us that 97% of climate scientists agree with this…………so it must be so. 

The Climate Accord, we are told is the only chance to save the planet. How many people have actually read the Climate Accord and know the completely different rules for developed countries compared to undeveloped countries?

CO2 is well mixed in the global atmosphere.
For the climate accord to be authentic and really be intended to save the planet(if CO2 really was pollution), one has to assume that CO2 molecules from a rich country, like the US are…….. killing the planet. While the CO2 emissions from a poor country, like China……….. is greening the planet. 

And that money, billions of it that flows from rich countries to poor countries is also saving the planet from climate change.

That’s if you actually read the Climate Accord and still believe it’s saving the planet.

April 26, 2021 9:07 pm

Kerry is an insufferable fool, but even worse he’s a traitor who should be in jail for aiding our enemies (in this case, Iran).

willem post
April 27, 2021 7:01 am

Biden chose him for Energy Czar, because he is an accomplished dissembler and liar.
He was wrong regarding Iran.

He is wrong regarding CO2 reduction of remaking TRANSPORTATION, and in particular about Electric Vehicles.

The CO2 reduction claims he and other RE folks make are vastly excessive.
RE folks would have everyone drive unaffordable EVs, that would not reduce much CO2 compared with efficient gasoline vehicles.
On a lifetime, A-to-Z basis, with travel at 105,600 miles over 10 years, the CO2 emissions, based on the present New England grid CO2/kWh, would be: 
NISSAN Leaf S Plus, EV, compact SUV, no AWD, would emit 25.967 Mt, 246 g/mile
TOYOTA Prius L Eco, 62 mpg, compact car, no AWD, would emit 26,490 Mt, 251 g/mile
SUBARU Outback, 30 mpg, medium SUV, with AWD, would emit 43.015 Mt, 407 g/mile
VT Light Duty Vehicle mix, 22.7 mpg, many with AWD or 4WD, would emit 56,315 Mt, 533 g/mile

1) The above shows, the NISSAN Leaf, a SMALL vehicle, would have a CO2 reduction of 56,315 – 25.967 = 30.3 metric ton over TEN years, if compared with an AVERAGE gas vehicle of the VT Light Duty Vehicle mix, which contains small and big vehicles.

2) If the NISSAN Leaf is compared with my 30-mpg Subaru Outback, a vastly more useful vehicle than a NISSAN Leaf, the CO2 reduction would be only 17 metric ton over TEN years. 

Energy Action Network, EAN, prepared a report listing the measures required to “meet Paris by 2025”. That goal is mandated by the Global Warming “Solutions” Act, GWSA, and in accordance with the VT Comprehensive Energy Plan.
One EAN measure is adding 90,000 EVs to reduce CO2 by 0.405 million metric ton/y, or 4.5 Mt/EV/y.

EAN, claims, without providing calculations, the CO2 reduction of EVs versus VT LDV mix of gasoline vehicles, would be 4.5 metric ton per EV per year, or 45 metric ton in TEN years. 

The 45 metric ton CO2 reduction is a TOTAL FABRICATION, but the Climate Council, which does not know how to perform the calculations, takes the biased EAN numbers as the truth, whereas REALITY is quite different. 

Read this URL to be much better informed; see section “EAN report to Meet Paris”

RE folks claiming EVs have no CO2 emissions is utter nonsense.

Gary Pearse
April 27, 2021 2:59 pm

Anthony pointed out in his presentation of the new site that we have to be on a ‘War Footing’ in light of the election outcome. Arguing the futility of one-sided restraint on CO2 instead of arguing the science these days (to no avail) has been a strategy I’ve been trying to promote here at WUWT for some time (apparently
to no avail!!).

To my surprise, even John Kerry gets it and that underscores my main point that this is the only strategy that can be broadly effective in bringing this whole sham down. It is something easily understood by the very large majority of people (taxpayers and voters). Otherwise, its the “3 percent” of flat earther, evil fossil shills against the “97 percent” of upstanding captains of academia, prestigious Institutes and research excellence.

My strategy levels the playing field for all. Presented with IPCC supporters’ end of world alarm unless we shell out 90trillion and retreat to the Dark Ages, can be countered by Joe – Sixpack with Kerry’s words:

“If all the industrialized nations went down to zero emissions …., it wouldn’t be enough – not when more than 65 percent of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world.”

Sixpack wins the big debate.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights