Ever Deeper And Deeper Into “Climate” Fantasy

From The MANHATTAN CONTRARIAN

Francis Menton

It never ceases to amaze me how the very mention of the word “climate” causes people to lose all touch with their rational faculties. And of course I’m not talking here just about the ordinary man on the street, but also, indeed especially, about our elected leaders and government functionaries.

The latest example is President Biden’s pledge, issued at his “World Climate Summit” on April 22, to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 50 – 52% from the levels of 2005, and to do so by 2030. In my last post a couple of days ago, I remarked that “Biden himself has absolutely no idea how this might be accomplished. And indeed it will not be accomplished.” Those things are certainly true, but also fail to do full justice to the extent to which our President and his handlers have now left the real world and gone off into total fantasy.

Back in 2016, when Barack Obama was President and it was time to go along (or not) with the Paris Climate Agreement, the idea still existed in the government that pledges to reduce GHG emissions ought to bear some relationship to reality. The pledge made by Obama on behalf of the U.S. in the Paris Agreement was to reduce GHG emissions by 26 – 28% from the 2005 level, and to do so by 2026. In 2016, U.S. GHG emissions were already down by more than 12% from the 2005 level, from 7,423.0 MMT CO2e in 2005 to 6520.3 MMT CO2e in 2016, according to the EPA’s Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks (see chart at pages ES 7-9); and that had been with very minimal coercive input from the government. If a 12% reduction could be achieved in the first 11 years, then a further 14% reduction in another 10 years would not be wildly out of line.

Indeed, it appeared that Obama’s people had the already-existing gradual pace of decline in mind when they made their commitment. Much of the decline in GHG emissions from 2005 to 2016 came about from the fracking revolution, and accompanying substitution of (lower emissions) natural gas for (higher emissions) coal; and most of the rest resulted from gradual efficiency improvements in energy usage throughout the economy. It would not have been crazy in 2016 to expect those things to continue at roughly the same pace.

But let’s consider where we are now. GHG emissions for 2019 were 6,558.3 MMT CO2e, which was actually up from 2016. Emissions for 2020 are said to have been down about 10% from 2019, but almost entirely due to steep declines in driving and air travel due to the pandemic. Those emissions from transport almost certainly will come back, perhaps not all right away, but almost all within a couple of years, if indeed there are not increases.

Even with the 10% decline in emissions in 2020, we’re down only about 20% from 2005. If you believe that travel will shortly come back to pre-pandemic levels, we will then be down only about 10% from 2005. Biden’s pledge is a 50% reduction from 2005, so something in the range of 30 – 40% additional in just nine years. And note that Biden is not just talking about the electricity sector (only about 30% of emissions), but about things like transportation (driving and flying), home heating, agriculture and industry that today almost completely depend on fossil fuels.

In a piece at Substack on April 22, Roger Pielke, Jr., gives an idea of what Biden’s pledge would mean in the real world.

Net greenhouse gas emissions were 6.635 gigatonnes (Gt) of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2005, so a 50% reduction target is 3.318 Gt in 2030. In 2019, there were 5.769 Gt of net emissions, meaning that by 2030, the U.S. will have to reduce its emissions by about 2.450 Gt, or more than 270 Gt per year. That equates to an annual rate of emissions reductions of about 6.3% to 2030.

Since we’re not likely to have solar-powered airplanes or steel mills any time soon, the main focus of emissions reductions of this magnitude can only be the electricity sector. And then, given that the entire electricity sector is only about 30% of emissions, the whole sector basically needs to go to zero emissions to meet the Biden target. What would that look like? Pielke:

In January 2021, according to the US Energy Information Agency in the United States there were 1,852 coal and natural gas power plants that generated electricity. By 2035, to hit President Biden’s target all of these power plants will have to be either shut down or converted into zero-emissions power plants (using carbon capture and storage technologies that presently do not exist).  There are 164 months until 2035. That means that more than 11 of the fossil fuel power plants operational in January 2021 will need to be closed every month, on average, starting today until 2035. 

And of course there is nothing out there remotely capable of filling the gap caused by shuttering those 1,852 plants. Wind and solar, even if you blanket the country with them, are next to useless without keeping the majority of the coal and natural gas plants as backup. Nuclear? Theoretically it could work, but given the lead times involved there would have to be hundreds of such plants already far along in planning and construction to try to meet this kind of goal. There aren’t. And the same environmentalists demanding an end to fossil fuels also oppose nuclear with equal fanaticism, and would be there to block you at every step of the process.

For a closer look at reality on the ground, let’s consider some recent developments in New York. New York fancies itself as the great climate messiah, leading the country and even the world into the future zero emissions utopia. In 2019 New York enacted something called the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, which they describe on their website as follows:

On July 18, 2019, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo signed into law the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act). New York State’s Climate Act is the among the most ambitious climate laws in the world and requires New York to reduce economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions 40 percent by 2030 and no less than 85 percent by 2050 from 1990 levels.

Regulations to implement these drastic emissions reductions mandated by the law were finalized by the Governor in December 2020. Surely,, then, we are well off to a great start on our emissions reductions?

Actually, at the same time as we have adopted this noble-sounding Act and regulations, what we’ve really been doing is closing our big zero-emissions nuclear power plant and replacing it with brand-new natural gas facilities. Until last year, about 25 – 30% of the electricity for New York City came from a nuclear plant about 40 miles north of the City called Indian Point. Even as he has also talked endlessly about carbon emissions reductions, Governor Andrew Cuomo has made closing the Indian Point reactors a political priority. Of the two operating reactors at Indian Point, one closed in 2020, and the second is now scheduled to cease operations on April 30, 2021 — that is, at the end of the current week.

But they couldn’t close Indian Point without something to replace the power. And so, two big new natural gas-burning facilities have opened in the past few years. First, a 680 MW natural gas plant called CPV Valley Energy Center opened in Wawayanda, New York in February 2018; and then a 1000 MW natural gas plant called Cricket Valley Energy Center opened in Dover, New York, in April 2020.

Supposedly the big solution going forward is going to be vast amounts of offshore wind turbines to be built out in the Atlantic Ocean off Long Island. So far, it’s nothing but talk. One of the proposals to advance the farthest calls for a big 15 wind turbines off the Eastern tip of the island. But if the turbines are built, the power will need to come onshore by cable at some location. In January the Town of East Hampton granted an easement for the cable to come onshore in an area called Wainscott — and immediately a group of wealthy homeowners in the area brought a lawsuit to block it. We’ll see where that goes.

But it gets even worse. Just last week, something called the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management in the federal government canceled two of the wind energy development zones off Long Island. According to a report April 20 in the Wall Street Journal:

“Bureau of Ocean Energy Management officials said the zones off the island’s coast raised problems with maritime traffic, marine life feeding areas, and concerns over visibility from South Shore beaches. In short, they were a nuisance to fishermen, shippers and gentry with homes in the tony Hamptons area full of Manhattanites during the summer.”

In other words, despite the big talk, and lots of spending and subsidies, all the “progress” so far towards zero emissions has been negative.

Read the full article here.

4.5 34 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
140 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 27, 2021 6:18 am

“It never ceases to amaze me how the very mention of the word “climate” causes people to lose all touch with their rational faculties”

Brilliant insight.
Thanks

Curious George
Reply to  Chaamjamal
April 27, 2021 7:03 am

I didn’t leave the Democratic party, the Democratic Party left me.
Ronald Reagan

Mike Lowe
Reply to  Curious George
April 27, 2021 12:58 pm

A bit like me and Rotary. Change is not always beneficial!

Bryan A
Reply to  Mike Lowe
April 27, 2021 1:58 pm

Squirrel

Bill Powers
Reply to  Curious George
May 5, 2021 7:31 am

“…The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, Its just that they know so much that isn’t so.”
– Ronald Reagan

Jon R
Reply to  Chaamjamal
April 27, 2021 1:00 pm

The “C” word is no longer what it once was.

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  Chaamjamal
April 27, 2021 1:30 pm

I won’t rest until we get together with all of the other countries on Earth and eliminate climate entirely! And carbon too!

mikee
Reply to  Chaamjamal
April 27, 2021 4:36 pm

Its the new improved kool aid. Its potency has increased.

Chris Wright
Reply to  Chaamjamal
April 28, 2021 6:13 am

Very true.
These idiots like to claim that pretty well everything is caused by climate change – particularly if they’re bad. Of course, all of these claims are nonsense. But there is clearly and provably one thing that climate change does do: it drives alarmists completely barking mad.
Chris

Tom Halla
April 27, 2021 6:18 am

What Biden and Cuomo should be asked is how, not what.

William Astley
Reply to  Tom Halla
April 27, 2021 11:41 am

How and why are we spending money on stuff…. China is building twice as many coal fired plants as the entire world. Our ‘reductions’ are meaningless … This is just a not so sneaky plan to get our country to spend itself to death.

On multiple levels.

The green ‘plan’/scam will not work… because of basic engineering facts/issues. The zero carbon dioxide emission plan hurts the economy, damages the environment, and does not work.

It is impossible to get to zero CO2 emissions using wind and sun gathering. That scheme fails (to reduce/appreciably reduce CO2 emissions) when the magic battery is required.

Ignoring cost or time to build the stuff, the energy required to build and replace batteries, replace wind turbines, and replace solar cells (power convertors), maintain roads to access the stuff, and so on….

Reality engineering calculations. Just the facts. Not politician hype/lies.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/22/shocker-top-google-engineers-say-renewable-energy-simply-wont-work/

“A research effort by Google corporation to make renewable energy viable has been a complete failure, according to the scientists who led the programme. After 4 years of effort, their conclusion is that renewable energy “simply won’t work”.

According to an interview with the engineers, published in IEEE;

“At the start of RE<C, we had shared the attitude of many stalwart environmentalists: We felt that with steady improvements to today’s renewable energy technologies, our society could stave off catastrophic climate change. We now know that to be a false hope …

Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.””

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change

Mike Lowe
Reply to  William Astley
April 27, 2021 1:00 pm

It took Google engineers 4 years to work that out? They can’t be too smart then!

Lrp
Reply to  Mike Lowe
April 27, 2021 2:12 pm

But at least they were honest, which seems to be rare

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Mike Lowe
April 27, 2021 9:02 pm

It took them that long because they couldn’t stand the result.

Rainer Bensch
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
April 28, 2021 1:24 am

No, the budget was used up.

Reply to  William Astley
April 27, 2021 10:06 pm

WHERE DOES CARBON DIOXIDE COME FROM?
 
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!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
April 28, 2021 5:02 am

“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, and even though all those greenhouse gases were spewed into the atmosphere, the temperatures actually dropped by 0.5C for over a year. That’s because other factors were involved besides greenhouse gases.

Greenhouse gases did not dominate this scenario. It was volcanic SO2 that blocked the sunlight and caused the temperatures to decline. Greenhouse gases were not very effective at countering this cooling, even though there was a lot of CO2 put into the atmosphere with the eruption.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 1, 2021 11:00 pm

Correct Tom.

The SO2 aerosols get into the stratosphere and cause cooling, for several years, in the case of El Chichon 1982 and Pinatubo 1991+.
Mt. St. Helens (VEI5, 1980) did not have much cooling impact because it blew mostly sideways, not up into the stratosphere.

RickWill
April 27, 2021 6:21 am

I will say it again – weaning off fossil fuels is a challenging task.

Hybrid vehicles make economic sense and can certainly reduce gasoline consumption. A shift to hybrid vehicles could probably reduce transport fuel usage by at least 20%.

Around 20% of intermittent capacity can be accommodated without huge impact on dispatchable generation but there will need to be significant increases in fossil fuel prices before that is economic without subsidies.

Dwelling and building insulation and radiation control are the low hanging fruit for energy savings in homes.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  RickWill
April 27, 2021 6:37 am

It’s not challenging, it’s impossible. Transportation is only about 1/3 of the national energy budget. 20% of 30% is 6% of total. And, you just add it to the electricity portion of the equation, which is also about 30%. Not exactly a game changer. And what about non-electrical energy consumption? Unless you live next to Grand Coulee dam, no one in their right mind wants to heat their house with electricity. Been there, done that, 40 years ago in NJ. Heating my apartment cost $200/month in Dec/Jan/Feb.

DonM
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
April 27, 2021 8:37 am

If your landlord would have insulated it the best they could have as a re-hab you could have been down to $180 …

Bryan A
Reply to  DonM
April 27, 2021 10:00 am

RickWill
The problem with Hybrids is, eventually fossil fuels will be eliminated as a fuel source available for personal transportation. When this happens (and it will soon enough if the Dimocrats have their way) what your hybrid will become is an Expensive EV with a 35 mile range. Not very useful.

Last edited 10 days ago by Bryan A
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Bryan A
April 28, 2021 5:09 am

You could convert that hybrid to wood gas if the Dims eliminate gasoline.

But the problem with that is if the Dims are in power, they would eliminate wood gas, too.

I’m not sure what I’m going to do, but I’m not going to give up my gasoline-powered car without a fight.

If the Dims get enough power to outlaw gasoline entirely, then we will probably be involved in a civil war anyway, and free Texas and Oklahoma will provide my gasoline for me.

WBrowning
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
April 27, 2021 9:18 am

Yep, we made the mistake of going with a heat pump when we redid the HVAC system in our house. We were thinking that our new solar panels would more than make up the difference…NOT! Problem is, the sun is not available as much (clouds and length of day) when we need heat in the house. What it costs to heat with electricity is 4 times as expensive as what is cost to heat the house with our lousy old gas furnace. Add onto that all the smoke from the fires during the summer A/C season, thanks to forest mismanagement and summers are just as bad.

Last edited 10 days ago by WBrowning
Scissor
Reply to  WBrowning
April 27, 2021 9:44 am

If everyone would just accept living in a cardboard box under a plastic tarp, which by the way sequesters carbon, then the challenge is not so great. In fact, we can see the dramatic progress made toward this end in all democratically controlled big cities.

Bryan A
Reply to  Scissor
April 27, 2021 2:01 pm

Part of the reason that IS so successful is the fact that it quells consumerism to the point that ALL your worldly possessions MUST fit in a Shopping Cart

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  RickWill
April 27, 2021 6:42 am

Huh? Weaning off fossil fuels is completely unnecessary and dumb. Hybrid vehicles “make economic sense”? To whom? Maybe if you conveniently “forget” all the subsidies for them and punishing “carbon”. Quick math quiz: If for every $1 worth of gas you save you (with the help of Uncle Sam) have to spend $2, what have you actually saved? “Dwelling and building insulation and radiation control”? Wha? Once again, if those things truly make sense economically, then people will do them. They don’t need the government’s “help”.

observa
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
April 27, 2021 8:08 am

Hybrid vehicles do make sense for stop/start urban driving which is around 80% of Oz driving. How so? Well apart from not idling at traffic lights (some small beer) it uses the torque benefit of an electric motor to pull off the line so that the economy of an Atkinson Cycle designed ICE can take over at its optimum efficiency which also has efficiency benefits highway driving.

On top of that the hybrid captures regenerative braking energy and Toyota have the seamless hybrid synergy drive nailed to perfection over any alternative auto. No arguments except Nissan are going for an efficient ICE generator with electric motor drive only a la diesel electric trains except they’ll be petrol so interesting to see how that compares.

As for full EVs they’ll never cut it without driving the price of lithium battery resources sky high and you’ll also note that jumping from hybrid to PHEV with the charging and battery management kicks the price up toward full EV pricing for marginal gain. Particularly as has been surveyed many PHEV owners get lazy plugging in their PHEVs regularly whereas full EV owners don’t have that luxury. Why the Greenies despise PHEVs and hybrids.

DonM
Reply to  observa
April 27, 2021 8:49 am

I just walked thru a toyota lot to take a break from driving the other night. ‘Top’ corolla with a 2.0 engine was $23,800 (30-35 mpg); the hybrid corolla was $21,700 (50 mpg). The 1.8 engines were a little less. I didn’t see any direct subsidies in the above prices.

I test drove all of them about six month ago. No real difference in city driving. I didn’t get to see if the hybrid or the 1.8 could pass on a two-lane highway. My daughter got the 2.0.

If most of what you do is city driving the hybrid seems great, but it is very nice to be able to pass people on the highway when you feel you need to.

Darrin
Reply to  DonM
April 28, 2021 10:15 am

Rented a Prius couple years ago for a company job. Three hour drive each way with rolling hills and a small mountain range to go over, pass level ~1500 ft. What a miserable experience that I’ll never do again. It was fine in town but hated it on the open road. Gutless, noisy when you put your foot in it (frequent occurrence) and not a fun driving experience. Only positive was it did make the advertised mileage.

Really can’t see driving the darn thing anywhere but in town and maybe on flat ground as a molehill is to steep for it.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  observa
April 27, 2021 10:04 am

It makes sense to provide engineering improvements in efficiency, thus reducing transportation costs. The consumer can vote with their checkbook for the improvements they find useful. That is not the same as the government mandating ‘choices’ and requiring consumers to accept the least onerous features. Taxes and subsidies to ‘encourage’ choices is really a form of economic coercion that makes it difficult to judge the actual economic costs to society.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  observa
April 27, 2021 11:40 am

We have driven a AWD Ford Escape hybrid since 2007. About 206 total HP, equivalent to the V6, so class 1 tow hitch good for 1500#. V6 was IIRC 18mpg city, 22 highway at 65mph, needed premium gas. Our equivalent hybrid is 32 city, 28 highway, and uses regular. Around here, the price difference is over $1/ gallon. Has paid its hybrid price premium several times over.

RickWill
Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 27, 2021 4:09 pm

Yep – hybrids make economic sense and assist in extending the time horizon for fuel price rises. They have lower running costs as well because the acceleration and braking are better controlled.

A friend who services Toyotas said he has not yet done any cell replacement on the oldest Prius he services – it was built last century. But he has replaced cells in younger vehicles so I figure the 20 year maintenance fee life for a Prius battery is special.

OweninGA
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
April 27, 2021 8:33 am

The hybrid tax credit in the US went away about 5 years ago. The only federal benefit is to the company being able to meet its CAFE standards.

I bought a Honda CRV Hybrid last year as my wife’s commuter car. It gets 38 – 40 mpg going on our rural to urban and back 40 miles per day commute. It replaced a 2000 Honda Accord that got 23 mpg. So we saved 3/4 of a gallon per day. (200 gallons per year.) At $2.50 per gallon that is $500 per year. The price difference was $3000. In 6 years we will have paid for the difference in gas savings. Sooner if the expected gas price increases that the current administration’s bone-headed policies will usher in happen. So yes economically makes sense.

Drake
Reply to  OweninGA
April 27, 2021 10:30 am

Not quite so, the dems have put so many hidden monetary slight of hand rules in place that we really do not know what anything truly costs and what subsidies are being charged through the price of a vehicle.

Something I did not know about:

Article in today’s news, Tesla made almost 1/2 billion profit last quarter. Almost all of that came from money ICE car companies paid Tesla to use their EV to lower there other companies CAFE fleet mpg ratings. 1/2 billion divided by the number of ICE cars sold would give you the per car subsidy that the poor who cannot afford EVs subsidize the rich who can.

I will not do the calculations, but this is probably only one of many ways that ICE car prices are inflated by US laws that WE don’t know about. Yet another subsidy of EVs.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  OweninGA
April 27, 2021 11:05 am

Um, when will the “batteries” need replacing, and at what cost? I suspect you don’t have those answers and won’t know until the “surprise” hits you in the wallet. Until you’ve factored that in, along with the potentially higher repair costs of the complex “hybrid” system, you don’t know your true “pay off ” period. The more complex (and expensive to repair) a vehicle is, the sooner it will become “uneconomic” to repair it vs. replace it, another hidden cost of “hybrid” vehicles.

Furthermore, many don’t have a separate vehicle for each “specialized” set of conditions, like a “commuter car.” Most use their cars for all of their travel needs, be they commuting or taking a long highway trip to visit relatives, vacation, etc. ad nauseum. Hybrids suffer in highway use, because you have to haul the weight of the batteries around all the time.

So no, economically it does not make sense, because ignoring “other” use cases, ignoring many of the “hybrid’s” potential additional costs and invoking needless and stupid government “policies” to artificially drive up gasoline prices has nothing to do with being “economical.”

Quite the reverse, in fact.

OweninGA
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
April 27, 2021 11:13 am

The CRV just went hybrid this past year, but uses the Accord hybrid system. The batteries on the previous model Accord so far have been very good going on 6 years since introduction. The Civic hybrid has been around for 11 years and I know some folks who are still on the first battery though most have been about 8 years at replacement. The hybrid batteries go for about $3,000 unlike the electric vehicles batteries which can go for 10 grand.

I researched it before diving in.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  OweninGA
April 28, 2021 5:22 am

Hybrids make sense for reducing total gasoline consumption. They don’t require any enhancements to the electrical grid the way pure electric vehicles do.

As for the battery life, just do what I do, and buy a new car right before the five-year warrantee runs out. Let someone else deal with replacing the batteries. 🙂

Derg
Reply to  OweninGA
April 27, 2021 4:59 pm

Economic sense for you. Hopefully you still value freedom of choice. After all that is what perpetuates humanity.

OweninGA
Reply to  Derg
April 28, 2021 11:57 am

Right. ICE vehicles would be the only solution if I lived in the northern tier of US. Friends in the great white north tend to get much worse fuel economy on their hybrids than I do. I think a mix needs to always be available.

KevinM
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
April 27, 2021 9:29 am

Bruce Cobb: inaccurate info and math. The cost difference pays for itself quickly.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  RickWill
April 27, 2021 7:02 am

Wokesters put “shut down power plants” on the same list as “recycle my vitamin water bottles” without realizing the vastly different consequences.

Phil
Reply to  DMacKenzie
April 27, 2021 7:42 am

“Recycle my vitamin water bottles”

If these bottles are made out of glass, no problem. You can completely clean and sanitize a glass bottle, even if it has been used to hold human waste. Not so with plastic bottles. The smell and taste is absorbed by the plastic and cannot simply be washed out. You need a very expensive machine called a “sniffer” to (hopefully) detect and remove any bottles that have been used to store human waste. Think about that the next time you buy something bottled in a recycled plastic bottle. These people indulge in fantasies without any concern about the practical difficulties involved in actually implementing their wishful thinking.

PCman999
Reply to  Phil
April 27, 2021 4:19 pm

You’re kidding right? A recycled plastic bottle where they wash and refill it!? Not worth the effort, expense or risk – better off grinding them up and feeding them into the mix of new bottles.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  RickWill
April 27, 2021 7:23 am

We have 100+ years of oil left and ten (tops) of lithium, neodymium and cobalt.
You appear to be a fool.

Roger Taguchi
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
April 27, 2021 10:13 am

You can recycle lithium, neodymium and cobalt. You can’t recycle oil.

Drake
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 27, 2021 10:37 am

Of course you can. Used motor oil is recycled.

Also burned hydrocarbons are recycled through the atmosphere in the form of water and co2 and converted into biomass then shipped across the Atlantic for use in what should be a coal power plant in the UK, while also providing the O2 back to the atmosphere to be again burned in that biomass plant. Funny that.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 27, 2021 11:54 am

The portion which can be, and particularly which IS, recycled is minuscule.

PCman999
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 27, 2021 4:21 pm

How do you go about recycling the metals and having enough if the supply of cars is ever increasing??

Derg
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 27, 2021 5:00 pm

Geez are you dumb.

Roger Taguchi
Reply to  Derg
April 27, 2021 7:14 pm

DERG:comment image

fred250
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 27, 2021 11:48 pm

Rogtag shows two of his auntie’s cooking appliances.

Totally DUMB and off topic.. as always.

Last edited 10 days ago by fred250
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
April 27, 2021 10:13 am

Lithium is currently obtained primarily from brines, with US production just now starting to expand in the west. However, lithium can also be produced from lithium-bearing minerals in a type of rock called pegmatites. So, we may well have more than 10 years of lithium reserves. However, tor things like REEs and cobalt, their availability and cost can be critical! Right now, US vehicle production is being stalled because of computer chips not being available. I can foresee similar disruptions to electric vehicle production as scarce cobalt becomes too expensive, or trade wars prevent importation.

Roger Taguchi
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 27, 2021 2:11 pm

Li-ion batteries can be made with other cathode materials besides cobalt, such as lithium manganese oxide (spinel).

fred250
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 28, 2021 5:29 am

Why didn’t you mention that this type has lower energy and life span, Dog-tag?

“Most Li-manganese batteries blend with lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide (NMC) to improve the specific energy and prolong the life span.”

fred250
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 28, 2021 5:46 am

https://www.upsbatterycenter.com/blog/lithium-manganese-oxide-battery-better-performance-reliability/

“However, Lithium Manganese oxide batteries are not rechargeable….

You really are digging into your deep levels of DUMB, aren’t you , Dog-Tag.

RickWill
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
April 27, 2021 4:39 pm

Who has 100+ years of oil reserves? China has about 7 years of known reserves.

China and India are only just beginning their transition from two wheel transport to use of enclosed vehicles for private transport. Vehicle ownership in China is 1/3rd of Australia, India even less. Africa have not started yet.

There will be severe restrictions on oil exploration so prices are bound to rise. Greenies know that oil exploration is the start of the chain to the CO2 devil.

The Hybrid batteries are small compared to those in an EV. There will be recycling processes established based on economics; just like lead batteries where 99% of those sold in the US are recycled. They typically only last 3 to 5 years. Prius batteries made last century are still in operation.

Right now it makes economic sense to own a hybrid. Lower maintenance. much lower fuel cost and often no price premium or small premium soon recovered in savings. A hybrid battery is not going through large charge/discharge cycles like an EV.

Derg
Reply to  RickWill
April 27, 2021 5:01 pm

Peak oil 😉

Dave Andrews
Reply to  RickWill
April 28, 2021 6:57 am

Proven oil reserves are sufficient to last around 50 years at current levels of usage.

James Beaver
Reply to  RickWill
April 27, 2021 7:31 am

The batteries for and from hybrid vehicles are an environmental nightmare. Toxic mining, toxic and energy intensive recycling, inefficient recharging…

These vehicles only make sense if you use narrowly scoped usage scenarios and ignore the environmental impact of acquiring the resources used to build them.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  RickWill
April 27, 2021 7:43 am

A shift to hybrid vehicles would probably increase grid electrical usage by at least 40%.

OweninGA
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
April 27, 2021 8:38 am

Depends on the type of hybrid. Plug-in hybrids are probably what you are talking about. Most hybrids run on gasoline with an electric assist. The battery is charged from the gasoline engine and regenerative braking. The plug-in hybrids are a different beast and I really don’t think they are a good idea in most places.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  OweninGA
April 27, 2021 10:17 am

Therefore, the vehicle becomes a mobile, fossil-fuel power plant with low efficiency (because of stop and go driving), contributing more CO2 than from a stationary source operating continuously at optimal efficiency.

OweninGA
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 27, 2021 11:19 am

Clyde,

While the efficiency is less than a power plant, the losses are all immediate, and much energy is recovered that would have been lost to braking. Now, by the time that power plant transmits its power to the meter at the house and is then converted to DC at the charger and then more lost in converting it to chemical potential in the battery, the efficiency is probably not as good as you think in a battery powered car.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 27, 2021 11:57 am

A. CO2 emissions don’t matter.

B. You are conveniently ignoring the (massive) transmission losses over lengthy power lines and inefficient charging.

TonyL
Reply to  RickWill
April 27, 2021 8:04 am

RickWill writes:
“Around 20% of intermittent capacity can be accommodated without huge impact on dispatchable generation”

Time and time again, we have seen that 20% is just chewing into that grids reserve backup. It is all excess right up until the point where you need it. It is irresponsible and reckless but it is the cheap way out. You do not pay for new reserves, you do not pay for getting backed up as you need it, you do not pay for grid stabilization, even though you caused the instabilities. Lovely.

Then you say:
“but there will need to be significant increases in fossil fuel prices before that is economic without subsidies.”

OK, the truth. Wind and solar are not economic. So what do we do? Find a way to make wind and solar cheaper if possible? NO! Too hard.
Instead, artificially drive up the price of all other energy to make “renewables” look better in comparison. Carefully do not notice the inconvenient fact that you just raised energy prices across the board. And so the middle class takes it on the chin, again.

And finally:
“Dwelling and building insulation and radiation control are the low hanging fruit for energy savings in homes.”

How long have we been at this????? How stupid are we???? We do not know insulation saves money????
Let me introduce you to “Sick Building Syndrome”. After the Oil Shocks of the early 1970s (look it up), the country went on a binge to super insulate buildings. The result was buildings with insufficient air exchange. Indoor air pollution would build up, as would moisture. The added moisture promoted mold growth. In short the buildings started making huge numbers of people sick. Hence the name.
Things today are done the way they are done *for a reason*.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  TonyL
April 27, 2021 10:20 am

And so the middle class takes it on the chin, again.

Actually, low-income families will be hurt more because they have less disposable income, and their choices won’t be whether to go out to a restaurant for dinner or not, it will be what can be eaten at home for less cost than their first choice.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  RickWill
April 27, 2021 9:42 am

The independent mechanics say otherwise. They are the ones having to deal with design and repair issues and inform the customers. At some point the public is going to wise up on the math of MPG vs. cost, depreciation, repair complexity, and planned obsolescence.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  ResourceGuy
April 27, 2021 11:59 am

DING! DING! DING!

We have a winner!

Meab
Reply to  RickWill
April 27, 2021 9:58 am

The average age of a car on the road in the U.S. is 11.9 years. All new non-hybrids sold today will still be on the road in 2030. About 96% of new cars sold today are not hybrids or EVs. Even if we immediatly switched to 100% hybrid sales tomorrow, we would still have ~50% non-hybrids on the road in 2030. That’s not going to happen as there simply isn’t enough battery manufacturing capacity to do that and won’t be for decades. The simple fact is that all changes to energy consumption will be , by necessity, gradual. The people advising Biden are straight-up idiots and Biden is too senile to know.

OweninGA
Reply to  Meab
April 27, 2021 11:24 am

Are they idiots, or are they trying to price the average person out of the ability to freely travel on their own? If a population is stuck in place, it is easier to control and confine. The modern community planners are more about limiting choice than enhancing individual liberty. I think they do what they do as a matter of planning, knowing the imposition they are demanding. Which makes them evil not dumb.

PCman999
Reply to  OweninGA
April 27, 2021 4:30 pm

You hit the nail on the head, driving your own personal vehicle will only be for those people who are more equal than everyone else. Without the riffraff on the road the climate elite will be able to drive their expensive performance cars, which also happened to be electrical as a second thought, in peace on the open road.

Bruce Cobb
April 27, 2021 6:28 am

They pile absurdity on top of nonsense on top of lies, and hope no one will notice.

fretslider
April 27, 2021 6:52 am

Obama’s people had the already-existing gradual pace of decline in mind

Indeed they did. Dr Holdren, if I recall correctly, was Obama’s chief scientific advisor…

“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” — Dr. Paul Ehrlich, Anne Ehrlich, and Dr. John Holdren, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, 1970, p. 323

It is a long game. 

Brooks H Hurd
Reply to  fretslider
April 27, 2021 7:33 am

It is a long and deadly game. De-development would lead to a large reduction in the world’s population.

fretslider
Reply to  Brooks H Hurd
April 27, 2021 8:07 am

Which is pretty much what Holdren et al are all about

David Attenborough – BBC hi-vis front man –  has said that we human beings have a duty to remember that we are “intruders” .

ie we don’t belong on the planet.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  fretslider
April 27, 2021 10:21 am

So, Mulder’s suspicions were right!

KevinM
Reply to  fretslider
April 27, 2021 9:54 am

Recently reread Population bomb. Reminded me:
1) Global warming has been the claim all along. The global cooling magazine cover we reference sometimes is a canard.
2) Ehrlich greatly underestimated technological advance, especially farming.
3) Ehrlich greatly underestimated the size of earth and how long it could take any process to force drastic changes.
4) He was a biologist with a BA, MA and PhD, no MS.
5) He was only 34 years old when he wrote the book. Its fantastic reception probably warped his intellectual development for a long time – maybe past the point of honesty with himself.

The opening chapter where he uses compound growth to demonstrate human bodies filling the earth shoulder to shoulder in a not-so-far future would cause a reasonable mind to put the book aside without much thought.

Much pop culture deception might have been avoided if he’d known a reasonable physicist or economist.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  KevinM
April 27, 2021 10:57 am

What Ehrlich et al apparently didn’t understand was that Thomas Malthus had no way of seeing the exponential growth of human technology. His theories simply don’t apply to humans. By Ehrlich’s time, that was obvious. He should have known better, so I can only believe that Population Bomb was 100% political, obviously having no scientific value.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  KevinM
April 27, 2021 12:02 pm

Global cooling was no canard. Just because Erlich didn’t get on the bandwagon doesn’t mean other “scientists” weren’t.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  KevinM
April 28, 2021 7:50 am

“Global cooling…was a canard”

FORECASTS FAMINES and FREEZES, Climate and Man’s Future by John Gribbin 1976. Gribbin was a science writer for the journal Nature.

Talking of four mild winters between 1970 -75 in UK he says “In fact, those four warm winters are just a local and possibly temporary reversal of a worldwide cooling down (p7)

“In worldwide terms, we are in a situation where the earth is cooling more quickly than it warmed up earlier in this century.” (p8)

“the balance between present conditions and even a full ice age seems quite delicate” (p34)

Dave-E
April 27, 2021 7:02 am

It would be much easier and cheaper to simply admit that CO2 is plant food and not a pollutant. But then the money and power grubbing garbage elite would have to abandon their dreams of oppression via carbon regulation and looting via carbon taxes. Shutting down fracking and pipelines (two sources of lower emissions) while whining about total emissions simply demonstrates the Climate Change scam is about power and control and not the environment.

Andrew Lale
April 27, 2021 7:05 am

The answer is obvious. Back to whale oil and beeswax candles. Horses and carts, one bath a week and everybody wears clothes they knitted themselves. It’ll be great, you’ll see.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Andrew Lale
April 27, 2021 7:40 am

And could we also please restore the Federal and State income tax levels (percentages) we had back in those good ol’ times.

Drake
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
April 27, 2021 10:44 am

There were NO federal income taxes in those times. State income taxes didn’t start until they states had a federal tax system to use for their own taxing.

I agree though, get rid of the INCOME tax, the government has NO business knowing what we do with our money.

Look at the Fair Tax.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Andrew Lale
April 27, 2021 8:05 am

do that you’ll be begging your Chinese masters, in Mandarin, for your monthly mouldy rice allotment.

Steve Case
Reply to  Andrew Lale
May 1, 2021 8:23 am

Don’t forget the great reset, “You will own nothing and you will be happy.”

CD in Wisconsin
April 27, 2021 7:15 am

“In my last post a couple of days ago, I remarked that “Biden himself has absolutely no idea how this might be accomplished. And indeed it will not be accomplished.””

…….which is good because it does not need to be accomplished. I am compelled to say this yet again regarding the value of the climate alarmist narrative to humanity: “At least bovine dung is useful as fertilizer.”

Brooks H Hurd
April 27, 2021 7:26 am

Not to be outdone by New York, California has ambitious plans to greatly reduce carbon emissions, stop fracking, end oil and gas extraction in the state while they complete the shutdown of nuclear power in the state. There is a written plan on their carbon reduction plan. It does say that electricity rates are expected to increase 6% per year between now and 2045. That is a 400% increase from today’s already high electrical rates. Based on the typical accuracy of governmental cost projections, we can expect this cost increase to be far higher than 400%.

The plan also says that California’s increased reliance on renewables will require 50 Giga Watts of battery storage. I wonder how many Congolese children will be required to mine the cobalt for 50 GW of batteries.

oeman 50
Reply to  Brooks H Hurd
April 27, 2021 8:10 am

Not to be outdone, California is also shutting down 2 large, CO2 free nuclear plants

OweninGA
Reply to  Brooks H Hurd
April 27, 2021 8:42 am

True, but as they are bleeding productive population, maybe there will be no one left to turn off the lights – of course there will be no need to as the power will go out by itself.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Brooks H Hurd
April 27, 2021 12:04 pm

California should show its true commitment to reducing emissions, by cutting all ties to the “grid” from other states and living by its bone-headed energy policies. Stop hiding your emissions in Nevada, etc.!

Spetzer86
April 27, 2021 7:30 am

So if they just took all the large NY cities off the grid, they could probably just get by? I’m sure the Cuomo family would be cared for, so why not?

Gordon A. Dressler
April 27, 2021 7:34 am

“. . . our President and his handlers have now left the real world and gone off into total fantasy.”

Yes, and the same applies to former-President Obama and his handlers.

They all bought into the meme that rising CO2 levels cause global warming (which, of course, must be a BAD THING) without any hard scientific evidence—let alone a preponderance of scientific evidence—that such is true.

As has been said many, many times: correlation does not equal causation.

Last edited 10 days ago by Gordon A. Dressler
Steve Case
April 27, 2021 7:37 am

Since we’re not likely to have solar-powered airplanes or steel mills any time soon,

No kidding! After a short search you can find:

A mid-sized modern steelmaking furnace would have a transformer rated about 60,000,000 volt-amperes (60 MVA), with a secondary voltage between 400 and 900 volts and a secondary current in excess of 44,000 amperes.

Go to the You Tube and search on “Electric Arc Furnace” to see what that looks like, and then let the “Climate Crazies” tell us how wind mills and solar panels are going to run that. Especially when some of the text tells us that the steel making industries run at night when there is less load on the grid and the cost of electricity is less.  

Joel O’Bryan
April 27, 2021 8:02 am

Green fanaticism is just one part of the sequelae of a Liberal’s mental illness. Other manifestations of this mental illness include an insatiable need to spend OPM and tell people how not only to live theirs lives, but think as well through speech control.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
April 27, 2021 10:25 am

Well, after all, they are coming from a position of moral superiority! They have an obligation to tell others how to live their lives.

Rod Evans
April 27, 2021 9:06 am

Having pig ignorant unscientific politicians define energy policy, is on a par with having psychopaths as the preferred choice to decide if a nuclear strike should be carried out.
In both cased the inadequacy of the prime agents involved in the decisions, create exactly the same outcome. Both result in the destruction of humanity. The only difference, is the psychopaths achieve the result faster.

griff
April 27, 2021 10:07 am

Wind and solar, even if you blanket the country with them, are next to useless without keeping the majority of the coal and natural gas plants as backup

Nonsense. 20th century thinking.

Bryan A
Reply to  griff
April 27, 2021 2:03 pm

20th/21st century Realist thinking
Not 21st century Socialist thinking

Richard Page
Reply to  griff
April 27, 2021 2:27 pm

No. The reality of observed data as opposed to your fantasy of computer generated wishful thinking.

fred250
Reply to  griff
April 27, 2021 2:52 pm

Says griff the idiot, .. After several days like this…

comment image

Poor girff, he dispensed with REALITY many years ago.

Now lives in a fantasy la-la-land equivalent to a Mills and Boon booklet.

Bryan A
Reply to  fred250
April 27, 2021 3:23 pm

Now be kind to Griff, he’s earned his “Participants Trophy” and Is in command of an actual functioning neuron.

Richard Page
Reply to  Bryan A
April 27, 2021 4:22 pm

I am reliably informed that said neuron is called “Phil” and behaves just like the Punxsutawney Groundhog.

4 Eyes
Reply to  griff
April 27, 2021 4:29 pm

Griff, point me to a few reviews, by ENGINEERS, not scientists, that renewables can economically work without backup. A lot of us here are engineers who have had to come up with real, practical, economic solutions to real problems without sending our companies broke. Clearly you must have these references at hand.

Phil
Reply to  griff
April 27, 2021 6:32 pm

Actually, there are a bunch of things around the country that look like electrical substations but aren’t. They are instead used to ground electricity. It is easier to break into Fort Knox than to find them. I haven’t found ANY figures on how much electricity is shorted to ground every year because of renewables. The electricity generated by the backup power plants has to go somewhere if not consumed, because there is not enough storage. Here’s how it works: you have two dairies: one produces organic milk and the other (the backup dairy) produces regular milk. All the organic milk is preferentially used to meet demand. The ordinary milk is only sent to market to when there are shortages of organic milk. What is done with the left over milk? It is poured on the ground. How much spilled milk (i.e. electricity) is wasted every year? That is something I have never been able to find out.

LdB
Reply to  griff
April 27, 2021 7:54 pm

Griff have things got that bad in the UK you making a play for the mentally challenged pension?

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  griff
April 27, 2021 8:03 pm

Griff
Common sense doesn’t have a century, it’s timeless.
And you don’t seem to belong anywhere.

I see you in Monty pythons holy grail, dressed in rags, chanting and beating yourself over the head with a plank.

Fitting

ralfellis
April 27, 2021 10:25 am

If Britain needs 5,000 gwh of backup energy, just to cover for renewable electrical outages, then America will need some 30,000 gwh of backup.

Where are those backup systems being built?
What form do they take?
And how much will they cost?

Ralph

Laws of Nature
April 27, 2021 10:30 am

Can we all have >>flying<< electrical cars, when we create that phantasy-future, please?
So much neater than these 2D devices we use now and it makes little difference.. it is all an empty dream anyhow!

Richard Page
Reply to  Laws of Nature
April 27, 2021 2:30 pm

Sod cars – I want a battery powered flying unicorn. Or, or maybe a dragon – with flames. Well, it’s all a fantasy so why not dream just a little bit bigger! Lol.

David
April 27, 2021 10:57 am

For NY state, Hydro Quebec is dying to export its clean hydro energy, which they have in excess. Of all states, NY is probably the most likely to make good strides in reaching its goals. But it will be because of the great hydro resources of their neighbor.

Tom in Toronto
Reply to  David
April 27, 2021 11:10 am

Hydro is ‘clean’? You are destroying our perfect world with dams and diverting water from beautiful waterfalls!
Only ‘degrowth’ (i.e. economic collapse) will please the green idiots.

Roger Taguchi
Reply to  Tom in Toronto
April 27, 2021 2:13 pm

Beavers build dams and divert water. Are you claiming beavers are destroying the world?

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 27, 2021 3:12 pm

What a dumb thing to post
Comparing a little beaver pond to a massive hydro reservoir.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 27, 2021 8:00 pm

Roger
Beaver dams are natural
Beavers are natural

Hydro dams and their massive reservoirs are not natural.

Now, I’m not part of the climate insane, that’s your people, so I’m good with hydro but YOUR people see drowned land and a massive amount of submerged rotting vegetation emitting methane. And methane is 80 or 86 or 800 times more OMG than co2.

So by your people hydro is not exceptable.

So spare me

Bryan A
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 28, 2021 7:12 pm

That hyperlink splits awkwardly
Behold-world’s-largest-beaver-
Dam#
Not a link I would want to admit to clicking on

Derg
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
April 27, 2021 5:05 pm

Roger is not very smart so what do you expect?

Roger Taguchi
Reply to  Derg
April 27, 2021 7:16 pm

Hey Derg: comment image

fred250
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 28, 2021 5:35 am

Oh dear, poor dog-tag !

…. retreats into the empty recesses of his blank mind.

Last edited 9 days ago by fred250
Steve Case
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
May 1, 2021 8:32 am

Besides the five and counting dislikes, your analogy is no longer acceptable in our BNWW*

*Brave New Woke World

Lrp
Reply to  David
April 27, 2021 11:58 pm

What goals?

Terry
April 27, 2021 11:16 am

Hi We’re Democrats. There is a climate catastrophe happening and only we can save you. It’s simple – it’s just politics, but it’s politics to a new vicious level. The wheels will eventually come off the claim, and then what?

Jon R
Reply to  Terry
April 27, 2021 1:03 pm

More cowbell of course.

Doonman
April 27, 2021 12:04 pm

A 10% reduction in global termites is all that is needed to achieve global net zero CO2 emissions. And yet, there is no plan by governments anywhere to increase the number of exterminators which would create jobs worldwide. After all, It does not matter where the CO2 comes from.

Citizens must ask why this simple task is not in the forefront of all climate actions. After all we are in a climate emergency and do not have time to wait.

Oh, you think termite emissions are bogus? Well then, science deniers, you’re denying the settled science of 1982 observational study.

Science 05 Nov 1982: Vol. 218, Issue 4572, pp. 563-565 DOI: 10.1126/science.218.4572.563

Richard Page
April 27, 2021 1:40 pm

Back during the cold war, leaders of the nuclear countries could boast of how big their…. arsenals were, or the length of their….. ICBM’s. In this age, they are all trying to outdo each other with extravagant green pledges. It’s just a new variation on the schoolboy game of “how high can you piss up the wall?”

Sara
April 27, 2021 3:57 pm

I remarked that “Biden himself has absolutely no idea how this might be accomplished. And indeed it will not be accomplished.” – article

It’s so simple: give the project to someone who hasn’t got a clue and get out of his way. it’s all talk, probably enough hot air to warm the entire city of WDC or Chicago over next winter, which may just be a doozy up here in the Great Frozen NE section of the state.

In reality, since congress critters (in all locales) have a tendency to spout off with no idea how to get something done (and that includes the current lot of birdbrains who are in politics for the cash they can grab), the best thing to do is smile and nod, and go on about your business. If you happen to see some sorry-looking idiot wearing a government name tag, best thing to do is close the door to your establishment and hang up a sign that says “Out Of Business Due To Government Restrictions”, which really might not be too far off the mark. It applies to all things, including the Plague, the CV19 Pandemic, the cytokine storms that destroy working brain cells when people get elected to office, and so on.

And try sneezing when they come around. That should scare the living daylights out of them, since they don’t know a cold from a cat-tail weed.

What on earth did we do before central heating for a home was considered ordinary and necessary, never mind real plumbing and water pumped into a home? Well, we had a fireplace in nearly every room if we were wealthy enough, otherwise, the kitchen was the warmest place in the house, and plumbing was ‘go to the pump out there and pump a bucket or two” in addition to those “night jars” (for relieving oneself) like my granny had under the bed, and there was also the ever-loved and sorely missed outhouse. I did have an uncle who swore that when he was a kid, he had to take a small shovel and go into the woods and take the newspaper with him. My, how things have changed.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Sara
April 28, 2021 8:07 am

Yep, the house I grew up in till the age of four had an outside loo, no bathroom and a bath was in a tub in the kitchen using hot water boiled on the stove.

Jean Parisot
April 27, 2021 5:54 pm

the whole sector basically needs to go to zero emissions to meet the Biden target. What would that look like?

Manhatten Project, hundreds of small nukes a month. Put Elon on it, he needs the same small nukes on Mars.

Jim Whelan
April 27, 2021 9:24 pm

“If a 12% reduction could be achieved in the first 11 years, then a further 14% reduction in another 10 years would not be wildly out of line.”

I disagree. This is one of those things that starts out easy and quickly becomes more difficult. The difficulty is far from linear as this implies.

observa
April 27, 2021 9:26 pm

If you’re a doomster devotee getting nowhere fast with the plant food bogeyman then try another angle-
Urgent methane cuts needed to rein in climate change, U.N. says (msn.com)

H.R.
Reply to  observa
April 28, 2021 4:04 am

Ban beans NOW!

Kevin kilty
April 27, 2021 9:27 pm

In the meanwhile Biden’s executive order hold on minerals leasing is costing states real money.

H.R.
April 27, 2021 9:36 pm

I’m waiting on the ban of diesel fuel.

The country would grind to a halt in days. Washington D.C. would be unlivable inside of a week.

It doesn’t matter what you manufacture or what you grow, pretty much nothing moves in the U.S. without a ride on a truck at some point.

You think converting the U.S. fleet of cars to electric is a pipe dream? Converting all the long haul trucks will be a nightmare.

If Congress ever bans diesel fuel, I imagine it will be a week or less before they reverse that stupidity.

Congress thinks they control the country. If all the truckers in the U.S. parked for a week, Congress would quickly find out who really controls the country.

So to the article’s point, diesel fuel won’t be part of the CO2 reduction plan.

TonyG
Reply to  H.R.
April 28, 2021 6:41 am

Oregon is already trying: https://www.truckersnews.com/home/article/15064238/bill-would-ban-sale-of-petroleum-diesel-in-oregon-by-2028

(Funny how it’s 8 years out – long enough for the voters to forget who was behind it)

April 28, 2021 3:29 am

There is no denying that global warming is posing more and more threats. I always think that why can’t we use more clean fuel or just electric cars? It will definitely remove more carbon dioxide. For this issue, my favorite car is Ford everest. It does well in clean emissions.

EwinBarnett
April 28, 2021 3:31 am

To the extent that any new technology must be built and rolled out to replace existing infrastructure, a key limiting factor will also be that it takes between 10 and 20 years to develop known deposits of essential industrial metals like copper, nickel, cobalt and silver. Each of these is presently being produced at a lower rate than the market. Silver may be short by 300 million ounces a year. The price of copper signals that demand exceeds supply. The key here is the amount of time lag from demand to new supply. Government may be able to print new money but it cannot print new mines. (Irony alert here because the major factor in delay is getting government permits for each step in the resource development process)

jacques serge Lemiere
April 28, 2021 5:24 am

imagine that you pledge that in 2050 our kids will not eat pizzas… when i pledge something i think it applies to ME not my kids.

Pauld
April 28, 2021 12:50 pm

When President Trump proposed developing a Covid 19 vaccine by the end of 2020 there were loud throngs of journalist claiming achieving the goal would be impossible and that Trump was being deceitful for suggesting otherwise. It is striking how silent most of the media is regarding the far more impossible carbon reduction goal proposed by Biden

%d bloggers like this: