Democrats Soak U.S. Taxpayers $430+ Billions so World’s CO2 can Climb 2+ Billion Tons by 2030

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

In what has to be one of the most outlandish and expensive energy and emissions misrepresentations in U.S. history the energy and climate alarmist globally clueless Democrats have passed two CO2 climate emission reduction laws (Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law of 2021) which together they hype “could reduce emissions by approximately 1,000 million metric tons in 2030, or about a gigaton” from present levels.

As the Wall Street Journal article shown below notes this is yet another attempt by Democrats to destroy the cost effective, dispatchable, reliable and efficient U.S. fossil fuel industry that drives a successful economy.

What the Democrats and their media accomplices completely fail to disclose is that based on readily available EIA energy and emissions data (from the EIA 2021 International Energy Outlook report) their massively costly and globally emissions irrelevant “deal” for U.S. taxpayers results in the world’s CO2 emissions climbing by another 2+ billion metric tons by 2030 driven exclusively by the world’s developing nations (led by China and India) hugely increasing use of fossil fuels with these nations dominating global energy use and emissions by accounting for over 2/3rds (and growing) of all global emission totals.

The EIA IEO 2021 data reference below shows that the world’s developing nations CO2 emissions are projected to increase between year 2020 and 2030 by about 2.9 billion metric tons of CO2 with that resulting in a world year 2030 increase of emissions of over 3+ billion metric tons of CO2. Both the U.S. and EU emissions from year 2020 to year 2030 are projected by EIA to remain basically unchanged.

This concealed EIA emissions data by the climate alarmist renewable energy mandate driven Democrats hides the fact that their $430+ billion taxpayer soaking of U.S. citizens that allegedly is supposed to reduce U.S. emissions between 2020 and 2030 by “about a gigaton” results in year 2030 world CO2 emissions climbing by an additional 2+ billion metric tons.          

Furthermore, EIA data shows that the world’s CO2 emissions after 2030 will climb by yet another 2.7+ billion metric tons by year 2040 and further climb by yet another 2.6+ billion metric tons from 2040 to year 2050 with 95% of these increases driven by the world’s developing nations. 

Democrats dishonestly conceal this EIA data and analysis which shows world CO2 emissions climbing between 2030 to 2050 by an additional 5+ billion metric tons which exceeds the entire present U.S. CO2 emissions.      

The Democrats further hype that their climate reduction laws represent a 40% reduction from year 2005 U.S. emissions levels.

The EIA 2008 International Energy Outlook report shows that U.S. CO2 emissions in year 2005 were 5.982 billion metric tons of CO2 (Table A10). The EIA 2021 International Energy Outlook report shows U.S. CO2 emissions in year 2020 were 4.552 billion metric tons a 24% reduction from year 2005 levels. 

Additionally, the Democrats fail to disclose that the EIA data through 2020 showing that U.S. emissions levels declined by 24% since 2005 were achieved with about 2/3rds of this reduction attributable to increased use of  lower cost, higher efficiency, dispatchable and lower emission natural gas power plants (shown below) that replaced coal fuel. Yet energy and emissions incompetent Democrats are doing everything in their power to reduce (also shown below) natural gas availability and use in the U.S. with these actions significantly increasing the price of natural gas in the U.S. and other global energy markets.

Biden and his energy and emissions incompetent Democrats have concealed the enormous energy and emissions benefits of low cost, higher efficiency, dispatchable and low emission natural gas and instead misrepresented and mandated a ridiculous program using high cost, unreliable and nondispacthable renewable energy while abandoning the development of fossil fuel resources and driving up energy market prices. The outcome of these Democrat idiotic policy schemes will cause the U.S. to experience the same energy debacle that now engulfs the UK and EU that have systematically destroyed their economies which were following the same flawed energy and emissions policy schemes as the Democrats propose with the catastrophic results illustrated below for Germany which now has electricity rates 4 times higher (and climbing) than are presently available in the U.S.

Germany has now reached the point where 60% of its population is experiencing energy poverty driven by huge energy and emissions policy failures mandating use of unreliable, nondispatchable and costly renewables while incompetently shutting down its own cost effective and reliable fossil and nuclear resources making the country subject to Russian energy and economic blackmail and contributing to market supply disruption and increasing prices of fossil fuel global markets.

Biden and his Democrats seem intent on destroying U.S. energy and economic viability in the clearly incompetent, misguided and false belief that they are “fighting climate change”.      

5 16 votes
Article Rating
71 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
billtoo
August 24, 2022 6:06 am

opportunity for graft

Reply to  billtoo
August 24, 2022 9:25 am

….griffters love graft.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Antigriff
August 25, 2022 7:32 am

And grifter graft needs studies to back up the claims for generations to come.

OMB-Analysis-Inflation-Reduction-Act.pdf (whitehouse.gov)

Results Results of the OMB analysis found that cumulative climate-related benefits from the Inflation Reduction Act will range between $0.7 and $1.9 trillion through 2050. These social benefits of the Inflation Reduction Act could reflect the mitigation of a number of harmful climate impacts reflected in the SC-GHG, including: • Avoiding negative health impacts, including things like premature death; • Reducing expensive property damage from sea level rise and natural disasters; and • Reducing costs related to increasing temperatures.

Reply to  billtoo
August 24, 2022 10:27 am

The more correct name for the bill would be the “Build Climate Back Better” superpork bill.

Tom Halla
August 24, 2022 6:20 am

Paying off the subsidy miners, yet again.

John
August 24, 2022 6:33 am

It’s payback to their billionaire buddies…quid pro quo.

oeman 50
Reply to  John
August 24, 2022 8:21 am

I prefer to think of it as quid bro quo.

ResourceGuy
August 24, 2022 6:49 am

It’s a high price to pay for Party hacks and lobbyist (donor) phone calls. Next?

Olen
August 24, 2022 7:14 am

So much for representation from those all wearing blue coats like it’s a club they are representing. As stated in the article they are crashing the country and without the consent of the people.

It’s a true show of their attitude that they and they alone make the decisions.

pouncer
August 24, 2022 7:46 am

I’m always reminded of the very smart US politicians of the 19th century who wanted to criss-cross the country with a network of canals.

The policy issue was, at least in part, driven by an energy crisis. Of course. Convenient forests for firewood were depleting, and the overland transportation costs were such that industries of US coastal cities found it cheaper to ship in coal from our erstwhile adversaries, the British, than chop and haul wood from more distant forests, or mine and move our own Pennsylvania coal. US policymakers and visionaries looked at Europe, saw what the canals there allowed, and were determined to implement the same sort of “cheap, high-speed” (by the standards of the century) infrastructure here.

And succeeded a bit. The Erie Canal. The Ilinois and Michigan Canal. Smaller projects, here and there. Failed projects, everywhere else. But by the time most giant tax-funded projects were completed, smaller private enterprises were already demonstrating the virtues of rail. Quarries used rail to move stone. A coal mine, confounded by frozen canals, replaced them with seasonally-indifferent rail. Passengers paid for recreational rail rides.

Anyhow. Obviously, interest in history is a narrow niche.

But those here who advocate windmills and commuter rail and cricket farms and all that very much remind me of the blind US visionaries who could not see their own future beyond the horizon of Europe’s history.

Michael in Dublin
August 24, 2022 7:51 am

This is like a massive ponzi scheme where a small number of government approved people will initially receive huge payments but the rest of the investments from the general public, when their payment due date arrives will have vanished like the morning dew.

griff
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
August 24, 2022 8:58 am

Isn’t that the whole basis for US govt action? for over 100 years?

MarkW
Reply to  griff
August 24, 2022 9:14 am

That’s the basis for all government action. Period.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  griff
August 24, 2022 10:41 am

The Marshall Plan with many many names

Drake
Reply to  griff
August 24, 2022 11:23 am

You hit the nail right on the head, for once griff.

Just over 100 yeas ago 2 changes to the US constitution and one legislative action created this whole US fiasco.

1. The elimination of taxation on a per person basis, to allow direct coercive taxation of individuals, i.e. the income tax.

2. The direct election of Senators, which allows a democrat majority in the Senate that would be impossible on the basis of States determining their Senators since over 50% of the states are conservative. The Senate was intended to represent the States in the US congress, as States were independent entities when they joined the union by approving the Constitution. The House was the “people’s” house.

3. The creation of a federal bank, the Federal Reserve, which caused the “Roaring 20s”, the Great Depression, The Great Recession, and all other manor of economic disasters in the US.

Reverse those 3 things, and after a 3 to 5 year shakeout, the US would be stable and prosperous again. AND hundreds of thousands of unproductive “overhead” leaches would need to find productive work. Who? IRS employees, Tax Lawyers, “Investment” advisors (for IRAs, and other “tax deferred” investments), the whole of the Fed millionaire employees, etc. Also, all the US “debt” owned by the Fed would be repatriated without the federal government spending a dime.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  griff
August 24, 2022 11:23 am

Another day, another name….

This is an inflation expansion act. The reports say Mr. Biden will cancel $10,000 in debt for borrowers making $125,000 or less a year. That would cost about $300 billion this year, and $330 billion over 10 years, says the Penn Wharton Budget Model.

Gunga Din
Reply to  griff
August 24, 2022 11:31 am

Not really, griff.
The whole basis, foundation, of the US Government is supposed to be implementing the ideals expressed in The Declaration of Independence.
The problem has been that there are “people” involved.
No matter where or when or what ideology or form it takes, whenever some gain authority over others, some will abuse that authority. They will set up or manipulate systems to continue to abuse and maintain the elites’ authority.
The problem is Global, not just in the US for the last 100 years.

Curious George
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
August 24, 2022 10:37 am

“This is like a massive ponzi scheme”

August 24, 2022 8:34 am

Entropy …….disorder….always increases….demrats always increase disorder….destruction…disinformation…death….doom…disabilities…..

Steve Oregon
August 24, 2022 8:34 am

Democrats like to use the words “fighting” & “addressing” climate change while the entirety of their costly legislation can do nothing at all.
None of their spending or policy can or will have any impact on the atmosphere, climate, weather, sea rise, floods or droughts.
It’s no different than if they were to insist on paying billions to scoop out the ocean with tea millions of spoons to reduce sea rise.
Yet most of the media parrots the “fighting” and “addressing” climate change labels without any care for reality or fact checking at all.

Dave in Calgary
Reply to  Steve Oregon
August 24, 2022 4:09 pm

They outline the cost in numbers, but the results are in qualitative feel good outcomes like “tackling climate” or “fighting climate.”

Its such a shame that such a vast percent of voters and media show zero interest in demanding to know what the actual benefit will be.

Debt financing is so commonplace, no one seems to care AT ALL if trillions are printed and flushed down the toilette.

I mourn for sanity.

Mr.
August 24, 2022 8:34 am

All present-day politicians don’t really have to worry about the consequences of their decisions.

The vast majority of them have no intentions of being still in office or accountable in 2 elections cycles time, and their lifetime pensions can’t be affected by abhorrent decisions they inflict today.

August 24, 2022 8:46 am

Joey “Big Guy” Biden has gubment build 1/2 million dollar wall around his beach house…..but no wall on border ….because he is scum.

griff
August 24, 2022 8:57 am

The US is (was until this) the world’s second highest CO2 emitter, so clearly needed to reduce CO2…

Plus China and India aren’t going to do anything if the US doesn’t.

Reply to  griff
August 24, 2022 9:07 am

CO2 does not warm climate…world needs 800 ppm CO2.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
August 24, 2022 9:12 am

The US has dramatically reduced it’s CO2 emissions.
China is by far the number one emitter and India is number 3 but not by a huge amount,

China and India aren’t going to do anything. Period. They aren’t as stupid as the US and EU.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  griff
August 24, 2022 9:13 am

“Plus China and India aren’t going to do anything”

Fixed it for ya!

Rick C
Reply to  griff
August 24, 2022 10:29 am

China and India are certainly not going to follow the US’s Or EU’s lead and crash their economies over a non-existent problem.

Gunga Din
Reply to  griff
August 24, 2022 11:40 am

Bull, griff.
The only thing Communist China will do is laugh at all the nations that reduce and/or eliminate reliable energy. (And profit from their mistakes.)
All for “The Cause”.

JCDN Texas
Reply to  griff
August 24, 2022 12:37 pm

“Plus China and India aren’t going to do anything if the US doesn’t.”

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha … is this a joke ?

b.nice
Reply to  JCDN Texas
August 24, 2022 3:44 pm

China and India will continue to strive for RELIABLE energy supply

Reduction of CO2 emissions is pretty much LAST on their list of priorities.

b.nice
Reply to  griff
August 24, 2022 3:42 pm

WRONG again.

  1. Nothing the USA do will affect world CO2 emissions
  2. More CO2 is needed for proper functioning of plant life
  3. CO2 has no provable or measurable effect on the climate or weather.
  4. USA should be rejoicing the steady build up of world sustaining CO2.
  5. Only the moronic anti-science says CO emissions should be reduced. It is sheer idiocy.

Everything you have been brain-washed with about CO2 is obviously completely wrong

Doonman
Reply to  griff
August 24, 2022 6:31 pm

How much will the US “need” to reduce CO2 to reduce world global average temperatures? Come on now, that is the entire reason for doing this at all.

No one says what the result will be or when. Trillions spent for no reason at all. That sounds about as smart as tossing virgins into volcanoes to me.

Mark BLR
Reply to  griff
August 25, 2022 3:06 am

Plus China and India aren’t going to do anything …

… full stop.

I already posted the graph below under a different WUWT article, but it is relevant here as well.

Emissions data from BP’s “Statistical Energy Review (2022)” document.

GDP numbers (observed for 2005, projected for 2030) from the OECD’s “Real GDP long-term forecast” webpage (direct link), to calculate China and India’s “emission intensity” numbers.

– – – – –

PS : The ranges provided as their NDC “objectives” for both China and India are above where their recent (2010-2019, pre-COVID) emission trend lines end up in 2030 (unlike the USA’s).

Only one of the three trend lines is negative. Guess which one …

China-USA-India_CO2e-numbers_1.png
JCDN Texas
August 24, 2022 9:00 am

“Inflation is caused when the money supply in an economy grows at faster rate than the economy’s ability to produce goods and services.”
— St Louis Fed, Money and Inflation

For any Democrat that truly believes creating and spending government money will curb inflation, please send me your life savings because I feel sure I can triple your money from a luxury suite in Las Vegas with the insight of a committee of strippers…

https://www.stlouisfed.org/education/feducation-video-series/episode-1-money-and-inflation

RickWill
Reply to  JCDN Texas
August 24, 2022 5:04 pm

The US currently enjoys the unique position of being able to export its inflation. It can just keep creating more money to buy stuff made in other countries. However there is a growing group of countries that will no longer accept USD for trade.

I expect that by the end of Biden’s term the USD will be dead as the global currency. Russia’s dominance as a global energy exporter combined with current US sanctions on Russia were the deciding factor. No banker can refuse to honour its paper to a major holder and expect to remain in the banking business.

I would not be surprised to see Germany align with Putin to liberate Ukraine once the riots start.

Climate believer
August 24, 2022 9:22 am

…err… is this still ‘build back better’? they should call it ‘breaking the economy some more’.

August 24, 2022 9:23 am

Probably over a trillion dollars has been flushed with this solar/wind worthless crap. CO2 is a benefit – we need 800 ppm CO2. I love CO2.

August 24, 2022 9:27 am

We can do this ….build a better future w/o demrats……more CO2 please.

James F. Evans
August 24, 2022 9:31 am

The Green New Deal…

That is a euphemism… we all know that.

The real green is hydrocarbon production & usage.

CO2 makes the planet greener.

This is beyond dispute.

(Hypothesis: a greener world is a more moderate world.)

Bruce Cobb
August 24, 2022 9:31 am

It isn’t necessary, or honest to bash coal in order to make NG look good. Coal took a big hit because of the War on Coal, and yes, fracking gave NG an advantage, but NG isn’t everywhere. It relies on pipelines which are expensive and take a lot of time. And, as we’ve seen, NG prices are extremely sensitive. Coal power acts as a buffer. The truth is, they need each other.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 24, 2022 10:55 am

And unlike natural gas, coal can be stockpiled easily and safely to circumvent interruptions of transport, etc.

Coal and nuclear are the best for baseload electric generation.

August 24, 2022 9:32 am

Demrat demons demonstrate yet again (how many times are needed?) their destructive demolishing despicable behavior…..put the demrats in charge for disaster.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Antigriff
August 24, 2022 10:37 am

Demrat demons demonstrate destructive demolishing despicable demeanour?

don
August 24, 2022 9:58 am

More Democrat theft and stupidity

MarkW
Reply to  don
August 24, 2022 11:16 am

Biden just announced that he is going to forgive $10,000 in student debt for those making up to $125,000.

Those who didn’t go to college, paid for their college by working or worked hard to pay off their loans get to subsidize those who believe government owes them a living.

DonM
Reply to  MarkW
August 24, 2022 1:05 pm

I paid for most of my daughters’ stuff. I don’t really know how … in the beginning I thought I would end up borrowing 20k before it was all overt, but I made it through without going into any kind of debt … “pay as I go” worked out. She ended up with about 12K in loans. So, given the biden stupidity/games, we did it just right and got lucky.

My point … in addition to the majority of Americans that don’t owe on any student loans, didn’t go to school, have paid off their loans, or are getting screwed by biden in some other way, there are also those few dumb parents that took on loans of their own instead of getting student loans… think how those schmucks feel.

August 24, 2022 10:19 am

For perspective, 1 Gt (“1,000 million metric tons”) of CO2 is 1/8 of 1 ppmv. 🥱

The current average atmospheric CO2 level is about 417 ppmv. Here’s a graph:

https://sealevel.info/co2.html

CO2 levels are rising at a rate of about 2.5 ppmv per year (20 Gt), so one less Gt means reaching a given target CO2 level 18 days later. 🥱

Adding 1 Gt to the 3336 Gt already in the atmosphere is 1/2313-th of a “doubling.” The “equilibrium climate sensitivity” (ECS) of temperature to a doubling of CO2 is less than 2°C (though the IPCC claims about 3°C). But CO2 added to the atmosphere has an effective atmospheric lifetime of only about fifty years (half-life 35 years), so the warming effect from adding CO2 to the atmosphere is somewhere between TCR and ECS, i.e., probably at most about 1.5°C/doubling. That means 1/2313-th of a doubling is 0.00065°C (650 millionths of a degree). Even if we use the IPCC’s inflated 3°C ES estimate, we still get just 1.3 thousandths of a degree. 🥱

ResourceGuy
August 24, 2022 10:43 am

It’s the Build Back Buddies Plan

Gunga Din
Reply to  ResourceGuy
August 24, 2022 11:55 am

Lippo Group. Solyndra CEOs.
Nothing new under Brandon.

ResourceGuy
August 24, 2022 10:45 am

They must not let savings build up lest that produce comfort and independence.

Jeff
August 24, 2022 11:52 am

It would be interesting to see a calculation of how much of the IRA will end up in China for solar and wind turbine components.

Rusty
August 24, 2022 11:56 am

Why do I think this is going to backfire massively?

IanE
Reply to  Rusty
August 24, 2022 12:03 pm

Hmm; IQ > 60 !

IanE
Reply to  IanE
August 24, 2022 12:04 pm

p.s. In case that is a bit obscure, I’m suggesting it’s because anyone with such an IQ would agree!

Gordon
August 24, 2022 12:13 pm

Adding more Bird Choppers (Windmills) and Solar Panels enrich China as they burn more Coal to supply the materials to add them. The Stupid Burns.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Gordon
August 24, 2022 5:01 pm

China can solve its real estate market trouble by shifting to construction of more forced labor compounds and coal plants. The rooftop solar lobby will silence and concerns with a new update on all the great employment gains.

Joe Gordon
August 24, 2022 12:51 pm

Now we know why old Joe is hiring armed IRS soldiers. The way he wastes our money, adding to the debt, destroying our economy, how can any sane person not consider taxpayer revolt?

So Rambo the tax collector will soon be breaking into our homes, checking under mattresses and inside cookie jars, even rifling the sofa cushions for loose change.

But it won’t matter. His actions the last two years have dealt our economy a permanent blow.

Pflashgordon
August 24, 2022 1:41 pm

Reduced emissions in the U.S. result from shift to natural gas, improved efficiency, off-shoring manufacturing, recent short-term impacts of COVID lockdowns, and only to a small degree wind and solar. Meanwhile, from 2005 to 2022, U.S. population increased 14%.

The Dim-ocrats’ plans will intentionally force further reductions by lowering the effective incomes and living standards of most Americans by means of government spending (i.e., printing money), increasing the cost of energy, food, transportation, goods and services, and increasing our dependence on foreign trade (greater trade deficits).

Hopes of energy independence?

7338478B-DE5E-4A8A-9456-D03B706AF34C.jpeg
AndyHce
August 24, 2022 1:51 pm

That CO2 production is increased somewhere else (the far east) by any amount does not mean that a claim of CO2 reduction in some particular place (the USA) is not true.

What is probably true is that the advertised CO2 reduction will not occur, or will be far less than projected, so the total over everywhere will be still higher. But the bill will help insure that those individuals and corporations whose wealth has been increasing by many billions per year will continue to prosper.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  AndyHce
August 24, 2022 7:55 pm

No
As manufacturing moves overseas the Asian emissions increase even more than they would without USA policy like this

There is no gain
Only loss because less efficient use of power and transporting finished goods

AndyHce
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
August 27, 2022 1:55 am

A real answer has to include the high energy use required to “reduce pollution” which will almost surely not be expended in places line China and compare it with the additional energy involved in transporting goods.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
August 24, 2022 3:20 pm

Math is hard. Graphs are harder

RickWill
August 24, 2022 4:39 pm

Europeans will die this autumn – mostly from heart failure when they get their electricity bill. In winter they will die from the cold when the electricity supply shuts down.

Why should USA be any different! They voted Biden into office and deserve to follow the planet saving fetish that dominates in Europe.

Yesterday the UK day ahead electricity auction settled at GBP539/MWh – new record. That equates to USD636/MWh or 63c/kWh. You have to wonder who can afford that price?

It will not surprise me to see Europeans raiding government offices to take any combustible objects so they can burn them to get a little warmth – in the words of Jon Snow – winter is coming!

Mark BLR
Reply to  RickWill
August 25, 2022 3:44 am

Yesterday the UK day ahead electricity auction settled at GBP539/MWh – new record. That equates to USD636/MWh or 63c/kWh. You have to wonder who can afford that price?

The following are from various “scary / clickbait headline” media articles, but the companies cited do appear to have actually put forward the numbers copied below.

The current UK “energy cap” (for households only, businesses have no equivalent) rose to an “unprecedented” £1277 last October, and caused much (real and virtual) newspaper ink to be spilt.

In April it went up to £1971, and the government announced that from October it would be updated quarterly (instead of two times a year).

Around the 8th or 9th of August, Cornwall Insight gave its latest “predictions” for future cap levels of :
October 2022 : £3582 (which was £200 more than its previous forecast)
January 2023 : £4266
April 2023 : £4426
July 2023 : £3810
October 2023 : £3781

On Monday (the 21st) Auxilione updated already “high” estimates released to the press less than a week earlier (in the middle of the UK media’s “silly season” …) to :
October 2022 : £3576
January 2023 : £5066 (up from £4650 just a week earlier)
April 2023 : £6552 (up from £5456) … or £5300 (from a Cornwall Insight update)

Never mind the exchange rate, going from 1277 monetary units (per year) on energy bills to 6552 (i.e. times 5.13, to 5300 would “only” be times 4.15 …) in just 18 months would probably provoke “social unrest” problems for any government.

It looks like the UK will face the new and improved “energy crisis” under the, erm, “leadership” (?!) of PM Liz Truss …

The Brits, in the UK at least (I’m an ex-pat based in France), are [ insert expletive here ] !

Last edited 3 months ago by Mark BLR
ResourceGuy
August 24, 2022 4:55 pm

Add another $2,000 cost per adult taxpayer for the student debt forgiveness today. This open bar tab is getting more expensive by the day.

Bob
August 24, 2022 5:43 pm

Of course this gives me no reason to think any higher of politicians, administrators and bureaucrats. Lousy parasites.

Edward Katz
August 24, 2022 6:29 pm

The environmentalists’ credo is a simple one: It may not work, but at least it’s Green

michel
August 24, 2022 11:27 pm

Yes. Oobjective reports by the EIA show clearly that the world is on track for CO2 emissions of 45 billion tons a year in 2050 (up from 37 billion today), and that nothing the UK, US or Australia can do will have any material effect on that.

The US is making heroic efforts in the Inflation Reduction Act, and they only result in a lowering of 1 gigaton. If (almost impossible) the UK was to succeed in its Net Zero policy, that would take another 450 million tons off.

The effect on climate would be unmeasurable.

And yet politicians and media in the US, the UK and Australia keep on positioning their programs as ‘tacking climate change’ or somehow affecting climate change in a positive way, or being justified by their effect on climate change.

Its mass hysteria on the part of the political classes and the media. The complete craziness of it.

— We will move electricity generation to wind and solar (which is impossible)

— we will convert heat and transport to electricity (which is also impossible, especially when at the same time converting power generation to technologies which will not work)

— and this will dramatically lower our emissions (which it won’t)

— and this will then reduce global warming (which it will not).

One starts to understand what a normal rational inhabitant of Salem must have felt as he watched his neighbors going mad in 1692. A mixture of astonishment and apprehension. What was happening to these people? And where was the searchlight going to touch next?

Well, we can see part of the answer today in the form of the ongoing lunacies about gender and race. But I am afraid we are not yet at the end of this descent into irrationality and should really be worried about what the next craziness will turn out to be..

michel
Reply to  michel
August 25, 2022 1:04 am

And from the NY Times today, more of the same stupidity:

The new policy in California follows an expansive new climate law signed by President Biden last week. The law will invest $370 billion in spending and tax credits on clean energy programs, the largest action taken by the federal government to combat climate change. The legislation is projected to help the United States cut its emissions 40 percent below 2005 levels by the end of this decade.

This in a story which reports that California is going to ban sales of ICE autos by 2035. Also in the effort to save the planet by lowering global emissions. As if!

The rule, issued by the California Air Resources Board, will require that all new cars sold in the state by 2035 be free of greenhouse gas emissions like carbon dioxide. The rule also sets interim targets, requiring that 35 percent of new passenger vehicles sold by 2026 produce zero emissions. That requirement climbs to 68 percent by 2030.

Transportation is the nation’s top source of planet-warming greenhouse-gas emissions.

So they are doing this in order to lower CO2 emissions. But the story envisages this measure having a dramatic effect mainly by force of example. Other states are supposed to follow California’s example in phasing out ICE, and then other countries too. California will lead the world.

One imagines that Xi wakes up in the morning and his first thought is, what can I learn today from California? Quick, pass me the LA Times to see what they have thought of now!

A few inconvenient critics are quoted, asking such inconvenient questions as, how are people supposed to afford them, considering they are much more expensive. And, where is the power supposed to come from to charge them?

I guess the answer is, as the Xhosa prophetess might have said in similar circumstances, don’t worry, just close down all the power stations, ban ICE cars, and the Lord will provide.

Gordon A. Dressler
August 25, 2022 2:02 pm

From the above article:
“. . . hides the fact that their $430+ billion taxpayer soaking of U.S. citizens that allegedly is supposed to reduce U.S. emissions between 2020 and 2030 by “about a gigaton” . . .”

Let’s see, one gigaton = 1 billion tons = 1E+9 tons. These are assumed to be “short tons”.

Therefore, the supposed reduction of US (CO2) emissions would be at a currently-projected cost of ($430E+9/1E+9 short tons) = $430/short ton.

According to https://www.chemanalyst.com/Pricing-data/liquid-carbon-dioxide-1090 :
“the liquid carbon dioxide price in the American market during the end of the second quarter of 2022 was recorded at around USD 365/metric ton”, or about $332/short ton.

Therefore, I have this business scheme venture to propose to the Federal government that I will be buying CO2 on the commercial market and releasing it into Earth’s atmosphere unless the Government pays me a subsidy (such is handed out to farmers to not grow certain crops) for NOT releasing it, to the tune of ($430-332) = $98 per short ton.

I proposing starting my venture with a plan to buy one million tons of liquified CO2 on the open market, thereby extracting a blackmail subsidy of about $98 million gross from the Federal government.

Anyone else care to join me in this can’t-fail venture?

Last edited 3 months ago by Gordon A. Dressler
%d bloggers like this: