The contradictory Green policies to limit CO2 emissions

From edmhdotme


Currently the burning of Biomass is designated as “CO2 neutral” by Western Nations to give the appearance of reducing CO2 emissions and thus controlling Climate Change.

The designation of Biomass burning as Carbon neutral is essentially self-defeating as:

  • burning Biomass massively increases the instantaneous output of CO2 emissions.
  • those instantaneous CO2 emissions from burning Biomass effectively cancel out  any and all potential CO2 emissions savings from the deployment of Weather-Dependent “Renewable” technologies
  • is hugely destructive of natural environments and habitats wherever harvested at the necessary industrial scale.

Germany and the UK are leaders in the development of “Renewable” Energy in Europe. This post uses 2019 hourly generation datasets showing the scale of various generation technologies over the year.  It combines that power output data with data on the CO2 emissions of different fossil fuels to show the extent of CO2 emissions in 2019.

It questions the efficacy of using Biomass to reduce CO2 emissions at all, as

in both contexts, the scale of CO2 emissions from Biomass cancels out any potential CO2 emissions savings made from using Weather-Dependent “Renewables”. 

So all the excess expenditures and government subsidies for Weather-Dependent “Renewable” have done nothing to reduce Global CO2 emissions overall.

CO2 emissions from Fossil fuels used in power generation and progress of de-carbonisation

The characteristics of Fossil Fuels and Biomass resulting from their molecular structure, their production processes and their flammability determine their CO2 emissions characteristics as shown below:

  • the least CO2 emissions for the power produced results from burning Natural Gas, which can be usefully derived from Fracking:  this has been the origin of the massive CO2 emission reductions achieved in the USA.
  • all forms of Coal produce roughly twice as much CO2 for the power they produce when compared to Natural Gas.
  • however, the clear-felling virgin forest, then using some of the timber itself or Fossil fuels for drying, processing and transporting the wood to burn in remote power stations results in roughly 3.6 times the CO2 emissions of Natural Gas for the same power output.

Realistic mechanisms for CO2 emissions reduction

The progress of decarbonisation since 1990 that has been made worldwide and the short term effect of the COVID-19 pandemic can be seen below, expressed as CO2 emissions per head of population.

It is clear from the chart above that there are only limited ways that effectively reduce CO2 emissions at scale from power generation:

  1. the massive use of Nuclear energy, as in France where CO2 emissions / head have now fallen to a level below the Global average, following the French 50+ year commitment to Nuclear power.  The French now have the lowest CO2 emissions value per head of any developed Nation.  The French thus prove the point of the efficacy of using Nuclear power to limit CO2 emissions.  Nuclear power has contributed to a CO2 reduction of ~200million tonnes per year since 1990, (~-28%).  France now produces less than 1% of Global CO2 emissions, down from ~1.5% in 1990:  this represents a reduction of 2019 Global CO2 emissions of ~0.6%.
  2. the Fracking revolution, as in the USA with the market driven transition from Coal to Gas-firing for power generation have resulted in an annual emissions reduction of ~1,600 million tonnes per year, (~-33%), since 2000.  The USA now produces less than 14% of Global CO2 emissions, down from ~22% in the year 2000:  this represents a reduction of 2019 Global CO2 emissions of ~4.7%.
  3. in the UK, the earlier 1990’s policy, “Dash for Gas”, substantially has replaced Coal for power generation by Natural Gas.  This has contributed to a CO2 reduction of ~160 million tonnes per year since 1995, (~-30%).  The UK is responsible for ~1.0% of Global CO2 emissions:  this represents a reduction of 2019 Global CO2 emissions of ~0.47%.

Illogically these effective mechanisms for CO2 emissions reduction, (were that an essential and  worthwhile objective), are rejected by “Green Thinking”.   The use of Weather-Dependent “Renewable”, (Wind and Solar), may not have any direct fuel costs but they do heavily rely on the use of Fossil fuels for their manufacture, installation and maintenance.

Even though their “fuel” is nominally free, Weather Dependent “Renewable” are not capable of achieving true CO2 neutrality.  The CO2 emissions and Energy return from their mandated manufacture, installation and maintenance are unlikely to cover the CO2 emissions savings they might achieve over their service life.

The context for Western CO2 reduction policies

Electric power generation is responsible for roughly 1/4 of a developed Nation’s CO2 emissions the remaining 3/4  being emitted from space heating, transport and industry.  So tackling the fuels used for electricity generation only affects a part of the CO2 emissions problem.  Coping with these other sources of CO2 emissions will prove to be much more problematic and more costly to achieve.

It should be noted that in 2020 the EU(28) as a whole emitted less than 9% of the Global CO2 burden:  Of that CO2 burden UK emissions were ~1.0% Global CO2 and Germany’s CO2 emissions amounted to about 1.9%.  Whatever actions are taken by Western nations are only ever going affect a marginal amount of the Global “CO2 emissions burden”, which is considered to be so damaging by Climate activist thinking.

So, any action in the Western world, where there is an aggressive movement to take action to reduce CO2 emissions, can only be self-harming in the face of the inevitable growth in demand from the developing Nations requiring enhanced access to reliable electric power.

The primary Western government actions to limit CO2 emissions have been to mandate a change in the fuels used to generate electrical power.  The Green thinking requires the substitution of fossils fuels, replacing them with nominally “CO2 emissions free” fuels such as Wind and Solar power as well as Biomass.

These power source substitution policies have already done proven damage to the reliability of Power grids in the South Australia, United Kingdom, Germany, Texas and California and are making power supplies increasingly vulnerable wherever those policies are instituted.

A long low wind episode across the UK and Europe in the summer of 2021 came very close to causing the failure of the UK Grid.

A damaging very calm, cold period in February 2021 in Texas rendered the Texas grid inoperable for more than a week with several million households without power and likely costs and damage exceeding that of a major hurricane.

The policy of promoting Biomass

Biomass power sources are designated to be sustainable and CO2 free by policy but not by rational thinking.  The reasoning being their burnt plant material may well regrow eventually reabsorbing the CO2 produced when they burn.

  • is essentially self-defeating in the objective of limiting CO2 emissions to “save the Climate”:
    • in spite of being declared “Carbon neutral”, by EU and UK policy it is far from Carbon neutral in its effect:  for the same power produced, burning Biomass releases much more CO2 than other fossil fuels, (Coal, Lignite and most particularly Natural Gas).
    • is massively destructive of virgin forest environments, wherever the wood is harvested.  In Europe there is insufficient timber feedstock even to maintain partial power production.
  • will require up to 100 years to fully restore the destroyed native forest wild life habitat and virgin environments and to thus reabsorb the total CO2 that is released instantaneously by the burning of the Biomass in power plants.
  • requires significant heat energy to dry and process the harvested wood material converting it into the pelletised, transportable product.
  • requires significant fossil fuel use for long distance transport.
  • has already required substantial and costly refit of the generation and local fuel supply technologies at Drax where the UK Biomass is burnt.
  • these factors in combination result in an additional, instantaneous CO2 release into the atmosphere of about 3.6 times that produced by burning Natural Gas for the same power output.

The excess costs of European Weather-Dependent power generation 6/2022

These comparative values are used to establish the CO2 emission consequences of trying to avoid Fossil fuel usage as opposed to harvested Biomass.   The progress of decarbonisation since 1990 that has been made worldwide can be seen, expressed as CO2 emissions per head of population above.

Assessing the effectiveness of CO2 reduction policies

The USA by transitioning under market forces, rather than by central government mandate, from Coal to Fracked Natural Gas for power generation has made very substantial reduction in its CO2 emissions, ~-33% since the year 2000.  In the same way, the transition from Coal / Lignite / Biomass to Natural gas would give significant CO2 emissions savings for the UK and Germany.

However, in the UK Policy the transition to imported Biomass, rather than Coal, generating ~7% of its power output mainly at the Drax site adds the major part of excess CO2 emissions, ~29million tonnes per year for only ~7% of  power output.  On the other hand, the maximum potential CO2 reduction achieved by the use of Weather-Dependent “Renewables”, (Wind and Solar) is about 20 million tonnes per year, (ignoring the CO2 output essential for their manufacture installation and maintenance).

Thus the policy to use of Biomass in the UK and Germany more than cancels out any potential CO2 emissions savings made by the use of Weather Dependent “Renewable”, (Wind and Solar) and directly increases CO2 emissions.

The table below summarises rough estimates the effectiveness of actions to reduce CO2 emissions by the two main protagonists in Europe, the UK and Germany.  It assesses the UK power industry as only producing 20% of CO2 emissions because of the large input from low CO2 emitting Natural Gas-firing as opposed to other fossil fuels, whereas Germany is assessed at the more normal level 25% of CO2 emissions for its power industry.

It estimates firstly that the total transition to Natural Gas from other Fossil fuels could avert CO2 emissions:

  • United Kingdom -23.2 million tonnes per year.
  • Germany -72.9 million tonnes per year.

Thus, the policy of using Biomass with its excessive CO2 burden, effectively negates and cancels out any CO2 reductions that might be achieved by the use of Solar and Wind power in both the UK and Germany.

Parallel calculations are shown above for the German situation where there is still a heavy dependence on Coal and Lignite and to a lesser proportional extent Biomass used for power generation.  Nonetheless German Biomass usage is slightly greater than the UK CO2 emissions level.  German Biomass is both imported and sourced from Germany’s indigenous forests, already causing significant habitat damage.

These simple calculations come close to proving that all investments in “low Carbon technologies” so far have achieved nothing towards CO2 reduction but have only increased CO2 emissions and power costs both in the UK and Germany.

United Kingdom CO2 emissions output 2019

The graphics below shows hourly mix of UK power Generation by technology during 2019.  The average output is equivalent to ~28Gigawatts.

Since the “Dash for Gas Policy” in the 1990s, the predominant UK fuels for power generation have been Natural Gas and Nuclear.  Using Coal for generation in the UK is now largely curtailed.  It is in use only on occasions and provides ~2% of power output.  Nonetheless the emergency reopening of Coal plants has saved the the UK Grid from failure on occasions in 2019 and 2020.  This transition has reduced CO2 emissions as a result.  UK CO2 emissions / head  are now only 23% above the Global average. 

Although the UK still has significant Nuclear generation, still providing ~22% of power output, most of those Nuclear plants will come to the end of their service lives before 2030.  UK policies have been slow to replace that base load capacity with alternative base load power.  But the UK on the other hand has significantly increased the installations of intermittent Weather Dependent Renewables.

In 2019 the UK is also continuously dependent on ~7% of imported power, mainly importing Nuclear generated power from France.  The UK dependence on power imports is an existential risk to UK power supplies in the immediate future.

Coal-firing has been significantly substituted by the policy of using Biomass mainly imported from the East coast of the USA, where clear-felling of virgin forest fulfils the requirement.  There is insufficient indigenous timber supply from the UK alone.

The Drax Yorkshire power complex has been largely converted to burn wood pellets mostly imported from the USA, replacing its Coal generating plant.  This provides about 7% of UK power.  The substitution has been imposed by Green policies, which assert that imported Biomass is “Carbon neutral” as it will eventually reabsorb the CO2 emitted. However that re-establishment process will take about 100 years, if ever, to restore the virgin forest and natural habitats destroyed in the process. 

Originally, the Drax power complex was intentionally situated on a still productive Coal seam:  continuing to burn that Coal rather than imported Biomass would result in about half of the CO2 emissions for the same power output.  Recently in November 2020 ageing Coal-fired plants saved the UK Grid from failure.  Those plants are all scheduled for closure within a year or so in the name of saving the World from man-made Climate Change.

Weather Dependent “Renewable”, (Wind Power Onshore and Offshore and Solar), now make up more than 55% of the installed UK generation fleet but they unreliably contribute only ~23% of the UK power produced.  They achieve a combined productivity of ~21% overall.  Wind and Solar are not dispatchable and provide power only unreliably and intermittently: that alone causes real problem for maintaining the consistent power supply essential to support a developed economy.

Note:  these estimates of the scale of dispatchable generation installed assume that those Generation sources operate at their full productivity of 90% and may thus underestimate the size of their actual installations.  The imposition and preferential use, by policy, of intermittent “Weather Dependent Renewable” generation technologies decreases the effectiveness, productivity and profitability of Dispatchable Gas or Coal plants and increases their maintenance costs.

The three CO2 emitting technologies in the UK are a large proportion of Natural Gas, very limited and occasional Coal generation and ~7% of continuous dispatchable power production from Biomass.  That 7% Biomass generation output is responsible ~37% of the whole CO2 emissions from UK power generation.  The policy that asserts that Biomass is CO2 neutral means that CO2 emissions are increased over the use of Natural Gas for power generation by an estimated 23 million tonnes per year.

The distribution and scale of the UK CO2 emissions over the year are shown below.

Germany CO2 emissions output 2019

The graphics below shows hourly values of German power Generation by technology in 2019.  The average output is equivalent to ~65Gigawatts.

Germany has been pursuing its “die Energiewende policy” since 2011, as a result it has installed ~102GW of Weather-Dependent “Renewable”, (Wind and Solar), ~65% of the generation fleet.  Those “Renewable” yield ~30% of German power but intermittently with an overall combined productivity of only ~19%.   Germany has even opened a new Coal-fired power stations to help compensate its power deficit from its Nuclear closure policy.

In spite of its “die Energiewende” policy, Germany is still massively dependent on Fossil and CO2 emitting Fuels for its electricity generation:

  • Natural Gas 16%
  • Biomass 5%
  • Coal 9%
  • Lignite 19%

This totals to some 49% of power generation.  Coal and Lignite generation is increasing in Germany to compensate for its self-inflicted policy of closing Nuclear generators, ~13% of the total productive fleet.  The policy of Nuclear closures, prompted by the Fukushima disaster of 2011 will be completed early in this decade.  

The “die Energiewende” has reduced CO2 emissions somewhat.  But German CO2 emissions at 8.4 tonnes per head per year are still 87% above the Global average and the highest of the EU(28), ~30% above the EU(28) average. 

Germany still depends on significant Nuclear generation, providing ~12% of power output.  But, since the Fukushima disaster, German policy has been phase out its Nuclear plants before the end of their useful service life, leaving a significant power generation deficit.  German policy expects the power deficit to be compensated for by their fleet of intermittent Weather Dependent “Renewables”.

Germany has a significant power contribution from Biomass, ~4.6%.  However, whether imported or from indigenous forest or not, it does already makes contribution to German CO2 emissions of ~20%.

Weather Dependent “Renewables”, (Wind Power Onshore and Offshore and Solar) now make up more than 64% of the installed German generation fleet but they only unreliably contribute ~28% of the power produced.

Over production of power from excessive Wind power production in some winter months means that Germany is forced to export that excess power often at negative prices to neighbouring countries.  This imposes a further cost burden on German power customers.  Germany is also dependent on some imported power mainly Nuclear power from France in the summer when Wind power is production can be low.

The distribution and scale of the German CO2 emissions over the year are shown below.


  • If CO2 emissions reduction were a rational aim to control “Climate Change”, transitioning to the use of Natural Gas for power generation is an effective means of CO2 emissions reduction, not elimination.  Using Natural Gas does not meet the “Net Zero” ambitions of Climate activists.
  • The use of imported Biomass in the UK and Germany is essentially self-defeating as a means to reduce CO2 emissions that might affect the Climate.  The estimates above show that in the UK the Green policies for “Renewables” and Biomass actually result in additional CO2 emissions.
  • In the UK the policy to use Biomass at Drax completely negates all CO2 emissions reduction efforts that might have been achieved using Weather-Dependent “Renewables”, (Wind Power, Onshore and Offshore and Solar).
  • As Germany is much more committed to Coal and Lignite use as well as its Biomass this negates the Wind and Solar investments with excess CO2 emissions of ~ 20million tonnes per year.
  • Wherever the Biomass is sourced, remotely for example from Africa, North America, Indonesia, etc. the environmental damage that the industry causes is virtually irreparable even in the medium term.

The recent Michael Moore film made a telling point, that there is only enough forest timber in the whole USA to power its supply grid for a single year:  and after that the forests are gone.  Whereas Gas and other Fossil fuel reserves will still be available for the longer-term.

  • All investments in Weather-Dependent “Renewables” and the conversion to burning Biomass are obliterated by the contradictory CO2 reduction policies, which actually serve to increase CO2 emissions both in the UK and Germany.
  • If governments institute policies and mandate their financial support, then businesses are bound to take advantage of the artificially created business opportunities even though they may be counterproductive.
  • The continuing dependence on significant amounts of Fossil Fuels, Coal and Lignite, in Germany, make the Climate Change goals of “die Energiewende” very challenging, especially with their added policy of phasing out their Nuclear power.
  • Importing Biomass, as in the UK, is imposing cost burdens on both the balance of payments and thus the clients of the power generation industry.
  • All the expenditures on Weather-Dependent “Renewables” combined with burning Biomass have done nothing to reduce CO2 emissions in the UK and Europe.
  • The scale of the economic and incidentally “Climate” damage that has been achieved by Climate activists in the sentimental but effective termination of Fracking for Natural Gas in the UK and throughout Europe is massive.

An excellent way to undermine Western economies is to render their power generation unreliable and expensive.  That objective of Green thinking is progressively being achieved by Government policy throughout the Western world but without any popular voter mandate.

Data sources

This post gratefully uses the following data sources:

  • Germany “Renewables” provided at hourly intervals

  • United Kingdom “Renewables” output at 5 minute intervals, condensed to hourly intervals

  • France “Renewables” output at 15 minute intervals, condensed to hourly intervals

  • For the scale of EU(28) installations by the end of 2019, EurObserver’ER publish their “Renewable” Energy “Barometers” for each type of Renewable generation annually, for an example, see:


4.9 13 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 4, 2023 2:25 am

Tell me again, why are we trying to reduce CO2?

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Paul_Rossiter
April 4, 2023 3:14 am

exactly, and, as I’ve tried to explain, anti woody biomass diatribes are dead wrong but I’m too busy to spend the time to explain again! As a forester for 50 years I know more about this topic than anyone here.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
April 4, 2023 3:40 am

If burning wood is “green”, then painting coal green and burning is would also be “green”. Maybe I should start selling Greene’s Green Coal?

Reply to  Richard Greene
April 4, 2023 8:10 am

Somethings practical don’t have to be necessarily ”green”. Biomass can be a prudent beneficiary to a well managed forest.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
April 4, 2023 5:10 pm

To sequester CO2, cut the mature trees, bury them in a bog, plant seedlings to absorb more CO2. Joseph does it bother you that you seem to advocate burning them back to CO2 instead ?

Just joshin’….

Richard Greene
Reply to  Paul_Rossiter
April 4, 2023 3:38 am

Why reduce CO2 emissions?
Because CO2 will kill your dog, that’s why
And force your grandchildren to move to other planets
And then they will rarely visit you.
This is what scientists say,, and scientists are never wrong.

Bryan A
Reply to  Richard Greene
April 4, 2023 5:51 am

Not only that but CO2 will make your Chicken Meat FIZZY

William Howard
Reply to  Paul_Rossiter
April 4, 2023 5:36 am

easy – so China can emit more

April 4, 2023 3:10 am

A large factor in the reduction of CO2 emissions in the EU and UK is the reduction in the amount of electricity used due to manufacturing being driven away by high energy costs resulting from government policies to reduce CO2. The chart shows where that manufacturing is going.

April 4, 2023 3:23 am

It gets worse. UK relies significantly on LNG which accounts for 2.7 times the CO2 net emissions rate of locally sourced natural gas, due to cooling, transportation and regasification (UK Government figure). LNG deserves it’s own category sitting somewhere between coal and biomass.

Richard Greene
April 4, 2023 3:35 am

An excellent and thorough article, immediately recommended on my climate and energy blog as one of the four best articles, of 24 articles I will read today. I know a winner when I read one. Honest Climate Science and Energy Blog

I especially liked including the bizarre claim that burning wood is green, which is rarely mentioned in other articles. … So CO2 emissions reductions are allegedly very important (I completely disagree) but nuclear power plants are opposed, and burning wood is celebrated? It’s like we live in bizarro world. Unless the real goal of Nut Zero is not CO2 emissions reductions. As I was reading, I was hoping the author would emphasize the politics of Nut Zero. And he did with the brilliant conclusion, which I will repeat because it was written so well:

“An excellent way to undermine Western economies is to render their power generation unreliable and expensive. That objective of Green thinking is progressively being achieved by Government policy throughout the Western world but without any popular voter mandate.”

Reply to  Richard Greene
April 4, 2023 4:31 am

It’s the tyranny of the BA [add subject here]

April 4, 2023 4:29 am

Well, if it’s contradictions then the best one of the year so far has to be…

Revealed: UAE plans huge oil and gas expansion as it hosts UN climate summit
Exclusive: UAE’s fossil fuel boss will be the president of Cop28, making a mockery of the summit, say campaigners

The United Arab Emirates, which is hosting this year’s UN climate summit, has the third biggest net zero-busting plans for oil and gas expansion in the world, the Guardian can reveal. Its plans are surpassed only by Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Maybe oxymoron is a better word for it?

Reply to  strativarius
April 4, 2023 6:10 am

Respect for UAE, they clearly inhabit the real world on this issue.

Krishna Gans
April 4, 2023 4:55 am

What we see again and again is Greens are far away from logical and reasonable thinking.

Reply to  Krishna Gans
April 4, 2023 5:07 am

Why change, er, a winning, er, tactic?

Peta of Newark
April 4, 2023 4:58 am

and all the while, the utter fixation on carbon dioxide is the real wrongness..

anyway, play with numbers, see how you can reconcile it all…
As I recall, Drax will admit to releasing 920kg of CO2 for every MWh they push into the grid
Another figure was is that one acre of healthy and semi-mature Douglas Fir will draw down 5 Tonnes of CO2 per year
That Drax, per this very moment and typically produces 2GW of electric.
Also and as and we’re told, UK electric consumption is just shy of 30GW across the whole year

So how many acres of Douglas Fir do we need?
Esp the ‘start up cost’ – that a newly planted sapling ain’t gonna be drawing down 5 tonnes per year till its at least 10 years old.
(But, you plant more than you want and use the thinnings.)
iow: What is the expected harvestable/economic/viable yield and how old do the trees need to be to achieve that?

Back to the top, CO2 in the long term is not the issue.
Of course all the fans of Global Greening, esp La Famille Idso, simply don’t either recognise the issue or do they even want to know about it.

It is that when the trees are harvested and taken away, you’re not just removing CO2 from the landscape/airscape.
You’re taking away all the little micronutrients and trace elements that the trees also took up rom the soil when they were growing . If they’re carted off the the UK, those ‘little things’ are certainly not going to be returned so as to grow the next generations of trees.

And what’s so sad about this all, is that that issue has been known about by arable farmers since time immemorial and that’s what’s going on here.
Okaaay, classic arable runs on a single-year crop and trees are a multi-year crop but the principle remains the same
You can not just keep growing the same plants on the same patch of ground, taking them away each time they mature and expect that to be sustainable.
Farmers on single year crops operate ‘crop rotation’ to try get round the issue BUT, it does not solve the issue.

Which is that: growing stuff, removing it and not bringing back whatever residue creates deserts
And deserts grow nothing

So once your ‘drax trees’ stop growing, get unhealthy, die and catch fire it’s no good saying:
Oh I’m sorry we seem to have overdone the trees, lets plant some turnips instead

Because the turnips need all the same nutrients as the trees did and if you’ve taken them all away in your tree harvesting – You’ve taken them all away.
That is then ‘it’
End. Finito. No More. Kaput. Pas De Turnipes. Pas de Anything. Pas de Green especially.

No plants will ever grow there again.
No matter how geneticallly modified, how much CO2, how much Roundup, how much irrigation or how much Ammonia you throw at them.

is that what you want: Global Blackening- coz it’s what you’re gonna get

Reply to  Peta of Newark
April 4, 2023 5:10 am

You’re taking away all the little micronutrients and trace elements that the trees also took up”

And that’s it?

Spare a thought for the poor Stag Beetle.

Clarky of Oz
April 4, 2023 4:58 am

If CO2 is NOT the control knob for climate, then surely this whole argument whether this scheme releases more CO2 than that scheme is moot.
The real issue is destruction of native forests to fuel this madness.

Steve Case
April 4, 2023 5:14 am

     “The current practice of using trees as a renewable and carbon
     neutral option simple does not make sense in theory or practice.”

Neither does does producing ethanol from corn.

     “If we want to reduce our carbon emissions….”

Why would we want to do that?

Reply to  Steve Case
April 4, 2023 5:47 am

We don’t.

They do.

Reply to  strativarius
April 4, 2023 6:13 am

Or rather, they want us to. They can afford carbon offsets.

April 4, 2023 7:08 am

Pro-Choice Green policies. NIMBY environmentalism.

April 4, 2023 7:17 am

When probable is plausible, and in a state of precautionary religion, Green policies follow.

When you hyperventilate, you exhale too much air. This can decrease the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) you have in your blood.

But isn’t less carbon dioxide good for you? Actually, having very low carbon dioxide levels in your blood causes an imbalance in your body.

Low carbon dioxide also leads to low oxygen levels. This can lower blood and oxygen flow to your brain.

To emit, or not to emit, in moderation.

April 4, 2023 8:56 am

We lived in Papua New Guinea for a year. Exotic and highly dangerous. If you ran over a pig you better be able to pay for the pig and all generation of that pig in the future.

Burning biomass reminded me of PNG.

April 4, 2023 1:04 pm

You assume that the reason behind these policies is to reduce CO2 emissions.
While that is the stated goal, actions indicate it is only the cover.
The real reason, as many warmunists have declared, is the destruction of the capitalist system and a one world government with them in charge.

Clarky of Oz
April 4, 2023 5:02 pm

Surely “green” CO2 is good and quite unlike the other filthy stuff.

Shame about all the trees and all the other species that depend on them though.

April 4, 2023 6:13 pm

An excellent analysis, but please explain why you use per capita when categorising emissions? Any GHG activity depends entirely on ppm in the atmosphere not ppm per person?

Martin Cornell
April 4, 2023 7:53 pm

Accepting biofuels as “green” energy is an obvious scam. BTW, “ So tackling the fuels used for electricity generation only affects a part of the CO2 emissions problem. “; what, exactly, is the CO2 emissions problem?

April 4, 2023 9:38 pm

CO2 is not a problem let’s move on to something productive.

Iain Reid
April 4, 2023 11:34 pm

My comments are specifically concerning the U.K. but may well apply to other countries.

broadly speaking if you increase grid demand, CO2 emissions from generation increase because the extra demand is met by the only balancing generation we have which is gas. (nuclear and renewables cannot increase in response to demand)
Our government is intent on increasing demand by mandating that electric vehicles and heat pumps will take over for light transport and home heating.
They insist on calling them green low carbon etc which they obviously will not be.
In particular the government’s department for Business, enterprise and energy strategy, (as was, it has now been renamed) state that heat pumps are 290% efficient. This seems to have been taken that heat pumps are many times more efficient than the gas boilers they are meant to replace. However, as any science student knows 100% efficiency is not possible so why the claim. I believe it is because they use electrical units as energy forgetting it has to be generated and distributed which incurs considerable loss. My feeling is that a gas boiler using fuel directly and at a much higher temperature must be more effective a source of heating and probably as efficient as an air source heat pump on average and certainly much better when we have really cold weather when air source heat pumps output drops.
Again the government says that the electrical generation sector is transitioning to ‘net zero’ so negating much of what I said earlier. However the big if is how? I just can’t see it happening and from Gridwatch Templar we do not seem to have a higher input from wind despite extra wind farms being built, Older farms losing performance and even being shut down at the end of their life may be a factor? Nuclear is slowly declining, none of it adds up to a decarbonised grid especially with all that extra load? And all by 2035, fantasy land from my perspective.

The Real Engineer
Reply to  Iain Reid
April 5, 2023 2:51 am

In the use of real “energy units” gas is approximately the same as a heat pump system, unless its electricity comes from very local wind or solar, when it is probably slightly better. But that “better” comes at immense cost with a ridiculous payback period. The COP (“efficiency”) of a heat pump does not include the innefficiency of it electricity supply, which is considerable. Simple thermodynamics says you do not gain any energy you just transfer it with some overall efficiency, in other words loss. The gain from a heat pump is simply this, it improves the usefulness of a low grade heat source (outside air), by moving it up the temperature scale making it a better grade heat source (inside heating). This is like pumping water up a hill and then piping it to a turbine at the bottom, the pump will always take more energy than the turbine can make due to system losses. Electricity from a Combined cycle gas turbine turns about 55% of the energy in the gas into electricity (a very high grade energy medium). Transport (cable loss), voltage changing, etc then loose about 10% of this 55%, so approximately 45% of the gas energy is available for your heat pump. All the equipment in manufacture, scrapping, maintenance etc probably cost at least another 10% overall, so gas to heat is 35%. Being fair this needs a heat pump COP of at least 3 to be at all worthwhile, so the claimed COP of 2.9 is actually pointless, even from wind or solar! The cost is huge, and nothing is gained, except sky high energy prices. This is the effect of the political mind, pointless!

Tom Johnson
April 5, 2023 7:56 am

Even though their “fuel” is nominally free, Weather Dependent “Renewable” are not capable of achieving true CO2 neutrality. “

ALL energy forms used on earth today are “nominally free. This includes oil, gas, coal, biomass, wind, solar, nuclear and geothermal. No one gets a bill from Mother Earth for any of these at their sources. Their true cost comes from “harvesting” them, getting them from their source to their user, and in the form that they are to be used. Until this truth is acknowledged and used by commenters, meaningful discussions will not follow.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights