Essay by Eric Worrall
The demand for $100 billion per year, to fix a problem which only exists in the fevered imagination of broken computer models, is beyond parody.
The U.S. Will Need to Spend $100 Billon a Year on Carbon Removal
APRIL 11, 2024
BY CORBIN HIAR & E&E NEWSThe U.S. needs to vastly increase taxpayer spending on direct carbon removal technology to meet President Biden’s climate goals, the Rhodium Group says.
CLIMATEWIRE | The U.S. government needs to spend roughly $100 billion annually on carbon dioxide removal by 2050 to help the world avoid extreme climate change, according to an analysis released Wednesday.
That’s 20 times more than what lawmakers committed to in landmark climate bills that aimed to jump-start the development of carbon removal technologies and companies, the Rhodium Group estimated. For context, the sum is also about as much as the entire budget of the Department of Agriculture.
The new analysis comes amid a fierce battle for control of Congress, the White House and the future of U.S. climate policy. The Republican Party is rallying behind former President Donald Trump, whose campaign has promised that if reelected he would “oppose all of the radical left’s Green New Deal policies.”
But Rhodium’s calculations could also bolster progressive critics of carbon dioxide removal who view government subsidies for the costly technology as a distraction in the fight against rising temperatures. Carbon removal companies use a variety of natural and engineered approaches to boost the carbon absorbing capacity of the planet.
…
Read more: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-s-carbon-removal-needs-have-a-usd100-billion-price-tag-per-year/
Even Dr. Evil didn’t have the arrogance to demand annual payments of $100 billion, he just wanted a one off payment.
I used to wonder why the ancient Egyptians wasted so much money and effort building pyramids, when they could have used those resources to better the lives of their people.
I guess we all have the answer to that question now: Some ancient Egyptian claimed their computer model said it was necessary to spend vast resources on pyramid building, that the gods would be angry if they didn’t provide for their pharaohs in the afterlife. And for 1200 years, between 2700BC to 1500BC, nobody questioned the computer model prediction.
Let us hope the people of our society prove a little more adept at asking the right questions.
Put Sheila Jackson Lee or Hank Johnson in charge.
The Sun is a powerful heat, she got that right at least.
Damn that was painful.
Sheila had a lot to say about something she obviously knew nothing about.
And Rep. Hank Johnson, for those who don’t know:
https://www.quora.com/Was-Hank-Johnson-serious-or-just-a-complete-idiot-when-he-said-Guam-would-capsize-if-more-troops-were-added-Later-he-said-it-was-a-joke-but-it-wasnt
Was Hank Johnson serious or just a complete idiot when he said Guam would capsize if more troops were added? Later he said it was a joke but it wasn’t.
end excerpt
We have idiot Democrats like these, and certainly not limited to these two, who are deciding our fate. It’s time to send the crazy Democrats home, and to elect common sense Republicans in their place.
Climate change is like eugenics, where people will deny they ever believed in it, and cook history to support their denial.
Like the Germans who said they didn’t support you know who.
Rewriting history has already happened with Nixon’s War on Cancer, where Wikipedia leaves one as ignorant as to what that was really all about as if you never read it.
Capturing “carbon” is trivial. Just gather it into a pile and bury it. Capturing CO2 GAS is quite another story. It must be separated from the air, compressed, and pumped somewhere from which it can never escape. None of that is simple, or even known. It’s also futile and unnecessary.
Under the worst case CAGW scenario, it might make Winnipeg slightly more comfortable in the winter. Under the best-case scenario, it might delay the inevitable return of glaciation in this, the Ice Age, a couple of decades.
All those people digging up diamonds need to stop it.
“Just gather it into a pile and bury it.” Makes you wonder why they are not already doing this with crop residue, if they really believe CO2 in the atmosphere is a problem.
Good idea! They could also add an anti-fungal so that the lignin doesn’t break down. Just think, renewable coal for our descendants a couple of hundred million years from now!
Pelletizing forests for Drax fuel and replanting new trees was considered “green net zero”….so why not save the shipping and fuel phases….just cut down the forest and bury the trees ?
There are worries about methane leaks from biomass landfilling.
Properly sealed systems should work fine.
I see that E&E News is part of Unscientific Unamerican.
All our science institutions are corrupted by the promoters of the human-caused climate change narrative.
It’s pretty amazing really. The first time in human history that millions of people share the same delusion about CO2.
Of course, the CO2-is-dangerous Hoax is promoted by leftwing billionaires with a political agenda, and they have gained control of our instituions, and the dispersal of information, so it shouldn’t be a surprise that many people are fooled into believing something that isn’t true.
The truth is CO2 is a benign gas, essential for life on Earth and there is no evidence to the contrary.
I used to love Scientific American- as a kid back in the ’60s. I finally gave it up a few years ago when I noticed that most of the editors were women and I disliked most of the articles. Reminds me of Wokeachusetts- where almost all state agencies are now run by women- and most of the top executives in the agencies. The Energy and Environment Agency is mostly women. I dislike reverse discrimination as much as old fashioned discrimination. In my field of forestry- there are few women with forestry degrees- but if they get the degree, they’re guaranteed of being put in front of the line for any job openings in the state forestry agencies. I’m not saying they can’t do the job- but they shouldn’t get priority for hiring.
I subscribed to Scientific American in 1971 and read all about the Human-caused Global Cooling, which ended up being based on nothing since the temperatures have warmed about 2.0C since that time, so humans were not sending the Earth into an uncontrolled cold wave.
And then when they switched from Human-caused Global Cooling to Human-caused Global Warming and never showed any evidence that CO2 was or is responsbile, I got disgusted with Scientific American and cancelled my subscription to Scientific American, along with my subscription to Science News and the National Geographic magazine, and for the same reasons because they were hyping Human-caused Global Warming, too, without providing any evidence that it was real.
It is shocking how science has been perverted over this issue, but it makes sense since it gives certain people more political power so it does make sense that the concept would be pushed very hard by power-hungry people.
They still don’t have a shred of evidence to prove their case that CO2 is dangerous to humanity.
A short reading of the Rhodium Group website reveals them to be leftist climate shriekers feeding at the public trough under the guise of “think tank” and “data driven” (i.e., model) terminology. Even before I read a word, the company website leads with photos of wind turbines and solar panels.
In my position, I influence or control who is hired to provide our entity with environmental services. When I see and read that these (climate, ruinables and net-zero) are a company’s emphasis (usually also including a smattering of ESG and DIE), they don’t get a second look. When an existing service provider begins to drift that direction, I warn them and eventually cease doing business with them if they show no sign of relenting.
I just had a beer so that’s some Carbon captured.It cost the state nothing
Guinness prevents carbon dioxide eructation dysfunction.
Guinness use[s] Nitrogen…
I like the idea of a light beer pressurized with helium.
Does wonders for the vocal chords
I’m soon heading for the land where women glow and men plunder. Hopefully I can find a palatable brew there.
It depends on what you like.
Try Cooper’s Pale Ale.
There are some nice IPAs available on tap at many pubs now.
If you prefer wine, you’re coming to the right place.
Lots of better beers than Fosters.
That’s damning with faint praise.
“I’m soon heading for the land where women glow”
Where, Chernobyl ??
I’ll get my coat .
You beat me to it.
How soon they forget 🙁
” $100 billion annually ”
The Rhodium Group did not get the memo that the USA is deep in debt.
Solution is to raise all unskilled labor pay to $1,000 per hour and then the
tax on income will provide the money.
Questions: Spend “annually on carbon dioxide removal by 2050”
I’m not understanding what this means. Does it mean $100B starting now?
Or does it mean, say $10B this year, $20B next year, . . ., and 100B in 2050?
And why 2050? Why not 2060?
Won’t the world-ocean give up an equal amount of CO2 for each unit taken from the atmosphere?
You’re taking the fun out of it.
Shhhh. Don’t remind them about Henry’s law. It will ruin the grants and job creation.
Bloomberg’s green energy research team estimates it will cost $US200 trillion to stop warming by 2050.
There are about 25 years before 2050.
That is about $8 trillion per year, which is much more than $200 billion per year.
$200 Trillion Is Needed to Stop Global Warming. That’s a Bargain.https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-07-05/-200-trillion-is-needed-to-stop-global-warming-that-s-a-bargain?embedded-checkout=true
Oops, my comment was about the world, this article is about the US.
$200 Trillion here, $200 Trillion there and pretty soon you’re talking serious money.
The U.S. has a debt of about $34 TRILLION, and is now spending more money on interest payments than on the national Defense Budget.
The U.S. can’t afford to go further into debt, or we will all be bankrupt.
Joe Biden wants to raise taxes by $7 TRILLION.
With the Democrats, it’s all about how much money they can get to spend. There is no limit in their minds. Reducing spending is not in their vocabulary. They will spend until they break the bank, and us.
The US has spent $300 Billion on losing the war in Ukraine. $100 Billion/year is chump change on a $35 Trillion debt which will never be paid back anyway.
The US is already broke, learn to enjoy Modern Monetary Theory. /S
It looks to me like Ukraine is holding its own in this war with Putin.
When Ukraine is supplied with the weapons they need, they do quite well against Putin. President Biden is wringing his hands over Ukraine striking Putin’s oil production facilities. My feeling is if Putin is trying to destroy Ukraine’s electrical grid, then his oil production facilities are fair game.
About half the money the U.S. has spent in Ukraine is for humanitarian relief.
Most of the proposed increase in money for Ukraine will be spent in the United States for the production of more ammunition, which benefits not only Ukraine but also the United States and its other allies.
Republican Isolationists are as dangerous to United States foreign policy and our security as is Joe Biden. They both think they can run away from trouble. No, trouble is going to follow them home, if they don’t do something about it beforehand.
I dunno, $1 a day per head to stop all the moaning seems pretty cheap to me. It sounds a lot in aggregate, but I’m pretty sure the true cost of solar and wind and related boondoggles is far greater than that.
As always, check the source
https://www.influencewatch.org/for-profit/rhodium-group/
So what could possibly influence a group like this to publish such “research”? Perhaps a vested interest in the headlines it may create?
“William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and Rockefeller Foundation. “
Two of the main groups pushing all the CLIMATE SCAM nonsense.
Rhodium… => another far-left scam group to ignore completely !!
Considering how close the world came to catastrophically low CO2 levels (as in all life ceases) at the peak of the last glaciation within the current ice age. Anyone seriously considering removing CO2 from the atmosphere needs to be locked in a room where they cannot do any harm forever. Doing that is a crime against life itself.
and exactly how many CCS plants work? did that huge one fail as a total dud?
I am fine with this as long as they don’t touch by body…. all other carbon can go.
correct…… remove all the carbon but don’t touch my body.