“Unaffordable climate commitments have two leftist British parties racing to exit stage left.”
Europeans Ditch Net Zero
The Wall Street Journal reports Europeans Ditch Net Zero, While Biden Clings to It
You know you’ve stumbled through the looking glass when European politicians start sounding saner on climate policy than the Americans do. Well here we are, Alice: Europeans are admitting the folly of net zero quicker than their American peers.
The latest example—perhaps “victim” is more apt—is Humza Yousaf, who resigned this week as Scotland’s first minister. That region within the U.K. enjoys substantial devolved powers over its own affairs, including on climate policy. An administration led by Mr. Yousaf’s left-leaning Scottish National Party had hoped to rush ahead of the national government in London in slashing carbon emissions.
Until, that is, someone noticed the costs. A recent report from the U.K.’s Climate Change Committee noted Scotland had fallen far behind on its climate goals. The government aimed to reduce by 20% the aggregate distance driven by Scottish motorists, compared with 2019 levels, but had no plan to accomplish the reduction in personal mobility by the 2030 deadline. To get back on track with the government’s goal of a transition to home electric heat pumps, Scotland would have to replace natural-gas fire boilers at a rate of more than 80,000 households a year by the end of the decade. That’s a big ask considering that in 2023 it managed 6,000 boiler replacements. The government resisted imposing an aviation tax to discourage excess flying. And so on.
Mr. Yousaf did the only thing he could under the circumstances: He all but abandoned net zero. His administration announced it is ditching firm annual emission-reduction targets in favor of fuzzier “carbon budgets.” The Green Party, with which Mr. Yousaf’s SNP governed in a coalition, balked. After a series of political machinations that were one part “Macbeth” and two parts “Comedy of Errors,” Mr. Yousaf’s administration collapsed and he was forced to resign.
Observe two salient details. First, the specific list of targets the country was missing. Scotland had reached the point where further net-zero progress would have made obvious and material demands of household budgets. That isn’t counting the additional costs of renewable power hidden in utility bills.
I have discussed the above ideas many times. There are farm protests in nearly every country on the main continent and Greens are likely to get clobbered hard in the European Parliament elections in June.
What About the US?
The Journal reports “The puzzlement is that the U.S. is headed in the opposite direction. President Biden is pressing ahead with aggressive net-zero policies such as an electric-vehicle mandate and pouring trillions of dollars of borrowed government and hard-earned household money into climate boondoggles.“
There is no puzzle. Biden is owned 100% by the Progressives.
They control climate policy, regulations, student loans, abortion, everything.
Please note Biden Promotes Climate Change at the Expense of More Global Poverty
The mad rush to deal with climate change, even if it works (it won’t), has a nasty tradeoff (more global poverty).
Biden will not do anything to offend the Progressives, even if it means he loses the election over it.
“Well here we are, Alice: Europeans are admitting the folly of net zero quicker than their American peers.”
It looks like folly only because people think that kWh are priced in pounds, instead of realising that pounds are priced in kWh. In other words, pounds in savings accounts represent nothing but the wrong belief that there is plenty of energy available in the future, and therefore, are mostly worthless.
Once people hit the wall (whenever that happens, that won’t take very long):
Biden is owned 100% by the Neocons and mother WEFers, which includes establishment Republicans and all Dems (just look who voted for more funding for Ukraine and massive deficit spending).
Why?
The Green Agenda weakens the USA, which is their ultimate objective.
The Green Agenda requires a maximum centralized public sector, and minimal+monopoly private sector. Anti-american FedGuv will continue to erode free enterprise principles, individual rights, and US sovereignty + solvency at the most rapid rate possible.
Anti-american reptiles control the levers of power, and they have no worries RE: consequences – their objectives are existential. They will not recognize reality nor heed reason. They. Will. Not. Stop.
US citizenry will either wake up, or complete their suicidal sleepwalk into digital serfdom.
Why even have a Green Party if their grift has been eliminated?
The S curve for BEVs is alive and well. Fad? No. The way of the future? Yes!
https:// .canarymedia .com/articles/electric-vehicles/chart-one-in-five-new-cars-sold-this-year-will-be-battery-powered?
Chart: One-in-five new cars sold this year will be battery-poweredNearly 17 million electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids are projected to be sold worldwide this year, a new record.
Despite the steady drumbeat of negative headlines about the electric vehicle market, EVs are breaking sales records across the globe.
This year, around 17 million new fully electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEV) will be sold worldwide, according to new estimates from the International Energy Agency (IEA). That’s up from 13.7 million sold last year.
Yes. Sales of EVs and PHEVs will continue to grow slowly. Last year 1 EV and PHEV vs 6 ICE. This year perhaps 1 vs 5. (I doubt the 1 vs 4 prediction, given the slow sales in the first 3 months of 2024).
The big growth area going forward is PHEV, not EV. But that’s better than nothing.
Still, these sales will have almost zero effect on emissions.
17 million cars would give us 170,000,000,000 miles total at 10,000 miles per year traveled. Instead of 35 miles per gallon, lets go with an average carbon equivalent of 70 miles per gallon.
35 mpg at 170 billion miles gives about 5 billion pounds of carbon
70 mpg at 170 billion miles gives about 2.5 billion pounds of carbon.
Easy numbers, easy to see 2.5 billion pounds of carbon savings.
That is 1,250,000 tons per year of carbon savings.
Within 2 to 3 years we go from 17 million to 34 million. The carbon savings double in a very short time.
Worldwide annual human carbon emissions are 82,000,000,000,000 lbs. Or 82,000 billion pounds. And you are excited about reducing that by 2.5 billion pounds. Which is 0.003 %.
That is less than insignificant. It is virtually nothing at all.
That’s why EVs are a distraction. We could easily reduce emissions 6% (2000x more) just by switching the world’s coal generation to NG.
You can have your view. That is fine. Something that is accelerating in its effect is just the beginning. No gas car sales in many countries soon are part of that acceleration. This trend is highly significant.
“ Something that is accelerating in its effect is just the beginning.”
But EV sales are no longer “accelerating”. Not even in China. EV sales growth is slowing worldwide. Saying that they are still “accelerating” is simply wrong.
“ No gas car sales in many countries soon are part of that acceleration. This trend is highly significant.”
Be specific. What do you mean by soon? 2050? 2100? 2150?
At the end of the year, we will know. According to the article I sighted, there will be more battery cars produced this year than last.
I think of the Channel Island of Sark, which permits no cars. Once upon a time the island’s doctor brought over a car anyway, and ignored the island’s selectmen. So the selectmen also banned the importation of gasoline. Soon the doctor, for lack of gasoline to power his car, had to yield and shipped his car off the island.
You and the Greens can end ICE vehicle use sooner by also banning the sale of fuel.
(Are the people of Sark adequately meeting their needs with just walking, and horse and wagon/carriage?)
The idea is having a better life without fossil fuels.
Jeff, There is one important fact concerning emissions that has not been discussed. That is the CO2 emissions produced by the mining & production of batteries for EVs.
These emissions are far greater than those producing ICE autos. So much greater that it will take years of EV use, and maybe never to go lower than ICE emissions. There’s a lot written on this in the scientific literature.
There is electrical mining equipment being developed with much lower emissions. One kind is a trolly like system. I have also read of battery type mineing equipment.
Agriculture is the largest contributor to carbon emissions, particularly beet production. We all just need to eat less meat.
Jeff Green is missing the profundity of “Reduce”.
Using his numbers, his 70 mpg equivalent produces 0.0147 lbs. of C / car / mile.
Many years ago I read a proposal from the Greens that all cars be limited to a budget of (I forget the number) let us arbitrarily say 100 lbs. of C / year. Again using his numbers, his 70 mpg car limited to 100 lbs. of C could only drive 6802 miles / year, markedly less than the 10,000 miles he names above. We can presume that like all pollution budgets the Greens will reduce that number 100 lbs. to a lower number over time.
(I actually tried to live according to that for a year.)
In Britain the Greens advocate for “15 minute cities”, in which most everything you could need is within a 15 walk emphasis ‘walk’ of where you live.
Also, too few people realize that the Greens plan for the future necessarily means the end of Big Ag. We have to presume that no fossil fuel for us also means no fossil fuel for farmers’ tractors and combines. Then all the other breakdowns will mean that a large number of us will have to leave the cities, like Cambodians did in 1975, and resettle in the countryside, tilling farms in order to live.
Green hydrogen, ammonia, efuels.
Apure battery car with 100% clean energy can go easily a 100,000 miles per year. That is the basic goal of transitioning out of FFs.
we missed you Jeff. You musta been busy charging your Nissan Leaf.
Never owned one.
They are definitely not “progressives”, they are aggressives and regressives for sure.
Before any of you pipe up and prove your inadequacy when it comes to the CLIMATE SCIENCES, and there are HUNDREDS of aspects to consider, ask yourselves and those who want to consume your minds with “CLIMATE SCIENCES” is that there NO TOOLS with which to measure EFFECTS of anything climate wise.
EVERYTHING IS LOCALIZED TO LAND MASSES for measurements. JUST SCRAPE A MM below the surface when you consider the middles of the ATLANTIC and PACIFIC oceans, the ICE CAPS, and other land masses not even considered and you will LAUGH AT YOURSELVES when you finally realize that MEASURED EFFECTS are incomplete and any scientific approach to ANYTHING is in measured effects.
I am quoting my Older Brother, who is a genius when it comes to assessing these sciences and he laughed out loudly at many of the comments here with: “THEY KNOW NOTHING!”
Two thumbs up for using the Snagglepuss cartoon.
While there might have been some mis-guided scientific theorizing (fueled by rabid environmentalists of the 70’s) that started the whole carbon dioxide silliness, it has turned into a giant scam where people wealthy enough to control the narrative are positioned to profit from the forced moves to EV’s, wind and solar.
Our government is just more completely controlled by these people than the Europeans. And, apparently the US is better able to keep paying off the scammers than are the Europeans. Their well is dry, ours not quite yet.
Buildings and roads absorb more of the sun’s energy than the vegetation they displaced. Deforestation reduces the conversion of carbon to oxygen in the air. Cleaning up carbon requires efforts to reforest and grow vegetation while reducing heat absorbing infrastructure.
True but insignificant.
The world is 70% ocean and 30% land. Roads cover just 0.15% of land (or 0.045% of the earth). The same goes for cities. They are a rounding error when it comes to heat absorption.
Planting more trees is certainly more effective than removing cities and roads, but also not going to make that big of a difference in CO2 levels. Over time, the oceans have absorbed and stored twenty times as much CO2 as all the trees in the world. However, annually, trees do absorb 30% of our excess emissions.
Oceans provide 50% of the oxygen we breath, absorb 25% of the excess CO2 emissions we release, and capture 90% of the excess heat that the emissions are causing. Without the oceans, surface air temperatures would have increased by 15C, rather than just 1.5C.
I was hoping that I would have a reason to use your stupid childish “hide” button, but you are more or less correct.
Buildings and roads emit more heat than they absorb: cities are heat sinks.
When I am at a parking lot, the first thing I look for is a tree to park under. I don’t need any test equipment to tell me the same thing that common sense already dictates. People are word and number controlled. Much can be learned just by immitating the natural world.
Yes. You are correct. When it gets hot outside, we seek the shade to cool us down. Common sense. And since we are making the world “hotter”, we are spending less time outside in that heat, and more time in air conditioned buildings and vehicles, which consumes a lot more energy, which means we burn even more fossil fuels, which makes the world hotter.
Common sense.
We NEED CARBON. Get EDUMACATED would ya?
If the wall street journal talks of retreating from Net Zero then all of Europe is. As far as I can tell, this is just conjecture on the part of Wall Street. Europe had a fantastic year in carbon reduction.
economist
/europe/2024/04/25/carbon-emissions-are-dropping-fast-in-europe
Carbon emissions are dropping—fast—in Europe
Thanks to a price mechanism that actually works
Our most pressing challenge is keeping our planet healthy,” declared Ursula von der Leyen on the day she was elected president of the European Commission in July 2019. Five years on, it still ought to be. Global surface temperatures were 1.48°C higher in 2023 than pre-industrial levels, and 2024 is on course to be hotter still. But Russia’s war in Ukraine and the prospect of another Trump presidency get more attention these days.
Good news, then, that the greening of the continent is making progress anyway. Emissions fell by a steep 15.5% in 2023, largely driven by reductions in carbon from electricity generation and industry. eu countries added 17 gigawatts (gw)-worth of windmills and covered roofs and fields with 56gw of new solar panels. (For comparison, nuclear-power capacity in the eu was roughly 100gw, though it can run 24 hours a day.) Officials reckon 2024 will be another record year for renewables. The commission’s modelling suggests that current policies should get the bloc to an 88% reduction of overall emissions by 2040, compared with 1990 levels. With the 2030 target of a 55% reduction within reach, the eu should be able to agree to a target for 2040 of 90%. The main target, to get to net zero by 2050, is unchanged.
COME ON, STUPID: there is no uniform way to MEASURE emissions, other than locally. THERE IS NO WAY TO MEASURE EARTH’S ANYTHING and any scientist would support that assertion.
My brother is a Scientist working for a Government I cannot name and he LAUGHS out loudly about the MEASUREMENTS which is the key to any scientific approach to ANYTHING:
CAUSE (TRIGGER) and EFFECT (MEASURED). I will not go into it as my bro is looking over my shoulder and is visiting from Germany.
I simply cannot believe the shit I read here and elsewhere and to be fair, most of you do not have Engineering/Science Backgrounds and only learn from headlines and the bullshit contained therein.
You are quite the easy rebuttal. LOL. 20 lbs co2 per gallon of gas burned. So we do know how much co2 per gallon of gas. My area of Illinois is 600 lbs co2 per mw-hr. This helps me have a much lower carbon intensity in my driving. We know the co2 content in the atmosphere. We know the carbon intensity of people in California vs the people in Texas. Just about everything that is measurable in the carbon pollution, we do a really good job of measuring. We measure the atmospheric co2 with satellites.
https ocov2 .jpl. nasa. gov/
LOL… China… you muppet.. you’re an even easier rebuttal. Throw on Indonesia, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and a few others in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, and it’s a pollution party, the US doesn’t matter.
What you don’t see coming down the road is a carbon tarrif by Europe and the United States. That dynamic isn’t far down the road. Net Zero is alive and thriving. This is just a wet dream by those who can’t handle change.
Most of the reductions are a result of demographic change in places like China, which includes industrial rollback as their economy implodes. The global debt crisis will create some financial stress, reduction in trade, and thus manufacturing and thus emissions, but if you think that’s going to make a dent in the amount of pollution into water, such as plastics and heavy metals, that is going on constantly in the developing world, you are dreaming. Even America is not going to make much of dent.
You are entitled to your view. The carbon culture is changing and shrinking in its impact on the advanced societies. As to your point, its like big tobaccor giong overseas to addict the 3rd world market. Fossil fuels will persist as long as they can. But eventually they will answer for all their lies and deceit. It is now a form of corrupted wealth.
Thank you for summarizing the climate grifter’s talking points so succinctly
dying cultures & dying economies will produce lower emissions.
congrats on the result.
A clean energy economy brings more money into people’s pockets with cheaper energy, money saved on better health, and more jobs to run the clean economy.
How’s Germany doing?
Checkmate.
Germany isn’t quitting on RE. Going through loosing their gas supply would put a dent in anyone’s economy. It also encourages them to accelerate RE installation.
uh huh.
nevermind the plummeting standard-of-living, re-starting old coal power plants, de-industrialization, and cultural+demographic regression.
do you take sugar & cream w/ your morning hypocrisy?
I’m not going to compete with your creative conspiracy mind that makes up things and calls it reality. Germany will continue on with their transition in their way as they see fit to do so.
Are you referring to commercial real estate, resident real estate, or both?
Where are you getting a conversation about real estate from?
The degrowthed economy that the Greens advocate for will mean more jobs guiding a plow behind a horse, growing wheat that yields 1/3rd as many grains of wheat per acre as today, or less. Yes, more jobs in a clean economy. Much less productive in order to be cleaner and to be full-employment. Not sure about that “cheaper energy” or “better health” in that future economy.
Agraculture has to adapt to AGW. How to grow more crops with less fuel. That is being worked on.
The only sector where emissions are changing at all in the US is electricity production.
And that is almost entirely because of coal plants being replaced by gas plants – enabled by fracking.
link to eia.gov
The real reliability crisis is that gas pipelines aren’t being permitted quickly enough.
What’s a matter?
Now that they have figured out it’s a hoax, and they are not in on the goodies, they want out? Now that the Citizens are onto the scam, it’s time to cut bait, and hope for forgiveness for your Party? Just because the EU and most of Europe, is without energy, and realize the cost to accumulate it, leaves nothing left over for fake climate change theory?
What’s a matter?
Scotland’s Hate Crime law that the government passed caused the breakup of the coalition and the fall of the PM. The wording of the law was so vague that just about any speech could be construed as a hate crime and be reported as such by the person offended. The police were obliged to investigate each report immediately and consequently had no time to fight real crime. People started reporting each other and even the PM’s former speeches were found to fulfill the law’s definition of hate speech. It became so ridiculous that even if you give a play and someone in the audience finds something the actor said offensive, then the actor, writer and director could be liable for up to seven years of prison.
There is a saying I learned long ago that the best way to get a bad law changed is to enforce it strictly and this and the Net Zero laws are a great example of why this saying is true.
Yeah, and the first person to be complained about via the “hate speech” law, was the imbecile who promulgated it – the Nastystani himself. Scotland has been ruined by the SNP. They even want to police what people can say in their own homes, and take control of people’s children.
This entire stupid idea was DOA dead on arrival because politicians never do the real work, which is the calculations … and what negative effects stupid policies like this will have on other industries … just think of all the money that’s been wasted so far …
They don’t care about the work, they know it’s BS, they are just fishing for funding.
Government is blind to the evidence of mistakes they have made, and slow to fix those mistakes.
If the government can offer tax breaks to real estate, oil and financial services, why should other industries expect any less.
Housing, Energy, and Money are pretty fundamental to any country.
OT but still on the economy: prepare for another tech boom due to AI. We are no longer able to hire bc of needing to compete with the AI salary boom. Storage and other semis are set for another boom due to AI demand. Salaries are skyrocketing again and nothing will tamp this down for the foreseeable future. It isn’t approaching 2020-21 levels yet in tech but it is showing signs of that.
You are talking complete and utter bollocks out of your arse, the complete opposite of the truth.
Having someone name Yousef as head of Scotland and of the Scottish National Party says it all.
The way things are going in European West, the replacement will be called Ali. Taxpayer funded BBC approves.
…but the vast majority of the public do not… the BBC is hated in the UK.
That was the gist of the comment. BBC is ecstatic destroying everything that was British in Britain.
And Sunak – a pakistani and and indian, neither of which were elected via general election, both of them terrible leaders, incredibly unpopular, even amongst pro-immigrant lefties, they are the Kamala Harrises of the UK.
The Biden Democrats war on fossil fuels is in reality class war on what’s left of the citizens on the production floor of the American economy. The agricultural, manufacturing, building, mining, timber, transportation, and energy sectors use to be sources of prosperity and pride for a great and growing nation. Now the filthy elite in DC, Silicon Valley, Hollywood and Wall Street would and have in the name of Net Zero offshore our fundamental creation of wealth. Trump can’t come soon enough.
Yeah, I ordered a “Build Back Better” hat from Joe’s DOJ. All they sent me was the one Sam Bankman-Fried wore to his trial. Seems SBF isn’t the only one with a bankrupt organization that has no control of its workers..
Sam Bankman-Fraud and Crypto Caroline sure know how to run a U$-Ukraine-DNC laundromat!
Nothing smells better than “Clean Money”
Yeah, that all went rather quiet… are they doing time in a luxury crypto prison?
Which countries like Biden’s green policies? Which countries were derply involved with the Biden family business? When people do dumb things, there is always a reason. In Biden’s case, just follow the money.
Biden is brain dead Demented and is just being manipulated by whoever happens to catch him to sign anything he has not read and would not understand anyway.
He stated that ON CAMERA AFTER ELECTED!!! Why Obama engineered the theft of the election to install the poor Demented Ignorant Fool!
If anyone does not understand and believe that then they MUST see the Desouza movie on the ballot stuffing to steal the election, “2000 Mules”!!!
Yes. Mandates are abandoned all the time when they cannot possibly be achieved.
Energy is the lifeblood of economic growth, and improved living standards. Eighty percent of that energy comes from fossil fuels. Two decades of renewables has managed to reduce the percentage use of fossil fuels by 1% (from 81% to 80%). And since energy demand keeps growing every year, we are using MORE fossil fuels every year, not less.
China is doing a better job than Europe or the US at building out nuclear power, wind, solar, EVs, electric trains and busses, etc. They add more EVs, wind and solar than the rest of the world combined every year.
But because their demand for energy keeps growing, they still need to use more coal every year. Till now. 2024 will probably be peak coal in China. Because their addition of renewables in future years will finally exceed their increased energy demand. So Chinese coal use will start to decline. (Not good for Australian coal companies). Though their oil and gas consumption will still likely increase.
If the US and Europe are serious about wind, solar, and EVs, then they should be importing more Chinese EVs, wind and solar. Instead we put tariffs on and sanction them.
The net result of this failure to reduce our use of fossil fuels means that global emissions will keep adding more GHGs to the atmosphere and causing even more warming. Which will reduce future economic growth.
Got oil?
What a load of BS. We can’t change the temperature of the planet. CO2 is a minuscule amount (0.04%) of the atmosphere. The world has been both warmer and colder than now. No one can prescribe the “correct temperature”.
Yes. CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere. And how do you know that? Because of the measurements that scientists do. And those scientists also tells us that without that 0.04% of CO2, the average temperature of the earth would be -18c. And it would be a frozen ball of ice.
Yes. It’s been warmer and colder in the past. That’s what scientists tell us from their research and studies. And when it’s colder, it’s because of less CO2. When it was warmer, it was because of more CO2.
So you know a little bit of the science. You just need to learn more. Then you would understand that we have already changed the temperature of the planet.
Pretty good analysis, but don’t count it to be popular around here.
Yep. Fortunately, I do not care about being popular. I care about making money from understanding reality.
Facts are facts. The science is clear.
We are in our own “catch 22”. Mankind has overwhelmed natural climate change with emissions from our use of fossil fuels. But we must keep burning these fuels or our economy and living standards would collapse. So we will keep burning them until such time as we can successfully replace them with nuclear and renewables. Which, based on our progress so far, will take over a hundred years. So, emissions will continue, warming will continue, and this will begin to crush the very economy and living standards we desire. Catch 22.
Got oil?
“…I do not care about being popular. I care about making money from understanding reality…”
Ok, no issues here. However, if your goal is to make money based on reality why do you waste time arguing with folks that clearly don’t share your thinking (i.e. your view of reality)? Wouldn’t your time be better spent researching oil stocks and the oil industry as a whole to become more informed resulting in better equity decisions?
In other words, how does arguing about climate change increase your monetary wealth if that is truely your goal here?
I am simply sharing my investment ideas and the rationale behind them. It is my payback for those who shared their investment ideas and rationale in the comment section here several years ago. I made a fortune from the investment ideas of Realist and Eddie. I am merely trying to do the same as they did. They also commented on climate change.
It is also payback to Mish for maintaining the blog. Without this blog, I would not have discovered this investment idea. So I am trying to support Mish by helping others who frequent his blog and generating more comments; even negative comments.
You are correct. My time is better spent making more money, but occasionally I try to be less selfish, more altruistic, and help others. There needs to be some balance in everyone’s life.
That’s fair.
I’d only add that I’ve found that most people don’t appreciate unsolicited advice. I don’t agree with your stance on climate change, but I do agree with your general investment strategy, makes perfect sense to me.
Just my 2 cents….
You don’t have to agree about climate change. The same goes for many here who think its all some hoax created by a secret cabal, in order to control their lives and take away their freedom.
What actually counts is that the people who make the decisions (governments, corporations, investment firms, pensions etc) are fully aware that global warming is a serious threat and they are responding to it accordingly. That is the reality that I invest into.
It doesn’t really matter what Alex from Buttf*ck, Arkansas thinks. Because he isn’t the one making the decisions that affect my investments.
Because he doesn’t really care about making money, he’s just another activist trying a different style of trolling to pass the time.
The science is not clear, science by nature is constant contention.
The concept of a “fact” is full of problems inofitself, but to keep it simple: facts are dynamic… so how are they facts?
Bingo!
It’s not a “pretty good analysis”, it’s a very rough sketch, that is a little bit true, but lacking in sufficient detail and also oversimplification, and missing big bits of other information – it doesn’t qualify as “analysis”.
No, scientists have to get funding, and when I was doing a PhD in a climate-related topic, you had to put the boilerplate paragraph that includes “anthropogenic climate change” at the start of every paper, to get past the journal filterers; you can only deviate from that if you have serious credibility, tenure, and most of all – funding. As a lowly PhD you just snap into line behind the head of department who wins the big funding and distributes it (along with bits of the general research theme) down to the pyramid of senior scientists, post-docs, and PhD students.
CO2 does not make the temperature go up and down, it adds complexity to existing systems, that produces different effects in different localities. which can mean temperature changes in either direction; changes in precipitation; and also acidification in the bodies of water. You also have to factor in things like industrial and agricultural run-off that can affect the physical as well as chemical, and biological characteristics in the ocean.
Obviously, Human activity does change multiple aspects of the climate, not limited to temperature, but it’s not linear nor like a simple see-saw; and it’s also not as big an effect as other factors, such as the sun itself.
re: “So you know a little bit of the science. You just need to learn more.“
It’s mathimatically impossible for manmade released GHG, to alter or change the Climate. Since you believe in this garbage, please post your mathimatical formula, for peer review to prove otherwise…Lastly please explain the record underwater Volcanoes that’s heating up our Oceans in the last 30yrs, that’s greatly affecting our weather patterns?
Lol! Nope. I don’t have to prove my claims. They are already in all the peer reviewed science papers and science textbooks from the last 200 years. You, however, have to prove your claims, since they have no science behind them whatsoever.
You’re both talking shit, to be honest.
You are correct. 1: The underwater volcano thing is insignificant.
However you are the one who is daft about point 2. Climate science does go back to 1824. And the facts are well known.
Here are a few of the well known scientific discoveries of the 1800’s.
1824: Joseph Fourier, correctly calculated that the earth’s average temperature should be -18C, based on our distance from the sun, rather than the actual +14C. He determined that something in the atmosphere was helping to retain the sun’s radiation. Though that “something” was to be discovered by others.
1850: Eunice Foote, an American scientist who was the first to publish a paper on how CO2 captured heat in the atmosphere
1859: John Tyndall performed experiments to determine which molecules in the atmosphere helped to retain heat. Oxygen and Nitrogen did not, but CO2 and CH4 did.
1896: Svente Arrhenius was the first to publish that rising CO2 emissions by mankind would begin to raise global temperatures
Which of those scientific facts do you wish to argue?
The Chinese economy is imploding… I am in Asia, I speak Chinese, and I have friends there, and sometimes work there. I can tell you, it’s in a worse debt and economic mess than even the USA and EU is. Exports down, jobs down, wages down: it’s hell.
Imploding? Maybe it is. But if it was truly imploding, then electricity use would be declining. Wouldn’t it?
Yet electricity consumption keeps rising in China.
2021: 10%
2022: 4%
2023: 6.4%
2024 to date: 5.1%
Regardless; China is moving ahead with its energy infrastructure strategy. More nuclear and renewables; less coal; more EVs and PHEVs. If we did not put tariffs and sanctions on them, I suspect their exports would still be growing. Biden and Trump are both trying to out do each other with China sanctions and that will probably continue.
Could the increase be due to the adoption of EVs in China?
While EV adoption increases electrical use, it only represents a small portion of the increase in consumption. China consumed 9220 TWH of electricity in 2023, of which 35 TWH was for EVs. The big increase is industrial.
55% of Chinese electricity goes to industry, 20% to services, and 17% to residential.
Oh the BDS. United States is producing more oil than any country in the history of the planet. That’s progressive? That’s net zero?
Yes. We are producing more oil than any other country. And yes. It’s not net zero. But it’s necessary for economic growth.
And we cannot build out enough renewables to reduce our use of oil. But without those renewables we would be using even more oil and the price would be much higher.
Biden is owned by the WEF and the Billionaire Oligarchs, as well as Progressives and the Security State Blob, though there is a good deal of overlap in all thos groups in the network of interests that runs the government and decides the elections
His signature legislation was titled “Build Back Better”, lifted directly from WEF papers and marketing.
I bet they want their money back!
Or DoD needs better battery tech in order to field hordes of robot soldiers and weapons systems … Think that a lot of the spiel about green is to drive tech development for the MIC, while it is the consumer that ultimately funds it … Like your Nvidia graphics cards fund DoD AI etc.