Noah Smith has a question: What about per capita emissions? I have answers.
bUT wHAT aBOut per cApITA
Per capita emissions in the US are the worlds highest, but they are also crashing. China per capita emissions are rising fast.
And check out India. It has passed China as the world’s most populous country. Where is that headed?
Per Capita and Annual Emissions by Country and the World
World per capita CO2 emissions have stabilized largely because of the US and EU. Total emissions are another matter.
The world population is increasing so there is a continued increase in carbon production.
Improving Standards of Living
For global standards of living to improve, there will need to be more energy production.
US standards of living rose by increasing fossil fuel production. The US and EU are now telling the world, that’s a no-no.
Instead of using cheaper natural gas or coal, we tell developing countries they can’t. Europe has carbon border taxes to prevent it.
CBAM Tax the Poor
On December 22, 2022 I commented EU Imposes the World’s Largest Carbon Tax Scheme, Inflationary Madness Sets In
Spotlight Africa
Let’s tune into a Tweet Thread by Faten Aggad Senior Advisor Climate Diplomacy @AfricanClimateF.
“The only effect CBAM would have is a resource shift whereby clean energy capacity in already under-resourced countries will be shifted for export production while industry aimed at local consumption and energy access will depend on dirty fuels.“
Another Twitter Question
A Word about China and Solar Panels
The Cost of Soup and Solar Panels is About to Increase, Thank President Biden
For more discussion, please see The Cost of Soup and Solar Panels is About to Increase, Thank President Biden
Climate Stupidity Canadian Style
Please consider Climate Stupidity Canadian Style
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau doubles down on carbon taxes, hammering Canadian farms and raising prices for everyone.
Trudeau proposes Canada carbon taxes to be as high or higher than any place else in the world in order to prevent carbon leakage.
This is despite the fact that Canada’s own studies suggest a negative benefit to the economy.
Canada’s 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan Fiscal and Economic Impact
Fiscal and Economic Impact
Our estimate of the economic impact captures the loss in employment and investment income that would result from the federal fuel charge.
Differential impacts on the returns to capital and wages, combined with differences in the distribution of employment and investment income drive the variation in household net costs across provinces. When the economic impact is combined with the fiscal impact, the net cost increases for all households, reflecting the overall negative economic impact of the federal fuel charge
Let’s sum it up this way. You gain $699 in Saskatchewan. Unfortunately, you lose your job.
And for what? If Canada stopped all carbon emissions tomorrow it would not even register, except for the Canadian economy which would crash.
China Abandons Clean Energy Goals Making U.S. Efforts Painful and Pointless
Also note, China Abandons Clean Energy Goals Making U.S. Efforts Painful and Pointless
Heritage Foundation:
It was a bad week for anyone who thought China would cooperate on emissions reduction. President Xi Jinping reiterated that his country would set its own path on the issue and not be influenced by outside factors, according to the Washington Post and Bloomberg. This contradicts Xi’s 2015 Paris Agreement pledges to reduce its carbon emissions at the latest after 2030.
This should not be news, because Xi gave the same message last fall. In October 2022, he said that China would not abandon coal-fired power plants before renewables could substitute for the lost fossil fuel.
Hooray for China?!
China leads the world in EV production. It is using more coal-fired plants to do so.
Cost is one thing now, it’s another inflationary kettle of smelly fish when the need for batteries skyrockets. No one has ever scaled EVs to estimate the mining costs and infrastructure costs if everyone did the same thing.
Electric Vehicles for Everyone?
On July 19, I asked Electric Vehicles for Everyone? If the Dream Was Met, Would it Help the Environment?
My follow-up post was What Do MishTalk Readers Think About “Electric Vehicles for Everyone?”
Math Does Not Add Up
The EV math does not add up in the EU or here. But here we go anyway.
The Shocking Truth About Biden’s Proposed Energy Fuel Standards
In case you missed it, please consider The Shocking Truth About Biden’s Proposed Energy Fuel Standards
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NHTSA did an impact assessment of 4 fuel standard proposals and compared them to the cost of doing nothing. Guess what.
The NHTSA conclude: “Net benefits [of stricter mile standards] for passenger cars remain negative across alternatives” vs doing nothing at all.
See the above link for details and charts.
“China per capita emissions are rising fast.”
True, and when both figures cross over you have a right to start belly-aching about China. Till then, I suggest you focus your efforts on figuring out how the USA is going to manage the energy transition without falling to pieces, instead of pointing fingers at everyone else, like any country that fails at anything major likes to do.
“ The first question I had was: how did they measure CO2 in 1750?”
They can measure CO2 levels in the atmosphere going as far back as billions of years using a variety of scientific techniques.
Dendrochronology, ocean sediment cores, ice cores, and from geological formations that are billions of years old. Feel free to look up the details.
Human ingenuity is always at work figuring things out. Aristarchus calculated the distance from the earth to the sun in 350 BC. Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth in 240BC. Neither had tape measures that went that far.
In 1820 Joseph Fourier calculated that the earth’s average temperature should actually be -18c given its distance from the sun and amount of energy received from the sun. He proposed that something in the atmosphere was helping to hold in the sun’s warmth to keep the average temperature at +14c. At that time he did not know what was holding in the warmth.
Eunice Foote, an American, was the first person to do an experiment and publish a paper that explained that CO2 was a greenhouse gas. And that increasing its concentration in the air would cause the air to warm.
In 1896, Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius concluded that industrial-age coal burning will enhance the natural greenhouse effect. He suggested this “might” be beneficial for future generations. His conclusions on the likely size of the “man-made greenhouse” are in the same ballpark – a few degrees Celsius for a doubling of CO2 – as modern-day climate models.
1958 – Using equipment he had developed himself, Charles David (Dave) Keeling begins systematic measurements of atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa in Hawaii and in Antarctica. Within four years, the project – which continues today – provides the first unequivocal proof that CO2 concentrations are rising.
So I found this original chart about 9 months ago.
link to ourworldindata.org
The first question I had was: how did they measure CO2 in 1750? I mean the light bulb was patented in 1879. Seems the first real recording of atmospheric CO2 was in 1958. Interestingly, the chart in the link above allows one to scroll the x-axis to select a beginning year. Watch what happens when the 1st year on the x-axis is 1958. Same message: The US is up slightly; the EU is flat; China & SE Asia are up huge. But not nearly as alarming looking as when you have 100+ years of zeros added to pad the data!
This chart also brings a popup box when one hovers over the graph itself so you can see the actual raw numbers.
CO2 emissions have nothing to do with polluting. Nor anything else particularly “bad.” They may (probably do) contribute to global warming. But CO2 (and water) is what you WANT out of an energy-creating combustive process.
Instead, what these graphs show, is simply wealth changes over reent years. Energy availability/use, hence CO2 emissions, is far and away the most reliable, broadly available measure for wealth there is. Not nearly as prone to simpletonian manipulation/rah-rah’ing attempts as all the various illogical drivel which is ballyhooed by the world’s currently fashionable nonsenonomists.
China/India is not rising while The West is crashing because “they” don’t have Demigod Musk “Investing” in “clean Gaia” for them, nor whatever else it is, which is the latest tripe that dimbulbs are told to mindlessly regurgitate.
Instead, China and India are getting wealthier. While The West is getting poorer.
That’s the one and only thing these series “show.” As in: The one one AND only.
In the aggregate the West is getting dumber.
Adding co2 to the atmosphere endangers people’s lives.
The EPA determined that, according to this decision, there are six greenhouse gases that need to be regulated. These include:
carbon dioxide (CO2)
methane (CH4)
nitrous oxide (N2O)
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)
Aside from the green angle, what would it mean if China & India reached Western levels of per capital fossil fuels (India will not: there is less winter). Obviously fossil fuel production would have to at least treble.
That is unlikely, since new discoveries have been dwindling for decades.
Moreover, all the easy to discover and produce stuff was done first.
—Peak production (regardless the true amount of producible reserve) will limit potential CO² emissions.
—In addition, since reserves are not infinite, sooner or later production must dwindle.
In the short term humanity can effect the climate. Many of the naysayers of global warming use a rebuttal that climate change is a normal thing on earth, which it is. Major catastrophic events on earth have drastically changed climate and caused extinction events. Humanity is in the mist of causing such an event. Humanity can possibly slow or reverse this event. The Naysayers would rather not, and make it impossible to live life on earth as we now it.
At this rate, at some point, China is going to burn less and less coal in the future. Its just a matter of when.
link to electrek.co
Despite headwinds, offshore wind will see ‘massive’ growth to 2032 – report
GWEC also forecasts that “a massive 380 GW of new offshore wind will be built by 2032 – nearly half of which will come from the Asia-Pacific region, followed by Europe (41%), North America (9%), and Latin America (1%).” That would bring the total offshore wind capacity to 447 GW by the end of 2032.
Yep. And like it said in the Exxon report. Wind and solar could supply 11% of all our energy needs by 2050.
Yay.
And by 2050 we will have added over 2 degree of global warming, raised the oceans a foot, and heaven only knows suffered thousands of catastrophic climate events.
You’re not moving fast enough Jeff.
link to electrek.co
At some point, we will build in carbon tarrifs into our economy world wide. RE is expanding rapidly also and will soon expand a great deal faster than FFs.
AHH, we finally get to the nub of your argument. Carbon offsets, carbon tax, tariffs, what ever the buzz word for the day is. It still comes down to “let’s make those rich guys pay” for their dirty, devilish capitalist ways. “give us all your money because you gave us the best standard of living the planet has ever seen” and no good deed can go unpunished. Go green as much as you like, just stay out of my wallet and we both will be happy.
Are you saying the rich can’t afford to pay their fair share of climate damage?
I love the arguments in favour of “carbon tariffs”. Sheer entertainment as those who don’t understand economics advise us all on how to control the weather.
Imagine how a construction of several hundred tons of fibreglass, carbon fibre, epoxy, steel, copper, aluminum, rare earth minerals and concrete is “zero emissions”. Calculate the embedded energy in a 4 MW wind turbine, including the mining, roads and other infrastructure and of course recycling. Now calculate the energy that will be produced and sold in a realistic working life (which is always less than claimed). Then add to the embedded energy that is required to set up backup storage or fast response generating capacity that is the inevitable ancillary cost of providing reliable power. Wind does not generate enough power to replace the system needed to tap it.
In effect all the energy that a turbine will ever generate has to be first generated by some other means and that on balance, there is no net contribution to the grid. All power generated by a wind system, if applied to manufacturing more wind turbines, would fall short of completing a replacement system by the end of its working life. The situation is worse with solar PV panels. Keeping this basic piece of information from the public is a major component of the green PR industry. Viable generators produce 9 times the embedded energy. One unit for replacement and 8 for other applications. Hydro power and nukes produce 50-75 times the energy invested.
Just anecdotal, but I had the opportunity to speak with an individual who works for Siemens (supposedly the largest manufacturer of wind turbine blades worldwide). Vast majority of wind turbine materials ARE NOT recyclable.
There ya go again.
Making me think hurts my head, like Mr. Gumby.
“Imagine how a construction of several hundred tons of fibreglass, carbon fibre, epoxy, steel, copper, aluminum, rare earth minerals and concrete is “zero emissions”. ”
Another inconvenient truth. 500,000 lbs or earth must be processed to make 1-1000 lb ev battery.
43:40 on following
link to youtube.com
Energy returned on energy invested in FFs is decreasing over time. Plus FFs are polluting co2 into our atmosphere warming the earth. EROEI is getting better for wind. Its about 18.
“Man who chops his own firewood is warmed twice.” Confuscious. If you ask the plants they would say the more carbon in the atmosphere the better. When I grew up in Massachusetts it was 40 and 80 acre truck farms. Then the developers bought them up and built 2 acre housing properties for sale to the white collar suburban workers. Then the forest came back, and filled those 2 acres around the houses.
Problem solved. Gosh. That was easy.
After we are all gone, the trees will make a comeback and rule the world.
Bottlenecks to the net zero delusion
1. Shortage of minerals
2. Electricity grid required need unrealistic upgrades.
Europe has spent billions on renewable unrealiable wind and solar base energy and has now pivoted and is using more coal than ever. As per the following video by Mark Mills, the US is on the same path.
A black swan event very possible is a very cold winter. If its cold stay warm and grab the popcorn.
Mark Mills on The Energy Transition Delusion
link to youtube.com
I’m all for a cold winter. Oil and gas prices could spike again with a cold winter.
Just kidding. I actually would prefer a slow and steady rise in oil and gas prices, so as not to shock the economy into a recession. Say, $1/mth for oil and 20 cents for natgas. For the next decade.
Nat gas is about to have a major problem…new LNG export facilities start coming online Q1 2024 and won’t stop for 5-7 years. The amount of facilities already approved by FERC and under construction will increase LNG exports 50-80%. The amount already approved by FERC and awaiting final investment decision (FID – basically getting the last long-term contract signed before raising money for construction) will add another 50-100% increase in current LNG exports. This will lead to an increase in price or more drilling to increase supply, or both.
link to cms.ferc.gov
I have no problem with an increase in natural gas prices. Though I am favoring oil companies right now as gas prices are so low. I expect nat gas companies to do very well beginning in 2025.
Climate change has its own built-in feedback loops.
The world gets hotter and more people get air conditioners. Which increases energy use, which is still mostly fossil fuels, so we burn more, produce more CO2; and the world gets hotter. Pretty ironic isn’t it?
Exxon is correct; we will still be using a lot of oil and gas in 2050 and the world will be 2 degrees warmer by then. I suspect that oceans will have risen roughly 12 inches by 2050. Though it is hard to imagine what the extreme weather events will look like with 2 degrees of warming. Maybe three years of rainfall in a day instead of one days worth. Maybe new record high temperatures in Las Vegas of 140F. How about category 6 hurricanes?
Wind and solar energy will quintuple from 2% to 11% of all energy by 2050. So it will take 27 more years and we will still only be at 11%! This is painfully slow progress.
I wonder what oil prices will get to by 2030, since we keep using more oil, but we are reducing our spending on exploration, which will tighten future supply. The only way to reduce demand to match limited supply will be higher prices. I wonder if we will get to $200 WTI?
Lets see, at $200 WTI, most of the oil companies I own will be returning 75% free cash flow to shareholders each year. Not bad.
Got oil?
Lets see, at $200 WTI the taxes will probably be around $130 to pay for the new green stuff, leaving little for free cash flow and dividends.
Three words that you never seem to mention: price controls and rationing.
When the going gets tough, the lawmakers make laws.
I will take my chances with the Canadian government and Canadian oil and gas companies. (and a few US ones as well).
They are crushing it on cash flow at $80 WTI. As long as prices rise relatively slowly, I don’t expect windfall taxes. If prices spike, then anything is possible.
Meanwhile here in Saskatchewan, the government has full intentions of running its electrical generating facilities until their end of life cycle. There are 2 coal plants situated beside coal reserves of several hundred years that have end of life cycles of 2042 & 2044. I expect the climate change roar to lessen going forward. Europe spent billions on renewable energy and is now using more coal than ever. The US is also going to experience its European moment.
The government is looking towards mudular reactors to replace the coal plants when they are retired. Saskatchewan is a major uranium producing center. Ironically, I expect Saskatchewan to revive coal generating facilities and the far away future.
link to cbc.ca
“We can run those [natural gas plants] out to the end of their life. As a province we reserve the right to make that decision. The same goes for a coal-fired facilities,” Moe said Thursday.”
Moe called the federal plan “unrealistic” and “unaffordable,” and said that applies to more than Saskatchewan.
“This is not exclusively a Saskatchewan problem. Other provinces will not meet net zero by 2035 either.”
SaskPower and the province have signalled an intention to study using small modular nuclear reactors (SMR) in the next decade to provide some baseload power.”
Moe said the province is committed to greening its grid, but said wind and solar are not reliable enough to provide a baseload to power the province.
Moe called the federal government’s 2035 target, “largely an ideal ideological plan.”
“I understand the reasoning behind trying to green your grid, but you also have to understand the reality behind greening your grid.”
I expect that when all is said and done, reality strikes home and shows the idiocy of the net zero lunacy. I have no doubt that the US is going to experience its European moment with regard to renewables in the not too distant future. I expect the climate change roar to diminish as it has in Europe as reality hits home. Like I have stated a possible black swan event is a cold winter especially for Europe.
link to nationalpost.com
“Canada’s Minister of Environmental Magic, Steven Guilbeault, is at it again. His next trick, more daring than scaling even the tallest skyscraper, is to eliminate fossil fuels from Canada’s electrical grid by 2035. If rammed through, this latest government act of wand waving will cost Canadians more for a lower standard of living and drag our federal finances further towards the abyss. His plan is already encountering push back as it comes up against that which Minister Guilbeault hates most: reality.”
“Let us first consider the facts of the matter. Canada’s electricity grid is already very clean by international standards. Approximately 82 per cent of our electricity currently comes from renewable and non-carbon emitting sources, with the majority accounted for by our vast hydro-electric capabilities. The distribution is not even, however. In B.C. electricity is 87 per cent hydro and almost 95 per cent renewable already and in Ontario over 90 per cent of electricity is from non-emitting sources, the majority being nuclear. In Alberta the story is different: non-renewable sources account for 90 per cent of electrical generation there. It is hardly surprising then that B.C. and Ontario have remained silent while Alberta has blown a (natural gas fuelled) gasket over the Liberal plan.”
“The net-zero electrical grid proposal by the government also ignores the increase in electricity needed as we move away from fossil fuels generally towards a greener economy. The numbers we have discussed are all current electrical demands. Future demands could be significantly higher. In B.C., estimates are that electrical production would need to double by 2055 to fully electrify all vehicles in the province. If we can expand that thinking to the country has a whole, then suddenly we are damming up 44 rivers or building more than 10 nuclear reactors while shelling out over $600 billion.”
“The conversation around electrification and fossil fuel elimination is frequently driven by ideology and ignorance of financial implications. Moving towards a greener world is desirable but the costs associated with this shift are stupefyingly huge and the timelines long. We need an honest discussion about what is truly needed to achieve the lofty rhetoric governments so love. Let us remind Minister Guilbeault that energy policy is not created with a magic wand despite what he would like to believe.”
I applaud your sensibilities. However, you are bound to be disappointed by those in charge.
Still, when oil prices get to $200 WTI and nat gas gets to $10 consistently, you might be wishing for a bit more of that renewable energy.
I am a big believer in all forms of energy. Because the more sources that we have, the more competition there is and the lower the prices overall.
Price is no longer a problem.
The money will simply be borrowed from the children who never have any say in the matter. And more sources means an ever-growing regulatory bureaucracy providing jobs for tens of thousands far into the future.
As renewable energy grows in output production, the price of energy comes down.
Agree. As long as there is enough energy overall to roughly balance with demand. When there is too much energy supply prices go down. We see that occasionally with renewables. Sometimes they generate way more power than we need and prices actually go negative as they can’t give the energy away.
The problem today is that we are not yet building enough renewables to satisfy the worlds growing demand for energy, so we have to make up the difference with MORE fossil fuels. But the fossil fuel companies are cutting back on exploration budgets and oil supplies will be inadequate to meet the demand as well. Not enough oil supply means higher prices.
Which means higher demand for clean energy.
Providing the Governments control the demand using their monopoly on force.
Exxon released a report on energy demand and climate change today. Here is a summary from oilprice.com, one of my goto sites and apps. Sounds like I could have written it! Basically repeats what I have been saying here for 3 years.
“ The world is not on track to stop temperatures from rising by more than 2C by 2050, Exxon Mobil said on Monday in its Global Outlook, which also called for increased investments in oil and gas.
According to Exxon’s latest report, the world’s climate goals are in jeopardy as the world stares down more people, more prosperity, and more energy by 2050. And while emissions will decline as a low-carbon solutions continue to be developed, reaching net-zero emissions will prove impossible unless new emissions policies and technologies are developed, along with the establishment of market-driven mechanisms.
“The world may be different then, but the need to provide the reliable, affordable energy that drives economic prosperity and better living standards, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions, will remain just as critical as it is today,” Exxon said in its latest report as it went on to explain that energy use and economic development were inseparable and that energy poverty brings poverty.
According to Exxon, all energy types will be needed in order to raise living standards and reduce emissions. Exxon’s Global Outlook projects that the biggest change in the energy mix between now and 2050 will be significant increases in wind and solar power, while reducing coal power.
“Energy from solar and wind is projected to more than quintuple, from 2% of the world’s supply to 11%. Coal will increasingly be displaced by lower-emission sources of electricity production – not just renewables but also natural gas, which has about half the carbon intensity of coal. Overall, electricity use grows 80% by 2050,” the Global Outlook reads.
Still, oil and gas will continue to make up more than half of the world’s energy supply, even by 2050. “Given that oil and natural gas are projected to remain a critical component of a global energy system through 2050, sustained investments are essential to offset depletion as production naturally declines by 5-7% per year.”
link to oilprice.com
Going to be a hard sell for the West to tell the 3 billion plus people across Asia and India that they are not allowed to improve their quality of living or increase in prosperity.
Yep. That is basically what Exxon said today as well.
And what I have been saying here for 3 years now.
Three years? 2020?
You were way late to the party.
Started 2005-6.
Another Exxon-like news flash: It will become dark after the sun goes down.
You don’t seem to be aware they are also installing clean energy infrastructure. The world is on a dual track.
Hi Jeff. If you are talking to me; I am aware of virtually everything in this area. Including the efforts by the oil majors to diversify into renewables, hydrogen, storage etc. Which is not going as well as they had hoped.
I keep up with all things energy, because I have a significant amount of my wealth invested in the energy area. Particularly oil and gas companies . Because they are going to make a crap load of money for me at $80 (or higher) oil.
Incidentally; You are doing a good job. Your ability to explain the science is pretty good. However, you are over optimistic about our ability to slow this global warming runaway train. Keep up the good work. Just don’t expect the morons here to ever clue in to the science.
Ha not going to happen, the globalist goons want to kill off about 7 billion of us to save Mother Earth. A nice nuclear exchange with Russia should do the trick. Bottom line they want to rule over the remaining 500,000 survivors.
Garbage. That’s a moronic plan. That is not what THEY want. A nuclear war is perhaps the worst way to kill people. Those left behind would be ruling a barely survivable wasteland. What good is that? Ruling over a radiated garbage pile that will endure a ten thousand year nuclear winter.
If you want to kill everyone there are far better ways that would leave behind a beautiful planet to rule over. How about creating a virus that will cause a panic. Then create vaccines for that virus, but get people to believe the vaccines are bad for you. So they don’t want to take the vaccines.
Then come out with a real deadly virus next time and the vaccines for the select few. By then, no one will want the vaccines because they were duped into thinking vaccines were bad. And they all die from the virus except those few who took the vaccine.
Its diabolical. And I’m in on it. I will take the vaccine, survive the plague, and rule over all you dead people. Mwah hah hah hah!
How much to go until Washington DC and Manhattan are submerged? I can do my patriotic duty by cruising in a ‘69 Dodge Charger.
Hi kids!
CO2 in the atmosphere: 0.042%
Scientists call that a “trace gas”. That means it’s nearly undetectable.
But also “end of the world”, because ‘scientific consensus’.
Trace gas? How about methane! It is only 2.2 ppm. Vast amounts are emitted each year from forests. There is a large cloud of methane hanging over each tropical jungle. When hit by sunshine it converts to CO2 and water which explains why there is almost none in the air.
Yeah, jeez, those eggheads. What have they ever done for us regular folks?
They are not infallible, and the evolution of scientific knowledge requires questioning the prevailing wisdom. What if Copernicus didn’t question the egg heads of his time regarding the structure of the solar system?
It was priests Copernicus was questioning, not eggheads.
Regardless, if you don’t like listening to nerds, you might want to pay attention to what insurance companies are doing. They seem to believe in the whole hoax, which is weird for companies purely trying to make money, right?
Insurance companies would sell their mother to the Arabs if it would boost profitability. No disrespect to Arabs, just a figure of speech.
Copernicus was questioning Ptolemy mostly, who was an old Greek egghead. Ptolemy’s theory of epicycles within epicycles was rooted in fondness for the supposedly “perfect” geometric shape–the circle–which goes back to Plato, another egghead.
Yep. Scientists make up all kinds of things to fool us regular folks. Like CO2 . It doesn’t actually exist. Its all made up.
Like; have you ever actually seen a CO2? Neither have I! What a croc!
Just like the earth. THEY want us to think it’s round! Like; after walking too far, everyone knows you will fall off. Obviously its flat. But them scientists and them teachers, they want to fool us all.
I ain’t buying it though. There are lots of scientists on the internet that will tell you the truth. CO2 is all made up.
Papa, one of your worst comments ever.
Just to reassure you Papa.
I have made CO2 out of parts.
I have handled CO2 (with gloves on).
Apparently you have never had the pleasure of champagne or beer or common soda-pop. Ever eat leavened bread?
Wow! You couldn’t sense my sarcasm? I will try to to be even more sarcastic next time.
There are all kinds of things in trace amounts that effect us.
link to skepticalscience.com
He wasn’t driving drunk, he just had a trace of blood alcohol; 800 ppm (0.08%) is the limit in all 50 US states and limits are even lower in most other countries.
Don’t worry about your iron deficiency, iron is only 4.4 ppm of your body’s atoms.
That ibuprofen pill can’t do you any good; it’s only 3 ppm of your body weight (200 mg in 60 kg person)
.
The Earth is only 3 ppm of the mass of the solar system.
Your children can drink that water, it only contains a trace of arsenic (0.01 ppm is the WHO and US EPA limit).
Ozone is only a trace gas: 0.1 ppm is the exposure limit established by the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends an ozone limit of 0.051 ppm.
A few parts per million of ink can turn a bucket of water blue. The color is caused by the absorption of the yellow/red colors from sunlight, leaving the blue. Twice as much ink causes a much stronger color, even though the total amount is still only a trace relative to the water.
Only 500 ppm of hydrogen sulphide (bad egg gas) in air is a hazardous level, as any health and safety fact-sheet will tell you. It will make you seriously unwell at that kind of concentration. In fact, at above 100 ppm, you can no longer smell the gas because its toxicity has switched off your sense of smell.
People who start of on trace amounts are not worth arguing with — they obviously have not digested any of the physics or extant information. Most people cannot answer the question: What is the most important greenhouse gas? [water vapor]. Very few realize that the effect is proportional to doubling concentrations — and that far rarer gases can therefore have outsize effects.
I have heard that polonium-210 is very bad for you in trace quantities.
THe geiger counter goes off everytime I get near.
First and foremost, per capita emissions are irrelevant to the environment in today’s discussions. The only reason this BS is pushed is to make the west feel bad and to demand money. The environment cares about total emissions, and the fact is the US accounts for 15%, APAC 80% – means that the US per capita means, well, a rounding error because of APAC.
link to euronews.com
One researcher compared the benefits from cleaner air to the health gains people make after quitting smoking.
The closure of a large coal plant in the US has been linked to a near-instant drop in heart attacks and strokes among local people.
Shenango Coke Works facility in Pittsburgh closed in January 2016 after incurring millions of dollars in government fines for air and water pollution.
Years of community pressure helped bring its long reign to an end – and locals were quickly rewarded in health gains, according to a new study by researchers at New York University (NYU) Grossman School of Medicine.
Coal burning is one the great effects on our health with the pollution. Get rid of the coal plants and our health improves.
“Coal burning is one the great effects on our health with the pollution. Get rid of the coal plants and our health improves.”
Realist (papascam, imgreen, jeffgreen, mpo) great alias fraudster
An inconvenient truth, a substantial increase in coal is required to build out wind turbines for cement and steel production.
45:17 in the following video
link to youtube.com
Look up steel made with hydrogen. Green hydrogen will become economically possible next decade.
I have been wondering:
How many windmills does it take to power an aluminum smelter?
Or a high-grade steel electric furnace?
Or a rotary cement kiln?
Do you think solar panels work work better?
Its an interesting area. Might be part of the last 10% to figure out when we get there. It might be a combination of some hydrogen, some natural gas, and some carbon sequestration.
“Look up steel made with hydrogen. Green hydrogen will become economically possible next decade.”
Haha, this is fcken hilarious. That brought back memories when the great fraud multiple alias realist (jeffgreen, imgreen, papascam, mpo) was pumping to buy Plug Power a few years ago at the high. You really lost your shirt on this one realist.
Somehow the following title suits you to a T.
An anatomy of Fraud: Plug Power is the Enron of Hydrogen
link to linkedin.com
Renewable energy will be hitting really high penetrations of our electricity by the end of next decade. Negative pricing allows green hydrogen producers will be able to make competitive hydrogen. This gets us greener fertilizer, green energy for making steel, and other places hydrogen can be used.
that lump of coal in my stocking from Santa was really a GIFT!
Closing of coal mines has been linked to a significant increase in unemployed coal miner suicides.
Get therapy.
“Climate science” is fake science that does not use the scientific method. It’s just manipulated made up data fused together in a fear campaign against the low IQ voter. Man-made global warming is a lie. “Climate change” is nothing more than a left-wing fascist ideology that promotes the redistribution of wealth to the rich. Anyone who believes otherwise probably thinks fossil fuels actually come from dinosaurs.
Where is that Ice Age I heard about in the 1970s?
Even BlackRock has pulled back its ESG requirements. Fink knows it’s fake and it’s costing him a lot of money.
Yes. It is clearly all a lie. And everyone seems to be in on it. Tens of thousands of scientists; the governments of 195 countries that signed the climate accords; the heads of all the worlds major corporations, banks, insurance companies, pensions, etc. Even the oil industry is in on this nonsense.
Exxon (yes, the oil company) released their global energy and climate report today and said that we are not doing enough to stop climate change and that the world will warm by 2 degrees by 2050. Never mind limiting the warming to 1.5 degrees, which was one of the goals.
I am not sure how so many world leaders and influential decision makers have been so easily duped into believing this lie about climate change. But I suspect that Bill Gates put microchips in all those vaccines and he is now controlling the minds of whoever he wishes.
You can’t make this stuff up!
195 wrongs make a right!!!
I have heard that on the way to the cliff’s edge all the lemmings are in agreement!
Two things to keep in mind: 1) We Americans are #1 by far! (in per capita CO2 emissions). If our physiques displayed to the world our voracious appetite for fossil fuels, we’d be ashamed by how grossly obese we are. 2) The big decline in CO2 emissions in the U.S. since 2019 is largely due to Covid-19. Same for the EU.
When the stats for 2022 come in, they’ll show we put almost all the pre-Covid flab back on. Yes, the scale showed some weight loss over 2010-19, but let’s not over-hype the trend.
One thought I had is if the Atlantic current slowed down or stopped to the point where a hurricane that went over Florida from the west to east and then went out to the Atlantic and just reformed and went in a circle and back into the Gulf. Keep an eye on Idalia
The US with its per capita emissions calculation is “not allowed” to count the massive expansion of the Great Eastern Forest which subtracts ~80% of total USA emissions at present. In other words, “We count it when you emitted it from 1650-1950 but not when you subtract it 1950-2023.”
The actual per capita emissions of the USA is not more than 20% of the claimed figure. With the increased rate of North-West forest growth (globally +30% increase since 1980 due to CO2 fertilization – NASA) it is possible that the US is approximately carbon neutral at the moment. Because no proper accounting is done, we don’t know. And if it was, no one would tell us.
Our oceans also abosorb our emissions. And we have another issue that could hurt us is ocean acidification.
Jeff, have you tried any measurements of the ocean pH? It changes by 2 or more if you move 2 metres. It also has an enormous buffering capacity at 7.8. To date it is literally unbelievable that anyone has measured a change in the pH of the oceans due to CO2 absorption. Most atmospheric CO2 emerges from the oceans where it is warm and absorbs where it is cold. There is a lot of bunk and gaslighting written about CO2. An emitted molecule of it is absorbed within ~7 years. There is a high turnover.
jeff is dumb, tough to argue intelligently with a moron
It is apparent that most politicians find factual data very confusing.
Remember, they are “special” people.
Biden supports blue collar workers, but it’s not reciprocal : UAW doesn’t like Biden
and they don’t support EV. A strike about to happen, already endorsed by the workers.
The blue collar railroad workers might disagree regarding Biden supporting them.
Batteries are creating jobs. Most of those are going to red states. That will change the politics with the state congress men and women protecting those jobs.
Clean energy and EVs both keep getting cheaper and better. My Nissan Leaf from 2017, while still a great car for my uses, is a sad joke compared to what you can buy for 30% cheaper today. A 2.5 kW solar system like the one I had installed at my old place in 2012 would cost less than half what it cost me back then (not counting any gov’t cheese).
Yes, we’ll burn plenty more fossil fuels before we kick the habit, but the writing is on the wall.
We’ll dig some ugly mines, just like we do for other minerals. Bummer, but TANSTAAFL. We know how to mine for stuff, and we know how to run power lines, and none of this stuff is that hard.
Buh but… it’s DIFFFERENT, and that scares us!
It must be exhausting being so terrified of stuff. I wouldn’t hardly have energy left to stack my ammo and gold!
If you buy the beer, the lunch is free.
Duh.
Worrying about carbon is stupid. Legislating agains it is even worse.
CO2 is the thermostat of the earth. More co2, higher temperature.. Less co2, you get a lower temperature. That is why co2 correlates so closely with the shifts in earth’s climate over the millions of years.
“CO2 is the thermostat of the earth. More co2, higher temperature.. Less co2, you get a lower temperature.”
Realist (papascam, mpo, imgreen, jeffgreen) logic
To get rid of CO2, Realist proposes to increase CO2 dramatically to transition to the great GND and make it structurally permanent.
More Realist logic, to get rid of coal, were going to substantially increase coal usage and make it structurally permanent.
We must destroy the village in order to save it. Realist logic
47:40 of the following video
link to youtube.com
I disagree. You control the temperature of the earth with the level of co2 in the sky. There is no talk on my part or the part of science of removing all co2 from the sky.
350.org believes the proper level of co2 in the atmosphere is 350ppm. James Hansen later on revised it down to 325ppm co2.
Q: What percentage of the Air is CO2??
hint> acunt-hair
Jeff, you have been exhaling 5-6% carbon dioxide (CO2).
You are the problem.
I am breathing out more and more co2 unburied from 80,000,000 years ago.
Aktshually…., the temperature of the earth controls the amount of CO2 in the air.
That is a balance issue over time of carbon sinks and carbon sources on earth. Right now the oceans are carbon sinks. As the oceans warm, co2 may start leaving the ocean making them a carbon source. That is a huge change we don’t want to experience.
As confirmed by data in the BBC documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle.
Anyone find it interesting the UN and most of these climate organizations were started with funding from the Rockefellers?
Yo, Jeff.
Higher temperature, more CO2. Lower temperature, less CO2. That is why CO2 correlates so closely with the shifts in earth’s climate over the millions of years. That’s what ice core data shows for short timelines when changes occur.
Have you ever studied the Greenland ice core data? There were periods throughout history where CO2 levels where much higher, long before the discovery of oil and the invention of the internal combustion engine.
As Vivek said, climate change in a hoax to gain more control/power by the establishment nutjobs. The same as they want to do with another virus scam, so they can lockdown again to prevent mass protests when CBDC’s are rolled out (as occured in Nigeria).
There were periods throughout history where CO2 levels where much higher, long before the discovery of oil and the invention of the internal combustion engine.
Be specific. Ice cores show us strong correlation of co2 and temperature for the last 800,000 years.
Starting to see indications the markets are beginning to worry about liquidity again heading into a the seasonal liquidity bottleneck of September. This bottleneck occurs every Feb/Mar & Sep/Oct. Remember last Feb/Mar? Last Sep/Oct?
Have your credit event alarms set. Coz central bankers will be utterly oblivious.
98 percent of the total greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is water vapor. Are they going to start taxing us for sweating, peeing, taking a shower–all those things add water vapor to the atmosphere.
Last summer’s Tonga eruption added enormous amounts of water vapor to the atmosphere thereby causing a rise in global temps over the next several months. How will they tax water vapor coming out of volcanoes?
Deep within the earth there was a shift of the molten core causing an unprecented rise in ocean temps over a period of just a few weeks. How will the tax those pesky movements of the hot stuff deep down inside the earth?
LOL. Shift in the molten core.
I love you man.
Check out Ethical Skeptic for his hypothesis on ocean warming.
Magma offsets will be made available for purchase to the molten rock.
Those figure to be a hot commodity!
Carbon can be counted. Annnd more water vapor stays in the atmosphere with temperature. Water vapor has about a 9 day atmospheric residency compared to co2. Although co2 is the weakest GHG it stays in the atmosphere way longer than water vapor. CO2 is considered the thermostat of the earth.
link to yaleclimateconnections.org
It turns out that while much of the “pulse” of extra CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere would be absorbed over the next century if emissions miraculously were to end today, about 20 percent of that CO2 would remain for at least tens of thousands of years.
yes they are / Will in due time !!!
scam/lie #1: CO2 is Poison
charge $$ for Air (that used to be a joke, but now its true)
Scam #2: we are running out of “clean water”
FYI Water does not leave the planet
(the only thing that has left the planet is planetary exploration vehicles we have rocketed out into the universe)
Water vapor?
Don’t be absurd.
They will tax the CO2 that you exhale with every breath.
Obese folks will have to pay more.
So will runners, unfortunately.
People would do well to listen to this presentation closely.
link to youtube.com
Humans are responsible for 1 % of the CO2 emissions.
The data is available, but politicians/extremists distort the messages (lie).
Sorry EV investors and Woke Co2 alarmists:
link to zerohedge.com
Many comments here seem to express amazement over the stupidity of “climate alarmists” —
– So much warming water vapor! What about that!??*!*?
– What about clouds!!?
– But CO2 is GOOD for plants!
– Most of the CO2 is absorbed by the oceans!
– CO2 isn’t poisonous or we’d be dead!
Do you think climatologists aren’t aware of all of these facts? Do you think science is simply creating a fraudulent “alarm” in the search for research grants? Do you think scientists have the same motivations as Wall Street traders? This is classic projection.
Climate science is evolving. Because of its complexity, and the threats to jobs and profits, this issue WILL get distorted, often because of unconscious bias, by both sides. Yes, climate scientists do have biases and orthodoxies that eventually get proven wrong. When new findings are generated, scientific Truth will prevail, but it’s an incremental, zig-zag process. In the meantime, do not trust ANYONE who says, as an ideological position, I KNOW climate change is a hoax, or I KNOW climate change IS BRINGING CATASTROPHE IN 20 YEARS. Such certainty doesn’t exist. Hubris DOES exist. The BIG question is: confronted by this profound uncertainty, and the potentially huge stakes (planet-wise), WHAT SHOULD WE DO?
I don’t think the answer is “do nothing until we have certainty.” That’s what the conversation should be about.
In the meantime, place your bets. Long term bets against science and engineering consensus generally lose. I think non-visionary auto makers who are putting too many eggs in the ICE basket will lose. Hedge or die.