Climate mania: California says it’s time for giant carbon vacuums

Photosynthesis: nature requires carbon dioxide

Climate mania is now in full swing as catastrophism takes over. What difference its supposed remedies will make to the climate remains to be seen – or not seen. At vast cost and effort, greenhouse gas theories of climate modellers are being assumed to be broadly correct, despite consistent failure to predict even current conditions.
– – –
Solar panels, wind turbines and electric cars will go far in helping California and the Biden administration meet their aggressive climate goals—but not far enough, claims Phys.org.

As time runs short, scientists and government officials say the moment to break out the giant vacuums has arrived.

The art of industrial-scale carbon removal—sucking emissions from the atmosphere and storing them underground—has long been an afterthought in climate-action circles: too expensive, too controversial, too unproven.

Africans Deflect Biden’s Demand To End Fossil Fuel Use

.
.
Climate dogma and economic reality are not compatible. If one wins, the other loses.

PA Pundits - International

By Duggan Flanakin ~

As the merger of climate change and COVID panic materializes in front of our eyes, “global leaders” have found plenty developing world voices to join the crusade to “save the planet” from carbon (dioxide) “pollution.” But like their Chinese and Indian counterparts, many Africans, from heads of state to captains of industry and beyond, intend to expand, not shrink, reliance on fossil fuels to build their economies.

According to Oxford University researcher Galina Alova, “Africa’s electricity demand is set to increase significantly as the continent strives to industrialise and improve the well-being of its people,” but those who hope for rapid decarbonization in Africa will likely be disappointed.

Alova’s research found that Africa is likely to double its electricity generation by 2030, with fossil fuels providing two-thirds of the total, hydroelectric another 18 percent, and non-hydro renewables providing less than 10 percent.

Such an energy…

View original post 1,089 more words

China’s Strange Endorsement Of “Net Zero”

.
.
Soon China will be able to say ‘net zero’ fanaticism is clearly dragging major economies down, so they’re not going along with any so-called ‘climate emergency’.

PA Pundits - International

By Duggan Flanakin ~

You have to hand it to Xi Jinping. The Chinese “president for life” last September schmoozed the royalty of the United Nations with his unexpected pledge that his country aims “to have CO₂ emissions peak before 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality (Net Zero) before 2060.”

Xi then urged other nations “to pursue innovative, coordinated, green and open development for all” through rapid deployment of new technologies so as to “achieve a green recovery of the world economy in the post-COVID era and thus create a powerful force driving sustainable development.”

The eloquent sage, confident that the mantle of world leadership was passing from the United States into his hands, concluded his prepared remarks as follows:

“The baton of history has been passed to our generation, and we must make the right choice, a choice worthy of the people’s trust and of our…

View original post 1,146 more words

Korea: Carbon neutrality plan lacks plan for carbon neutrality, say experts

South Korean coal plant [image credit: worldcoal.com]

What a shame — but all too familiar. Attempts at climate virtue signalling are easy but trying to spell out, let alone impose, unrealistic ‘solutions’ is not.
– – –
The push for carbon neutrality is one of the biggest policy initiatives under the Moon Jae-in administration, but energy experts say that the plan to make Korea a carbon neutral society by 2050 is both unclear and unrealistic, reports the Korea JoongAng Daily.

The science minister, industry minister and environment minister on Wednesday announced an investment strategy to fund research and development (R&D) efforts for carbon neutrality.

The basic idea of the government’s Wednesday plan is to develop technology that could reduce carbon dioxide emissions to match the amount that is produced at Korea’s industrial sites — not a small task considering that Korea’s economy is still dominated by manufacturing industries.

Climate change: Net zero targets are ‘pie in the sky’

Clearly ‘net zero’ is just a game that only a group of wealthy countries with more money than sense, and a deluded belief in ‘temperature targets’, think they can afford to play.
– – –
Sharp divisions between the major global emitters have emerged at a series of meetings designed to make progress on climate change, reports BBC News.

India lambasted the richer world’s carbon cutting plans, calling long term net zero targets, “pie in the sky.”

Their energy minister said poor nations want to continue using fossil fuels and the rich countries “can’t stop it”.

Guy Leech: Open Letter To David Cameron

The Rt. Hon. David Cameron MP
Prime Minister
10 Downing Street
London SW1A 2AA
18^th January 2013

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE PRIME MINISTER ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY POLICIES

Dear Prime Minister,

Like you I read PPE at Oxford and I was lucky enough to be taught Economics by Professor Wilfred Beckerman. He has an interest in the economics of environmentalism, having worked in that field with the World Bank in the 1960s, advised the Labour Party on it and he was a member of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution from 1970 to 1973. He wrote an excellent book in 1974 called “In Defence of Economic Growth” which was a rebuttal of the famous Club of Rome 1972 book “The Limits to Growth”.

In 2002, Prof. Beckerman published a book called “A Poverty of Reason: Economic Growth and Sustainable Development”. If you or your advisers on environmental policies haven’t read it before, I thoroughly recommend it as a succinct and massively sensible analysis of many environmentalists’ arguments by a brilliant economist and excellent teacher. He is still going strong at 87; he’s still teaching at UCL, mainly on ethical issues in Economics which he touches on in this book when addressing the mistakes made by many environmentalists about intergenerational ethics, rights and basic economics when considering issues like resource depletion, climate change and the precautionary principle.