IPCC Proposed Banishment Of Fossil Fuels Would Place Most Of The World’s Population At Risk

.

Attempts to get rid of fossil fuels will only serve to highlight how inadequate and costly the proposed substitutes are.

PA Pundits International

By Ronald Stein ~

The AR6Climate Change 2021Report just released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an intergovernmental body of the United Nations, has called out a “code red for humanity“ that “must sound a death knell for…fossil fuels, before they destroy our planet.”

The report from the IPCC has failed to acknowledge that the introduction of oil just over 100 years ago has been overwhelmingly beneficial for the prosperity of the world’s population growth to 8 billion from about 1 billion that is shown clearly in their own United Nations graph. The IPCC goal to banish fossil fuels will place most of the world’s population at risk, like the medieval times.

The members of the IPCC seem oblivious to the facts of how life was without the fossil fuels industry just 120 years ago when we had NO medications and medical equipment, NO…

View original post 957 more words

Net zero targets ‘unrealistic’ says Oxfam report

Photosynthesis: nature requires carbon dioxide

It’s pie in the sky time again as charity Oxfam trashes various so-called climate pledges, calling them greenwashing. For starters they reckon the amount of land required to fulfil them would far exceed anything likely to be available worldwide.
– – –
Oxfam says governments and companies are “hiding behind unreliable, unproven and unrealistic carbon removal schemes” in order to hit targets, reports BBC News.

Global attempts are being made to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050.

But the charity claims net zero targets are often a “greenwashing exercise”.

Net zero means any emissions that can’t be stemmed by clean technology in 2050 will either be buried using carbon capture and storage, or soaked up by plants and soils.

Tesla will no longer accept Bitcoin over climate concerns, says Musk

Tesla Model 3 [image credit: Vauxford @ Wikipedia]

Climate or environment? The confusion, or conflation, of the two is obvious, often deliberate, and not by any means confined to Tesla’s boss. If the company is waiting until ‘mining shifts to using more sustainable energy’, it could have a long wait.
– – –
Tesla has suspended vehicle purchases using Bitcoin due to climate change concerns, its CEO Elon Musk said in a tweet.

Bitcoin fell by more than 10% after the tweet, while Tesla shares also dipped, reports BBC News.

Tesla’s announcement in March that it would accept the cryptocurrency was met with an outcry from some environmentalists and investors.

The electric carmaker had in February revealed it had bought $1.5bn (£1bn) of the world’s biggest digital currency.

Oil change? Fossil fuel advocate to run State department

Rex Tillerson

After years of being persecuted by climate alarmists, the oil giant Exxon now finds its CEO nominated for a top post
in the next US government. What’s he like? Tough at times, as this BBC report notes: ‘At the Exxon AGM, journalists from the Guardian were barred from the meeting in Dallas – Exxon argued that the newspaper was not “objective” in their reporting.’

Good news for environmental campaigners: President-elect Trump has finally nominated someone to his cabinet who actually believes in climate change science.

The bad news for those same campaigners is that this true believer happens to be CEO of Exxon Mobil, and also sees fossil fuels as critical to humanity’s survival.

Ed Hoskins: Analysis of the record of fossil-fuel CO2 emissions 1965 -2013

Guest post from Ed Hoskins MAarch (Cantab)  BDS (Lond).

The record of recent Man-made CO2 emissions:  1965 -2013

The following calculations and graphics are based on information on national CO2 emission levels worldwide published by BP[1]in June 2014 for the period from 1965 up until 2013.  The data is well corroborated by previous similar datasets published by the CDIAC, Guardian [2] and Google up until 2009 [3].  These notes and figures provide a short commentary on that CO2 emissions history.
The contrast between the developed and developing worlds is stark in terms of their history of CO2 emissions and the likely prognosis for their future CO2 output.

Figure 1

Since 1980 CO2 emissions from the developed world have shown virtually no increase, whereas the developing world has had a fourfold increase since 1980:  that increase is accelerating.