19 December 2018
Oil company ConocoPhillips just pledged to spend $2 millionpromoting the carbon tax and dividend plan devised by the Climate Leadership Council (CLC) organized by former Republican Secretaries of State James Baker III and George Shultz. ConocoPhillips is among the CLC’s founding member oil companies, alongside ExxonMobil, BP, and Shell.
The goal of the CLC’s carbon tax and dividend plan is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels by increasing fossil fuel prices over time. Under the CLC’s carbon tax and dividend plan an initial tax per ton of carbon dioxide would be set at oil and gas wellheads and coal mineheads.
As the tax escalates at a steady predictable rate over the years, higher electricity and transport prices are supposed to encourage increased conservation, greater fuel efficiency, and the development and deployment of no-carbon energy sources. Once the CLC’s carbon tax plan is adopted, all other regulations and subsidies aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions, e.g., automobile fuel efficiency and renewable portfolio standards, are supposed to be permanently repealed.
Finally, the linchpin of CLC’s plan is that all of the proceeds from the carbon tax would be divided equally among U.S. citizens and returned as an annual lump-sum directly to them. The CLC argues that “conferring financial benefits in the here and now would fundamentally alter the cost-benefit time horizon of climate mitigation, re-casting a carbon fee as a popular and even populist solution.”
The CLC cites a 2018 study that finds that 70 percent of American households would receive more in dividend payments than they would pay in increased energy prices. Taxpayers in the bottom income quintile would average a net tax cut of 4.4 percent of pretax income while those in the middle quintile would receive a net tax cut of 0.3 percent of pretax income.
While the concept of revenue neutral carbon taxes for addressing the problem of man-made climate change is belovedby most economists, the idea that they are “a popular and even populist solution” may be a bit premature.
The recent Yellow Vest protests in France were sparked by just a 12 cent increase in transport fuel taxes aimed at reducing that country’s carbon dioxide emissions. (For the record, a gallon of gas already costs $5.54 in France.) The New York Times suggested that this outburst might have been avoided if the taxes had been specifically devoted to “subsidies to encourage people to use less-polluting forms of energy, and expanding transit networks.”
Consider also what happened to carbon tax proposals in Washington state during the past couple of elections. In 2016, a revenue neutral carbon tax referendum failed when environmental activists opposed it on the grounds that the tax revenues should not be returned to voters, but instead be devoted to a panoply of green energy and public transit projects.
In 2018, Washington state voters rejected a carbon tax referendum crafted by environmental activists that would have created a kitty of new tax money available for politically favored groups to shower on their pet projects.
Australia adopted a carbon tax in 2012 that was repealed under popular pressure two years later.
Canada, meanwhile, has adopted a carbon tax scheme imposing a price of $20 per ton that applies to just four provinces (the others have set rates on carbon emissions that are already high enough to meet the new federal standards). Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has promised that 90 percent of the revenues collected will be rebated back to the residents of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, and New Brunswick.
Despite the rebate pledge, Yellow Vest protests against the new Canadian carbon tax broke out this past weekend in some cities, including Edmonton, Toronto, Winnipeg, Okanagan, Moncton, Calgary, Saskatoon, and Halifax.
A 2018 World Bank report identifies 51 carbon pricing initiatives as having already been implemented or as scheduled for implementation. These consist of 25 emissions trading systems, mostly located in subnational jurisdictions, and 26 carbon taxes primarily implemented on a national level.
While carbon taxes make sense to economists worried about climate change, raising the price of staples like transport fuel, heat, and electricity remains a steep political hill to climb.
For folks who are worried about climate change, a more politically popular approach might be to incentivize a vigorous technology research and development program that aims at making low carbon energy cheaper than fossil fuels. In the meantime, encouraging economic growth will help to create the wealth needed to adopt low carbon technologies and adapt to whatever harms may emerge from man-made global warming.
5 December 2018
A group of Harvard scientists plans to tackle climate change through geoengineering by blocking out the sun. The concept of artificially reflecting sunlight has been around for decades, yet this will be the first real attempt at controlling Earth’s temperature through solar engineering.
The project, called Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment(SCoPEx), will spend $3 million to test their models by launching a steerable balloon in the southwest US 20 kilometers into the stratosphere. Once the balloon is in place, it will release small particles of calcium carbonate. Plans are in place to begin the launch as early as the spring of 2019.
The basis around this experiment is from studying the effects of large volcanic eruptions on the planet’s temperature. In 1991, Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted spectacularly, releasing 20 million tonnes of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere. The sulfur dioxide created a blanket around Earth’s stratosphere, cooling the entire planet by 0.5 °C for around a year and a half.
Engineering A Solution To Climate Change
As scientists, governmental agencies around the world, and environmental groups grow increasingly worried of our collective ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and curb climate change, the idea of geoengineering a solution has become more accepted. The ultimate goal is to reduce the warming on Earth. This can be done by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, sucking CO2 from the atmosphere, or limiting the sunlight that reaches Earth’s surface.
The first two methods are actively discussed and implemented to various degrees. The recent commitment of G20 members (with the United States as the sole rejector) to the Paris Agreement will act to solve the source of the problem by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Sucking CO2 from the atmosphere and locking it away in Earth’s crust, called CO2 sequestration, has been implemented and deployed. For instance, Royal Dutch Shell has built large carbon sequestration facilities with the Canadian and Australian governments.
The third method, blocking out sunlight has been controversial in the scientific community for decades. The controversy lies in the inability to fully understand the consequences of partially blocking out sunlight. A reduction in global temperature is well understood and expected, however, there remain questions around this method’s impact on precipitation patterns, the ozone, and crop yields globally.
This is precisely why the Harvard research team intends to spray tiny chalk (calcium carbonate) particles into the stratosphere in a controlled experiment. Computer models can only go so far in predicting the impacts this geoengineering technique, it is time for a real world test. With funding in part by Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, the Harvard team will begin to answer the remaining questions as early as the spring of 2019.
While the potential negative effects are not fully characterized, the ability to control Earth’s temperature by spraying small particles into the stratosphere is an attractive solution largely due to its cost. The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report estimated that the continual release of particles into the stratosphere could offset 1.5 °C of warming for $1 billion to $10 billion per year.
When comparing these costs with the global reduction in fossil fuel use or carbon sequestration, the method becomes very attractive. Thus, scientists, government agencies and independent funders of this technology must balance the inexpensive and effectiveness of this method with the potential risks to global crops, weather conditions, and drought. Ultimately, the only way to fully characterize the risks is to conduct real-world experiments, just as the Harvard team is embarking upon.
I am a geologist passionate about sharing Earth’s intricacies with you. I received my PhD from Duke University where I studied the geology and climate of the Amazon. I am the founder of Science Trends, a leading source of science news and analysis on everything from climate.
Eco Liberty Conclusion: Sucking Carbon Dioxide (CO2) out of atmosphere will harm all plant life on earth because plants need Carbon Dioxide for photosynthesis to work. Four important element for plants to Sunlight, Water, Carbon Dioxide and the key elements like Nitrogen (N), Phosphorus (P), Potassium (K) and other essential nutrients that help plant growth. When Carbon Dioxide (CO2) atmospheric concentration drop to 150 ppm or below; plants growth shutdown and begin to die. When Carbon Dioxide (CO2) atmospheric concentration stay at 150 ppm or below long enough this could begin forth a major extinction on earth. CO2 is life we should be rejoicing by having CO2 atmospheric concentration surpassing the 400 ppm because plants are loving the extra CO2.
That we should never consent the geoengineering program in earth atmosphere because with the sulfur dioxide (SO2) being sprayed in the atmosphere in order to stop Climate Change is just madness. We already having a lot volcanoes erupting in 2018 according Volcano Discovery website which slow all active volcanoes including the Manam which is erupting and is inject more sulfur dioxide(SO2)into the atmosphere. I don’t why those mad scientist want to engineer the atmosphere? The Sun is going into minimum phase which mean the earth is going to be cooler in the coming years this proves that the driver of climate change is the Sun; Not CO2, Not humans, Not me, Not you.
7 December 2018
(Natural News) We were all taught how photosynthesis works in high school… or at least you should have been taught how it works. Photosynthesis is arguably the single most important metabolic process on the planet, and it is from this process that nearly all complex life is sustainted.
Photosynthesis is a process by which plants produce metabolic energy. Using this energy combined with elemental materials pulled from air and soil, they build tree trunks, food crops, leaves, pollen, seeds, stems and everything you’ve come to associate with living plants. Even alga use photosynthesis to grow and divide, which is why microalgae such as spirulina require sunlight to flourish.
Photosynthesis is the foundation of most food webs on the planet. Any rational scientist would agree that if photosynthesis were halted, nearly all recognizable life on planet Earth would be exterminated. This is inarguable.
Photosynthesis has three inputs:
1) Sunlight – a source of light energy
2) Carbon dioxide – an essential source of carbon, used by plants to build almost everything that plants need
3) Water – used by plants to maintain structure, circulate metabolic nutrients, etc.
Why do these three inputs matter so much? Because environmentalists have declared WAR on two out of those three: Sunlight and carbon dioxide
Environmentalists are at war with photosynthesis and all plant life on planet Earth
It seems impossible, but environmentalists are at war with two out of the three primary inputs required to sustain photosynthesis. First, they’re at war with carbon, and you often hear them talk about the “war on carbon” or “carbon sequestration” — a way to bury carbon in the ground so that it’s removed from atmospheric air.
Environmentalists have even declared carbon dioxide to be a “pollutant” even when it is the single most important molecule for supporting photosynthesis and nearly all plant life across the planet. Only a complete moron would declare war on the molecule of life that sustains trees, forests, plants, food crops, grasses, algae and seaweed, yet that’s exactly what environmentalists have done.
Their goal is the complete elimination of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere — an outcome that would exterminate all recognizable life on Earth. All in the name of being “green,” of course, since virtue signaling is more important than actually supporting living organisms these days.
If you’re not a chemist, you might be wondering, “So where’s the carbon in that?” Chemists laugh at the question because every intersection of black lines indicates a carbon atom. Carbon atoms are so common in organic chemistry that chemists don’t even note them because every diagram would be littered with the symbol for carbon.
As the molecular diagram shows, vitamin C is made of just three elements Carbon (C), Hydrogen (H) and Oxygen (O). Nothing else. The black lines are not elements; they merely indicate chemical bonds. Double lines indicate double bonds, and the stair-step lines indicate the 3D orientation of the elements.
Plants use the same three elements to build millions of different molecules, including medicinal nutrients and antibacterial phytochemicals
Did you notice that these same three elements are also found in photosynthesis? CO2 provides the Carbon. H2O provides the Hydrogen. Sunlight provides the energy. Vitamin C is synthesized by plants using carbon dioxide, hydrogen and metabolic energy for synthesis.
Any environmentalist who hates carbon dioxide must also hate vitamin C, herbal medicines, essential oils, nutrients, plant pigments and omega-3 oils… because they’re all made out of carbon. If you are at war with carbon, you are at war with life itself.
Many people who are into saving the planet are also into healthy, plant-based oils such as omega-3s or DHA. What an interesting coincidence, since DHA — Docosahexaenoic acid — is also made out of just three elements. Care to guess what they are?
Carbon, Hydrogen and Oxygen. (C22H32O2)
DHA is synthesized by various species of algae, and they use Carbon, Hydrogen and Oxygen to make DHA, a powerful brain-boosting nutrient that boosts the neurological development of babies.
Environmentalists must think DHA is bad, since it’s made out of carbon.
In fact, millions of useful molecules are made out of carbon. Many of them are synthesized by plants using nothing but carbon (from CO2), hydrogen (from water) and oxygen (from water or CO2).
Environmentalists who are at war with carbon are at war with LIFE
Just about every molecule you value — and nearly every molecule you’re made of — is made out of carbon. If you are at war with carbon, you are at war with LIFE on planet Earth. If you want to eliminate carbon dioxide, you are working to exterminate life. Yet probably 90% of college students today believe that carbon dioxide is a “pollutant” and they would politically support any effort to eliminate it, even if doing so resulted in global ecological collapse and the extinction of humanity.
Astonishingly, environmentalists have been so deeply brainwashed and deliberately mis-educated that they actually think carbon is bad. They must also hate themselves, since 96% of the human body is made of just four elements: Oxygen, Carbon, Hydrogen and Nitrogen. Roughly 18% of your body is carbon, by molecular weight. If you hate carbon, you hate yourself.
Maybe that’s why environmentalists are so full of hatred and ignorance: They are made of the very element they’ve declared war against. If you’ve ever wondered why Leftists are so angry all the time, it’s because they’re made of the very element they hate: Carbon.
Hydrocarbons release fresh carbon into the atmosphere where plants can use it to create valuable molecules that support life
Burning fossil fuels, by the way, means combusting hydrocarbons to release energy. One of the byproducts of burning fossil fuels is the release of CO2 into the atmosphere, providing fresh CO2 that plants are starving to harvest from the air. CO2 levels in the atmosphere right now are at near-emergency low levels of barely above 400 ppm. Forests, food crops and indigenous plants across the globe would flourish at double or triple the current level of CO2. If we had, for example, 1200 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, the Earth would be greener and more lush.
Yet for some reason, environmentalists hate the thought of plants having more nutrients. They want the Earth to be “green,” they say, by eliminating CO2 from the atmosphere, taking away the single most important nutrient for photosynthesis and plant metabolism.
The burning of fossil fuels releases nutrients into the air that plants need to survive. Instead of keeping all the carbon trapped underground, fossil fuel “consumption” actually frees carbon to be used by plants in support of a greener, more lush, more biodiverse ecosystem across the planet.
When carbon is trapped in fossil fuels under ground, that carbon is isolated from the plants that need it. When fossil fuels are burned, that carbon is finally released into the air so that plants can use it to synthesize the molecules we all use and enjoy, from vitamin C to anti-cancer compounds such as sulforaphane, found in broccoli. Yes, it’s made of carbon: (C6H11NOS2)
Sulforaphane is a lifesaving anti-cancer nutrient that’s synthesized by cruciferous vegetables which pull carbon dioxide out of the air in order to build sulforaphane molecules. If you hate carbon, you hate sulforaphane and millions of other plant-based molecules that are made out of carbon.
A war on carbon is a war on plants, nutrition, herbs, natural medicine, superfoods and life itself. Only a complete moron, a raging lunatic or a brainwashed idiot could be convinced to think that carbon is bad for the planet. Yet that describes about 90% of the “scientific establishment,” now consisting of complete anti-science idiots who have forgotten how photosynthesis works and why it’s the basis of ecology for the entire planet.
If you really want to “green” the planet, keep consuming clean sources of hydrocarbons such as natural gas, because they release trapped carbon into the atmosphere where plants can finally use it. Even burning gasoline in your vehicle actually releases CO2 that plants can use. Far from destroying the world, fossil fuels are actually the very source of carbon that can help “green” the world. If you don’t understand that, you don’t understand the very basis of life on our planet: Photosynthesis.
And if you support the elimination of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, you support the extermination of all complex life on planet Earth.
If environmentalists succeed in eliminating carbon, they will exterminate life on Earth
Notably, if environmentalists ever succeed in eliminating carbon from the atmosphere, they will almost instantly exterminate all recognizable life on Earth.
Is this their goal? Is the environmental movement some kind of suicide cult? Or, better yet, are they actually pushing an insidious agenda of terraforming planet Earth to make it uninhabitable by humans?
Or are they just stupid and suicidal? Personally, I wouldn’t necessarily mind all the environmentalists going off to their own planet somewhere and exterminating themselves with their suicidal intentions, but the problem we have is that they are trying to murder the planet where the rest of us live. That cannot be allowed. The life-killing lunatics must be stopped. They are ecological murderers… botanical eugenicists. They want to destroy all plant life on Earth in the name of “saving the planet,” and they don’t seem to mind the fact that human civilization cannot possibly survive their insane agendas rooted in either mass delusion or murderous intent. They’re either trying to kill all life on the planet, in other words, or they’re so incredibly stupid that they’ve been talked into supporting mass murder in the name of environmentalism.
Either way, they are death cult lunatics, and if we hope to survive their dangerous, planet-killing schemes like “carbon sequestration” or “global dimming” (see below), we must rip these lunatics from power, take their hands off the controls and put them all in straight jackets where they belong.
Simply put, there is no future for the human race if the current breed of lunatic environmentalists are allowed to run their “death cult” programs that would shut down photosynthesis and exterminate all recognizable life on our planet. Thank God carbon dioxide is produced by every living mammal on the planet — including you — meaning that you can help save the planet by taking a jog and simply exhaling.
In the spirit of that simple, inescapable truth, I propose a new bumper sticker: Piss off a liberal. Just BREATHE.
The war on sunlight and the new scheme of “global dimming”
Waging war on carbon isn’t the end of the lunacy of whacko environmentalists. They also think there’s something wrong with sunlight, another key input for photosynthesis. They’ve launched a program of “global dimming” that seeks to literally pollute the atmosphere by dispersing millions of tons of smog (sulfur dioxide) into the atmosphere, running 4,000 flights a year over the next 15 years, all in the name of “geoengineering” the atmosphere. (These are the same lunatics who said “chemtrails” were a conspiracy theory; now they’ve re-named it “Stratospheric Aerosol Injection” and claim it will save the world.)
In essence, they are terraforming the Earth and making it uninhabitable by humans. Are they completely insane, or are they prepping the planet for colonization by something that isn’t human? (Coming soon: Terraforming.news)
See full coverage of that crucial issue at this story on Natural News called “Terraforming has begun: Global dimming is a plot to exterminate humanity.”
Since Donald Trump was elected back in 2016; he exit out the Paris Climate agreement. 2 Year later the kids want to Sue the Trump Administration for not Taking on Climate Change and not going long with the scam. For my point of view: For those kid; you been brainwashed to believe that Global warming is an issue and as human being we are blamed for it. And all the Climate Change alarmism is being taught in school indoctrinating children to believe that human are blame for climate change like:
- Carbon Dioxide is a pollination
- Ice is melting
- Polar bear population is declining
- Cow farts causing an increase of greenhouse gases
- Wind turbines and solar are good sources of energy
- Carbon Tax will save the planet
The real facts are
- Carbon Dioxide is plant food (Between 1,000 to 1,500 ppm is an optimal CO2 level for plants growth. The raising CO2 level is greening the planet. But not enough CO2 (200 ppm or less) plants will not grow but too much CO2 (above 2,000 ppm) is toxic
- Ice melts in the summer and grow in the winter. Back in 2014 Antarctica have the record high level of ice with surface area of 20.11 million square kilometers (7.76 million square miles). Back in 2009 in the Copenhagen Climate Al Gore claims Arctic will be ice free by 2014 or 2016 according to this video
But Al Gore you’re way off because it’s now 2018 and the polar ice in arctic is there.The Arctic Ice is getting thick this image prove that is the case from Polar Portal
Arctic Ice volume 25 August 2008
Arctic Ice volume 25 August 2018
Those two image prove that arctic is getting thicker. Arctic will still have ice in the next decade with the up coming solar minimum which will be call the Eddy Minimum
- Polar bear population is booming and thriving. Population is estimated to around 22,000 to 30,000 which will around 4 to 6 fold since the 1950s despite fears about global warming’s impact on polar bears even spurred the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to say that the bear was “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act in 2008. If polar bear is thriving why is still declared “threatened”?
- Methane is excuse that Climate alarmist like to use push their agenda to deindustrialize the agriculture industry and to tax meat and then bring forth meat prohibition as well other animal products in the name of sustainability and saving the planet. Without the Greenhouse effect on earth will be much colder
- Wind and solar are not reliable source of energy on a large sale because you need wind for wind turbines to work; you need sun for solar panels to work; Wind don’t always blow and sun don’t always shine. They’re also expensive as well. Wind turbine is harming the bird population that why Wind Turbine is call “bird killers”. Humans and animals living near the Wind Turbine could having some negative health effect on them.
- Carbon Tax will bring forth deindustrialization, create jobs losses, undermine the economy, make Electricity and Gasoline more expensive, make everyday life a living hell.
All I can say that: I been there; I used to believe that global warming was issue in my late teens and my early 20s and I end have a Malthusianist mindset by thinking that depopulation was necessary to combat Climate Change. Believing in Climate alarmism may you into a anti-human mindset. Oh boy that the road I never want go back on because that a mindset a psychopath would have. The climate alarmist also they want climate skeptics arrested and throw in prison and those who even disagree with them; this is dangerous; the elite know that climate alarmism ideology is felling apart and they want to being as much people with them.
To the Climate Alarmist you can raise up above the fear you taught to believe. I don’t have all the answers; I know that many Climate Alarmist will continue in their falsehood what Elites have indoctrinated them with. I try do make it easier as I can your to understand the information. Even that don’t believe every word I post in the article I best to do your own research. That why I got several link that you chick and decide for yourself.
Watts Up With What
11 October 2018
Solutions such as geoengineering will not make enough of a difference.
By Steinar Brandslet
The countries of the world still need to cut their carbon dioxide emissions to reach the Paris Agreement’s climate targets. Relying on tree planting and alternative technological
“We can’t rely on geoengineering to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement,” says Helene Muri, a researcher from NTNU’s Industrial Ecology Programme. She was also one of the lead authors of a recent article in Nature Communications that looked at different climate geoengineering projects in the context of limiting global warming.
The average temperature on Earth is rising. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has recommended limiting this warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius, and better yet to less than 1.5 degrees. These targets were set in the 2015 Paris Agreement, which was ratified by nearly all nations.
Various geoengineering options are among the solutions being considered. They involve intervening directly in the Earth’s climate system to prevent temperatures from rising as much as would otherwise happen due to the increasing amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Geoengineering comprises reducing atmospheric CO2 levels, or reducing the effect of the Sun.
Untested, uncertain, and risky
Can we remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere with the help of technology or capture more CO2 by planting millions of trees? Can we reflect more of the Sun’s radiation by injecting particles into the atmosphere?
“Several techniques could help to limit climate change. But they’re still untested, uncertain and risky technologies that present a lot of ethical and practical feasibility problems,” say Muri and her colleagues.
In short, we just don’t know enough about these technologies and the consequences of putting them to use, the researchers say.
Tree planting sparks major political problems, for example. A lot of forest land has been cut to grow food, which limits how much of acreage can be reforested. Recent research also raises the question as to whether or not additional forest land can predictably lower temperatures. Data simulations from NTNU and Giessen University show that temperatures may increase, at least locally.
Another mitigation proposal is the use of biochar, which is charcoal that can be ploughed into the ground to store carbon that would otherwise escape into the atmosphere as CO2. Here the question is whether it is really conceivable to carry this out on a large enough scale to make a difference. The researchers’ consensus? Hardly.
How about adding nutrients to the sea to spur phytoplankton blooms that could sequester carbon? This proposal involves fertilizing iron-poor regions of the ocean. However, the potential side effects could be huge, disrupting local nutrient cycles and perhaps even increasing the production of N2O, another greenhouse gas.
We simply don’t know enough yet. Some potential solutions might even do more harm than good. The authors of the article encourage more discussion and learning.
NETs and airy plans
So what about “negative emissions technologies”, often abbreviated as NETs? NETs involve removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, specifically CO2. Some of these proposed techniques could work well on a global scale. But some of them are expensive and are still in their infancy in terms of technology.
Prototypes for direct carbon capture from the air already exist. This technology shows great potential, but would require a lot of energy and significant infrastructure if done at scale. Cost estimates range from $20 to more than $1000 per tonne of captured CO2. If you consider that the countries of the world emitted more than 40 billion tonnes of CO2 in 2017, it quickly becomes clear that financing this approach would be prohibitively expensive.
Adding particles to the air would require regular refills and probably planes or drones dedicated to the task. The concept might be feasible, but the side-effects are unclear.
And so it goes on for one potentially grand proposal after another. In sum, these ideas are simply too little, too late – or too expensive.
“None of the proposed techniques can realistically be implemented on a global scale in the next few decades. In other words, we can’t rely on these technologies to make any significant contribution to holding the average temperature increase under the 2 degree C limit, much less the 1.5 degree limit, says lead author Mark Lawrence, Director of the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS) in Potsdam.
No substitutes for cutting emissions
Emissions reductions could still salvage the Paris Agreement’s 2 degree C goal. But the challenge in meeting this goal is that the Earth’s increasing population, which has also seen a steady increase in the standard of living, will have to decrease the amount of greenhouse gases that are being emitted into the atmosphere compared to today.
Most of the IPCC scenarios include some form of geoengineering, typically afforestation and bioenergy, coupled with carbon capture and storage, especially if the goal is to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees by the end of this century.
The researchers behind the study warn against relying on solutions other than clear-cut emissions reductions. Otherwise, there is a danger that technological solutions may be seen as substitutes for cutting emissions, which they are not.
Evaluating climate geoengineering proposals in the context of the Paris Agreement temperature goals. Mark G. Lawrence, Stefan Schäfer, Helene Muri, Vivian Scott, Andreas Oschlies, Naomi E. Vaughan, Olivier Boucher, Hauke Schmidt, Jim Haywood & Jürgen Scheffran. Nature Communications volume 9, Article number: 3734 (2018) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05938-3
13 August 2018
(Natural News) Which planet sounds like a better place to live: One that is full of plants and trees and teeming with wildlife and biodiversity with plenty of food to go around, or a cold and barren one with a starving and dying-off population? If you’re like most people, you would choose the first option without hesitation. If you’re Carl Zimmer of the New York Times, however, it’s that second scenario that is inexplicably more appealing.
He wrote that “rising CO2 levels are making the world greener, but that’s nothing to celebrate.” It’s not? Reforestation, greening and food crop production are nothing to celebrate? Unfortunately, there is a lot of ignorance floating around about the topic of carbon and what it does to and in the environment. Climate change alarmists have been pushing the narrative that carbon is bad for the planet for so long that it’s frighteningly easy for the mainstream media to get away with expressing such ludicrous views. People read stories like Zimmer’s and simply nod in agreement because they think it’s what those who care about the planet should believe – never mind the fact that basic science tells us otherwise.
Respected ecologist Patrick Moore was quick to call out the article, calling the widely-read paper quote “a bad joke.” He believes the world is currently deficient in carbon dioxide compared to geological epochs in the past. He explained why he considers 800 to 1200 ppm of carbon dioxide to be the optimal level, pointing out that planting crops that are grown in greenhouses that have carbon dioxide pumped into them are ridiculously effective. Why would anyone use a greenhouse in the first place if carbon dioxide was actually bad?
He tweeted: “Try to tell a greenhouse grower that the effect of higher CO2 is “small.” They will laugh you out of the room with their 25-80% gain in yield.”
Even environmental journalist Andrew Revkin, who concedes that he has a lot of questions about carbon dioxide, said that Zimmer’s choice of the word “terrible” is without merit.
CO2 levels need to be higher, not lower
Plants simply can’t survive without carbon dioxide, and it’s already at dangerously low levels. If today’s levels were doubled, our planet would be lusher, with rain forests flourishing and deserts growing forests. This would lead to a more abundant food supply, better self-sufficiency and thriving life, as Mike Adams discusses in the must-see video “Carbon Dioxide: The Miracle Molecule of Life.”
Carbon dioxide is essential for life, and plants use it not only for breathing but to synthesize medicinal molecules like vitamin C, curcumin, and cannabidiol. It is not the enemy that it has been made out to be by those who don’t know any better.
Here is what would really happen if we didn’t have carbon dioxide on our planet: Plants would die, our food web would essentially collapse, and humans would become extinct. Those who are fighting the war against carbon are either completely clueless, blinded by greed because they stand to profit on some sort of global warming “solution,” or they simply want everyone to die.
Sources for this article include:
US EPA chief comes out and says that CO2 is not the primary driver of the climate and that it is impossible to correctly measure the entire surface of the globe to get a true assessment of changes in Earth’s climate system. Australia is closing the Hazelwood power plant that is a back up for South Australia if power from wind is not available, now what, no back up for that. Snow on tap for the SE USA in the coming week and new food growing techniques with SquareRoots LED Vertical farms.
My Conclusion: I enjoy watching David’s youtube video Adapt 2030 because he talks about the oncoming little ice age. I enjoying watch what Trump EPA chief (Scott Pruitt) quote that “I believe that we as an agency and we as a nation can be both pro energy and pro jobs and pro environment; that we don’t have to choose between the two” and Scott Pruitt have that well covered that we can be both pro economy and pro environment and you have to choose between the two. For Me I’m pro environment but I also pro economy; I understand that environment is important but having a good economy in a nation is also important. But left will say that “no the environment is always important; environment and economic can’t coexist. you have to sacrifice economy for the rights of nature” and you can find that on Zero Hedge. I will say that “don’t listen to the left wingers; don’t let them let you otherwise” As it said in the video about Hazelwood power plant in Australia closing down and cause a lost of a 1,000 jobs according to The Guardian. That is done with in the of stopping Climate Change and protecting the rights of nature; that just insanity. I cover more news related to this topic.
Date: 17 November 2016
Author: Marc Morano
Source: Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences
Date: 16 January 2016
Increased CO2 enhances plankton growth
Coccolithophores—tiny calcifying plants that are part of the foundation of the marine food web—have been increasing in relative abundance in the North Atlantic over the last 45 years, as carbon input into ocean waters has increased. Their relative abundance has increased 10 times, or by an order of magnitude, during this sampling period. This finding was diametrically opposed to what scientists had expected since coccolithophores make their plates out of calcium carbonate, which is becoming more difficult as the ocean becomes more acidic and pH is reduced. Continue reading Increased Carbon Dioxide enhances plankton growth as well as plant growth