A22: Global Warming: What's the Bill P5

More on climate change. We have looked at the general theory and the myth; now let’s look at the costs. Yes, I know, it has been over three months since we started this climate extravaganza, and we do need to come to an end. Therefore, I shall make a promise to you: until we have reached our conclusion, all the time I can spare shall be dedicated to this aim. Victory or Death! (So sad, no more Latin and Shakespeare😔).

Delaying the Climate

It’s time to put some numbers behind all this science, and what better place to start than to look over to our Western neighbors across the Atlantic. The German government certainly is dedicated to saving the Earth. They are investing $110 billion in subsidies for solar panels. Think about the good they will do. By the end of it, they will have slowed climate change by a whole 37 hours. Now, isn’t that a bargain?

What? Is this not good enough for you? Do you not care?

At least the European Union still cares, as they plan to spend $7 trillion on climate policies. By the turn of the century, these policies will reduce the temperature rise by 0.05 degrees Celsius and lower sea levels by a whopping nine millimeters.

What is the cost of cutting carbon emissions (As a reference: total European emissions are 3 billion tons; total U.S. emissions are 6.3 billion tons of CO₂)? In Germany, offshore wind turbines cost about $150 per ton of CO₂ reduced. Biofuels cost more than $300 per ton of CO₂. Solar is king, however, costing more than $800 per ton of CO₂.

These prices are not unique to Europe, as for one example the United States pays around $600 for cutting a ton of CO₂ with biofuels. All this spending, based on their data, will return only about three cents for every dollar spent.

Well, we must do something, otherwise CO₂ is going to kill us all. Any small step is better than nothing.

Unfortunately, my friend, we have not gotten out of bed, let alone started to walk. When the EU decides to cut its domestic emissions, the reduction simply migrates elsewhere. From 1990 to 2008, the EU cut its emissions by about 270 million metric tons of CO₂. However, it turns out that the increase in imports from China alone resulted in an almost equal volume of extra emissions outside the European Union. Essentially, they merely shipped the emissions offshore.

If you think the European Union is bad, we are in quite the gutter ourselves. However, let’s save those truly juicy details for the next post when we dive into wind and solar.

Now, where would this shopping spree be without a little United Nations action? The World Economic Forum seeks to spend $14 trillion to “green” the global economy to “keep a lid on global warming,” and the International Energy Agency seeks $5 trillion on alternative energy projects.

However, the cream of the crop has to belong to the UN Paris Climate Agreement (I couldn’t make this up if I tried). This righteous treaty carries with it a $100 trillion price tag which by 2100 will reduce the global temperatures by 0.23 degrees Fahrenheit. This action will delay global warming by a total of — drum roll please — eight months.

Stop. Think about this number. Step away from the shouting media. If you looked at a weather app and it was 0.23 degrees warmer than expected, would this change how you dress or alter any other important aspect of your life?

Also remember, these benefits are guessed at by using their broken models and their faulty science. One only has to remember that 18-year pause in global temperature increases from October 1996 until the 2015-2016 El Niño to call into question such claims.

It’s all funny money at this point. I might as well demand $10 billion to go protect unicorns or maybe a few trillion to hunt down Bigfoot, and I will probably achieve more than these modern mystics. I do wonder if they have exercised that little body part called the brain before.

Even Charles McConnell, former Assistant Secretary of Energy under the Obama administration reluctantly admits the failure of such policies. He stated Regarding a signature policy of the Obama administration, the Clean Power Plan, he stated:

McConnell’s full testimony can be found here. This policy was continued under the Biden administration.

Biofuel

Before we continue, we should take some time to discuss biofuel: a fuel made from recently living biological material. Here’s a quick introduction to the market. The most common biofuel is ethanol, which is ~70% of global biofuel consumption. Ethanol is made from 94% corn, and 40% of all corn grown goes to ethanol. Corn makes up about ~27% of the crop market production value.

About 10% of our gasoline is made with ethanol. But how effective is it really? Burning biomass, whether directly as wood or in the form of ethanol or biodiesel, emits carbon dioxide just like burning fossil fuels. Currently modeling assumes that biofuel is net neutral in emissions.

Plants absorb CO₂ → we turn them into ethanol → we burn ethanol → CO₂ goes back → net = 0

However, the real system is not a perfect loop. From 2005-2013 biogenic emissions (carbon production from plants) increased annually from a rise in biofuel production. Planted areas of most other field crops declined during this period, so this increased CO2 uptake can be attributed to crops grown for biofuels.

These new crops only absorbed 37% of the carbon they produced (49 TgC/132 TgC). Using the claim of net neutrality (100% carbon absorption rate) modern environmentalists claim that corn ethanol is 44% less carbon-intensive than petroleum gasoline. However, if we use the realistic 37% absorption rate, corn ethanol is 27% more carbon-intensive than gasoline.

This means that fuel from corn produces more carbon than fuel from gasoline, therefore corn/crops have no future as a reducer of carbon emissions. (Here is an actual scientific paper on the topic, unlike the naive notions of modern academia).

To further emphasize the point, the total amount of energy in all the crops, plant residues, and wood harvested, and biomass grazed by livestock around the world was roughly 225 EJ. To replace 20% of fossil fuel energy (180 EJ) by 2050 at very optimistic conversion rates would require the entirety of human plant harvests. We would neither be able to eat nor use plants in any way to help us survive. It is safe to say whoever dreamt up the idea that biofuel was our future probably smoked a little too much in the bathroom.

What’s really changing

Since 1908, fossil fuels have made up about 85% of U.S. energy consumption. Despite the changes in fuel sources, fossil fuels have roughly maintained that same percentage. Funnily enough, non-hydro renewable energy is lower today than it was in 1908.

For all the hype, solar and wind make up less than 3% of total energy production in the United States. This number has risen only 2 percentage points in the past 35 years. One blatant lie stated by these agenda pushers is the conflation of the rise of renewables in electricity with their rise in total energy production. Yes, renewable energy as a percentage of electricity has been rising, yet electricity is only a small subset of energy production and therefore is a poor metric in determining the greenness of our economy.

On the other hand, from1970 to 2010, emissions of key air pollutants have declined nearly 90%, even as coal-based electricity generation increased 180%, miles traveled rose 170%, and the U.S. population grew by 110 million. Today’s air quality is safe, and pollution continues to decline even without all the climate regulations.

Coal, oil, and natural gas properly produced in the United States are clean fuel sources. We need them; yet if we deny production, we will be reliant on dirty countries for these materials.

How Do People Feel

Do people really care as much as the media wishes to claim? A 2016 Gallup poll found that environmental issues were the least important for Americans, with only 3% citing the environment as the most important issue.

Researchers from Yale University found only 17% of Americans are “extremely concerned” about global warming and want immediate action, while another 28% are “concerned,” but don’t think it’s an immediate problem. The poll estimates about 10% of Americans reject global warming’s scientific validity, and 11% think the science behind global warming is dubious. Roughly 27% of the population doesn’t know what to believe about global warming, and the remaining 7% don’t care. 

Despite the heavy media and political pressure, Americans aren’t very concerned about global warming. We have far more pressing concerns to worry about. That’s all for now. Next time will be the renewable twins: solar and wind.

Your Humble and Obedient Servant,

Francisco Pereira

Love at Linderman

This mini article has been sitting on the shelf for four months now, so I just decided to throw it in here for the heck of it.  Who knows how relevant it is anymore.

Sorry, ladies, if you were looking for a love story I hate to disappoint. However, there has been a trend at Linderman. Looking over at the front desk, I am seeing more and more men attempting to flirt with women. Time and place gents, time and place. If you think the girl is cute, man up and ask her on a date. Otherwise, move along.

Other News

1.      If any of you have been checking the rest of the website, you may have noticed the colors red and gold. These colors were inspired by the Roman Empire. What a time to live, especially after Emperor Theodosius the Great. Label me authoritarian if you like as I’m not a believer in compromise. If something is wrong, it must be fully corrected without hesitation. The time of decay is over, and so we shall have order in this nation once more.

2.      I’ve gotten another little special piece on the way for those who know where to look. I should warn you however, it might get a little steamy. 😘