Natural Gas Has Been Driving America’s Declining Emissions, Not Moronic “Green” Policies
I would add two things -- 1) CO2 is beneficial plant food and climate change is one of the globalists' all time biggest hoaxes and 2) The environmentalists which have blocked new natural gas pipelines across NY and Massachusetts into Maine, have caused Maine electricity prices to increase as a result. These groups should be outlawed on the basis of their incessant destructive lying. All paid shills.
The Carbon Offset Dilemma
Paul Mueller
– February 27, 2024
Last year’s UN Climate Conference (COP28), was described as an “open-air bazaar” of companies and countries hawking their fashionable wares — carbon offsets. Even cultural icon Taylor Swift regularly utilizes carbon offsets. Yet the effectiveness of many kinds of carbon offsets is highly questionable.
A great deal of ambiguity and conflict exists when it comes to what counts as a carbon offset and who gets to sell it. These issues cannot be easily ironed out. Instead, they reveal deep problems inherent within the carbon offset project.
Consider the “simple” carbon abatement project of maintaining one square mile of rainforest. In a simple world, a German or French power company committed to net zero might build a new gas-powered refinery instead of a wind farm because it is cheaper and more reliable. Yet modern gas-powered plants, though having low emissions by historical standards, will still emit a significant amount of CO2.
Enter a forest carbon offset.
Perhaps one square mile of forest would pull the equivalent amount of CO2 out of the atmosphere as the power plant puts into it. If the power company planted one square mile of forest, or paid someone else to do so, they could theoretically build that new power plant without contributing net CO2 emissions.
But what if the forest already exists and the power company is paying simply to preserve it? If we knew for sure that the square mile of forest was going to be cut down, and the payment by the power company would prevent it from being cut down, then we could reasonably say that the power company “offsets” its new carbon emissions by maintaining the equivalent amount of carbon capture that would otherwise not exist.
Now for the problems.
What if the forest was never likely to be cut down in the first place? In that case, the “carbon offset” does not meaningfully offset additional carbon dioxide emissions. Many people are concerned about just this kind of fraud, primarily that it does nothing to help the environment. In fact, it harms the environment because companies can justify producing more CO2 emissions while claiming to have no net impact.
But consider the incentives and disincentives policing such an approach creates. Countries might intentionally “endanger” their forests so that they can credibly argue that their carbon offset really makes a difference in preventing deforestation. Similarly, not allowing countries or companies to sell credits for existing forests penalizes them for not allowing deforestation in the past. If country A allowed mass deforestation while country B didn’t, country A may now be in a superior position to offer meaningful forest carbon offsets because they can plant so many more trees.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist, or an economist, to see that country B might want to reduce the size of its forests so that it can enter the carbon offset game – especially as increasing sums of money are being thrown into that market.
Encouraging countries to cut down their forests to access billions of dollars of climate mitigation money seems counterproductive. So does allowing companies to increase their emissions while pretending that they are not. Virtue-signaling executives, like those at Hess, create a serious dilemma when they spend hundreds of millions of shareholder dollars to “prevent” forest land from being cut down.
Such a dilemma suggests we should look for a different approach entirely.
CO2 Emissions in the United States have been declining for over a decade, no thanks to carbon offsets. While one might be tempted to attribute that decline to more solar and wind energy production, the real story is that we have shifted to using more natural gas to generate energy, which produces less emissions.
We should cheer for greater adoption of natural gas, not kill it. Similarly, we should encourage the development of another major energy source, nuclear power, to reduce emissions. This does not require billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies. It requires rolling back a labyrinth of unnecessary regulatory red tape.
Both of these approaches will be better for the environment without creating perverse incentives and wasting resources on carbon offsets. We also get the benefit of abundant cheap energy thrown in. What’s not to like?
One really has to question the motives of climate activists who oppose the expansion of natural gas and nuclear power. Do they want to see realistic and sustainable environmental improvement or are they after some other kind of payout?
If we want to support poorer countries’ economic development, reducing our trade barriers and tariffs would be a better approach. Encouraging institutional reform leading to clearer property rights, rule of law, and limited government is the surest way to improve the lives of people in developing countries in the long-run.
And for those who want developing countries to preserve and improve their local ecosystems today, contributing their own time and financial resources is a much better approach than fleecing investors to dubious effect. But in the long run, wealth creation, property rights, and the rule of law have the best track record for improving the environment.
Weblinks:
https://thelibertydaily.com/natural-gas-has-been-driving-americas-d...
https://www.aier.org/article/the-carbon-offset-dilemma/
Tucker Carlson Says the 2020 Election Was "100% Stolen" From President Trump
https://rumble.com/v4g31xt-tucker-carlson-says-the-2020-election-wa...
The CIA Murdered The 1st Amendment
Catherine Herridge was simply too damn good at her job reporting on Biden's corruption.
https://www.infowars.com/posts/the-cia-murdered-the-1st-amendment/
Dennis Kucinich with Steve Bannon wanting to make America great again
https://rumble.com/v4fgj4o-kucinich-in-order-for-america-to-be-free...
Views: 17
Comment
-
Comment by Willem Post on February 28, 2024 at 12:43pm
-
Wow, it does not get much better than this.
.
The Washington, DC, perpetrators of these EV follies want to be re-elected to have power over you, to use more of your money, to do more of the same follies, “for as long as it takes”, while they debilitate the US with open borders and over-top-war mongering
.
All that is even more true, because the EV charging stations are unreliable, often are out of service, and to top it of, EVs are unreliable, have high repair bills, and have poor range in cold weather, especially when having more than one passenger, and some cargo, and going uphill, on cold, snowy days, as in New England, etc.
.
Currently, the vast majority of charging infrastructure is concentrated in more densely populated coastal areas, as opposed to more rural areas of the country, according to the Department of Energy (DOE).
.
Almost all people in rural areas, often with dirt roads, and snow and ice and cold, and longer distances, are definitely not giving up their pick-ups and SUVs to “switch to EVs”, especially in impoverished states, such as Maine and Vermont. Their Socialist governments lost all sense of reality, and think money grows on trees..
Hertz has an EV fleet, and sold most of it at very low prices, because nobody wanted to rent them.
Nowadays, most EVs are bought under a lease, by upper class folks, because they make too much money to qualify for the EV tax credit
I read a lot of great comments.
We have to vote Trump in by a landslide, so all these idiotic self-serving politicians get wiped out all over the country, and out of the Congress, so Trump can unto the Biden damage, especially at the border, because every illegal is a Democrat vote.
DEPORT ALL THE ILLEGALS, INCLUDING ILLEGAL CRIMINALS
.
Wow, it does not get much better than this.
.
The Washington, DC, perpetrators of these EV follies want to be re-elected to have power over you, to use more of your money, to do more of the same follies, “for as long as it takes”, while they debilitate the US with open borders and over-top-war mongering
.
All that is even more true, because the EV charging stations are unreliable, often are out of service, and to top it of, EVs are unreliable, have high repair bills, and have poor range in cold weather, especially when having more than one passenger, and some cargo, and going uphill, on cold, snowy days, as in New England, etc.
.
Currently, the vast majority of charging infrastructure is concentrated in more densely populated coastal areas, as opposed to more rural areas of the country, according to the Department of Energy (DOE).
.
Almost all people in rural areas, often with dirt roads, and snow and ice and cold, and longer distances, are definitely not giving up their pick-ups and SUVs to “switch to EVs”, especially in impoverished states, such as Maine and Vermont. Their Socialist governments lost all sense of reality, and think money grows on trees.Insurance Costs Very High: Because EVs are much more costly to repair, EV insurance rates are about 3 times the rate of gasoline vehicles, completely wiping out any energy savings.
.
Monthly Payments Very High: Because EVs are more expensive and interest rates are high, monthly payments are much higher than for gasoline cars, completely wiping out any benefits of tax credit subsidies.
.
Useful Service Life Very Short: EV useful service lives are very short, usually at most 8 years.
No one in his/her right mind, would spend at least $15,000 to $20,000 to replace a battery in an 8-y-old EV, which by then. would have lost almost all of its value, unlike a gasoline vehicle.
.
Charging Cost Very High: EV charging cost is very high on the road, usually at least 30 c/kWh, at home at least 20 c/kWh in New England
As a result, annual fuel cost savings are minimal, because EVs are driven fewer miles per year than gasoline cars, and the price of gasoline is about $3.20/gallon
.
Minimal CO2 Reduction: EVs driven, on average, about 72,000 miles for 8 years, according to various studies, do not reduce CO2 emissions compared to efficient gasoline vehicles driven the same miles, if CO2 evaluations are made on a mine to hazardous-waste landfill basis, and same-mile basis.
The useful service lives of gasoline cars is much longer than of EVs.
.
Range Usually Much Less Than Advertised: EV owners experience much less range than advertised by EPA, especially with one or more passengers, with some luggage or a heavy load, cold weather, up and down hills, on wet/snowy dirt roads, hot weather, etc.
Teslas EVs, driven 75,000 to 80,000 miles, will have lost about 15 to 20% of battery capacity at end of year 8.
If traveling with one or more passengers, with some luggage, was a challenge on a longer trip, and even more of a challenge on a cold/snowy day, then an older EV, with an aging battery, has all that, and more, which is a good reason not to buy one.
.
Battery Aging a Serious Issue: If a new EV, it takes about 1.15 kWh to add a 1.0 kWh charge in the battery, plus, there is a loss of about 5% to get 1.0 kWh out of the battery to the drive train of the EV, etc.
If a 5-y-old EV, it takes about 1.25 kWh to add 1.0 kWh charge in the battery, plus there is a loss of about 5.5% to get 1.0 kWh out of the battery
The older the EV, the greater the losses, plus the battery has lost capacity, the ability to do work and go the distance; all that is worse on a cold day, or hot day, heavy loads, and other adverse conditions.
.
Charging Batteries at Less than 32 F: If an EV owner parks at an airport, goes away for a few days or a week, upon return he/she may find the EV with an empty battery (if the battery had a somewhat low charge to begin with), if during that week the weather were below freezing, because the battery thermal management system, BTMS, will maintain battery temperature, until the battery is empty, then the battery freezes to 32F, or less.
Charging would not be allowed, until the battery is warmed up in a garage.
In the future, with thousands of EVs at the airport, a percentage would have empty batteries. You would have to wait your turn to get a tow to the warm garage, get charged, pay up to $500, and be on your way, after 8 hours or so!!
.
Losing Value After 3 Years: Used EVs retain about 60% of their high original value, whereas gasoline vehicles retain at least 70% of their not so high original value, by the end of year 3.
Losing 40% of a $45,000 EV = $18,000
Losing 30% of an equivalent size, $35,000 gasoline vehicle = $10,500
The loss difference wipes out any tax credit subsidies.
.
LEGISLATOR’s CHEVY BOLT CATCHES FIRE WHILE CHARGING ON DRIVEWAY IN VERMONT
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/chevy-bolt-catches-fir...
-
Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on February 27, 2024 at 11:44am
-
Green Billionaires Press Hollywood to Promote Armageddon Climate Messages in Movies
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/02/27/green-billionaires-press-hollyw...
Maine as Third World Country:
CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power
Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.
Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT
******** IF LINKS BELOW DON'T WORK, GOOGLE THEM*********
(excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010 https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/From Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?" https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-swept-task-force-set-the-rules/From Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.” https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/flaws-in-bill-like-skating-with-dull-skates/
Not yet a member?
Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?
We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
-- Mahatma Gandhi
"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi
Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!
Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law
Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future
"Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine."
https://pinetreewatch.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/
© 2024 Created by Webmaster.
Powered by
You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!
Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine