NOW That We Know Renewables Can’t ‘Save The Planet’, Are We Really Going To Stand By And Let Them Destroy It?Posted: March 2, 2019
“REMEMBER when we paved the world with electronic waste
that chopped eagles and condors and made bats extinct
because we thought wind was natural and uranium evil?
– man that was a dark age!”
– Michael Shellenberger
ONE of the great falsehoods and dangerous myths pushed by reckless
global warming climate change zealots and the mainstream media is that ‘renewable energy’ – wind and solar – is “clean, green and renewable”.
‘RENEWABLES’ are neither “clean, green, or renewable”. In fact, they are pure embodiments of fossil fuel technology, with oil and coal derivatives required for :
WIND and solar power are incredibly land intensive owing to the inherent low-energy density of their electrons. And, the small fact that the sun only shines and the wind only blows 10-40% of the time.
HOW much land and how many wind turbines would be needed just to supply the planets ‘new’ demand for energy?
If wind turbines were to supply all of that growth but no more, how many would need to be built each year? The answer is nearly 350,000, since a two-megawatt turbine can produce about 0.005 terawatt-hours per annum. That’s one-and-a-half times as many as have been built in the world since governments started pouring consumer funds into this so-called industry in the early 2000s.
At a density of, very roughly, 50 acres per megawatt, typical for wind farms, that many turbines would require a land area greater than the British Isles, including Ireland. Every year. If we kept this up for 50 years, we would have covered every square mile of a land area the size of Russia with wind farms. Remember, this would be just to fulfil the new demand for energy, not to displace the vast existing supply of energy from fossil fuels, which currently supply 80 per cent of global energy needs.
IF Greens love nature, why aren’t they more concerned about carpeting pristine landscapes with industrial wind turbines?
“SAVING THE PLANET”
IF ‘Greens’ were serious about “Saving The Planet”, they would be embracing (CO2-free) nuclear energy.
THE fact that they are not, says a lot about today’s New Green Climate Warrior – concerned more about totalitarian power and control than tangible care of the physical environment.
IMHO, ‘Climate Change’ has absolutely nothing to do with the environment or “Saving The Planet”. If it did, every
global warming climate change bedwetter would be castigating China for unlimited emissions until 2030.
CLIMATE CHANGE activism has everything to do with economic, political and cultural power and control.
THIS brilliant piece from (old-school) environmentalist Michael Shellenberger has been touring social and mainstream media in a big way, and rightly so, but wanted to pin it here for Climatism followers to enjoy and hopefully share with friends, family and their local energy/environment representative!
From Quillette :
Why Renewables Can’t Save the Planet
When I was a boy, my parents would sometimes take my sister and me camping in the desert. A lot of people think deserts are empty, but my parents taught us to see the wildlife all around us, including hawks, eagles, and tortoises.
After college, I moved to California to work on environmental campaigns. I helped save the state’s last ancient redwood forest and blocked a proposed radioactive waste repository set for the desert.
In 2002, shortly after I turned 30, I decided I wanted to dedicate myself to addressing climate change. I was worried that global warming would end up destroying many of the natural environments that people had worked so hard to protect.
I thought the solutions were pretty straightforward: solar panels on every roof, electric cars in every driveway, etc. The main obstacles, I believed, were political. And so I helped organize a coalition of America’s largest labor unions and environmental groups. Our proposal was for a $300 billion dollar investment in renewables. We would not only prevent climate change but also create millions of new jobs in a fast-growing high-tech sector.
Our efforts paid off in 2007 when then-presidential candidate Barack Obama embraced our vision. Between 2009–15, the U.S. invested $150 billion dollars in renewables and other forms of clean tech. But right away we ran into trouble.
The first was around land use. Electricity from solar roofs costs about twice as much as electricity from solar farms, but solar and wind farms require huge amounts of land. That, along with the fact that solar and wind farms require long new transmissions lines, threatened local communities, and conservationists trying to preserve wildlife, particularly birds.
Another challenge was the intermittent nature of solar and wind energies. When the sun stops shining and the wind stops blowing, you have to quickly be able to ramp up another source of energy.
Happily, there were a lot of people working on solutions. One solution was to convert California’s dams into big batteries. The idea was that, when the sun was shining and the wind was blowing, you could pump water uphill, store it for later, and then run it over the turbines to make electricity when you needed it.
Other problems didn’t seem like such a big deal, on closer examination. For example, after I learned that house cats kill billions of birds every year it put into perspective the nearly one million birds killed by wind turbines.
It seemed to me that most, if not all, of the problems from scaling up solar and wind energies could be solved through more technological innovation.
But, as the years went by, the problems persisted and in some cases grew worse. For example, California is a world leader when it comes to renewables but we haven’t converted our dams into batteries, partly for geographic reasons. You need the right kind of dam and reservoirs, and even then it’s an expensive retrofit.
A bigger problem is that there are many other uses for the water that accumulates behind dams, namely irrigation and cities. And because the water in our rivers and reservoirs is scarce and unreliable, the water from dams for those other purposes is becoming ever-more precious.
Without large-scale ways to back-up solar energy California has had to block electricity coming from solar farms when it’s extremely sunny, or pay neighboring states to take it from us so we can avoid blowing-out our grid.
Despite what you’ve heard, there is no “battery revolution” on the way, for well-understood technical and economic reasons.
As for house cats, they don’t kill big, rare, threatened birds. What house cats kill are small, common birds, like sparrows, robins and jays. What kills big, threatened, and endangered birds—birds that could go extinct—like hawks, eagles, owls, and condors, are wind turbines.
In fact, wind turbines are the most serious new threat to important bird species to emerge in decades. The rapidly spinning turbines act like an apex predator which big birds never evolved to deal with.
Solar farms have similarly large ecological impacts. Building a solar farm is a lot like building any other kind of farm. You have to clear the whole area of wildlife.
In order to build one of the biggest solar farms in California the developers hired biologists to pull threatened desert tortoises from their burrows, put them on the back of pickup trucks, transport them, and cage them in pens where many ended up dying.
As we were learning of these impacts, it gradually dawned on me that there was no amount of technological innovation that could solve the fundamental problem with renewables.
You can make solar panels cheaper and wind turbines bigger, but you can’t make the sun shine more regularly or the wind blow more reliably. I came to understand the environmental implications of the physics of energy. In order to produce significant amounts of electricity from weak energy flows, you just have spread them over enormous areas. In other words, the trouble with renewables isn’t fundamentally technical—it’s natural.
Dealing with energy sources that are inherently unreliable, and require large amounts of land, comes at a high economic cost.
There’s been a lot of publicity about how solar panels and wind turbines have come down in cost. But those one-time cost savings from making them in big Chinese factories have been outweighed by the high cost of dealing with their unreliability.
Consider California. Between 2011–17 the cost of solar panels declined about 75 percent, and yet our electricity prices rose five times more than they did in the rest of the U.S. It’s the same story in Germany, the world leader in solar and wind energy. Its electricity prices increased 50 percent between 2006–17, as it scaled up renewables.
I used to think that dealing with climate change was going to be expensive. But I could no longer believe this after looking at Germany and France.
Germany’s carbon emissions have been flat since 2009, despite an investment of $580 billion by 2025 in a renewables-heavy electrical grid, a 50 percent rise in electricity cost.
Meanwhile, France produces one-tenth the carbon emissions per unit of electricity as Germany and pays little more than half for its electricity. How? Through nuclear power.
Then, under pressure from Germany, France spent $33 billion on renewables, over the last decade. What was the result? A rise in the carbon intensity of its electricity supply, and higher electricity prices, too.
What about all the headlines about expensive nuclear and cheap solar and wind? They are largely an illusion resulting from the fact that 70 to 80 percent of the costs of building nuclear plants are up-front, whereas the costs given for solar and wind don’t include the high cost of transmission lines, new dams, or other forms of battery.
It’s reasonable to ask whether nuclear power is safe, and what happens with its waste.
It turns out that scientists have studied the health and safety of different energy sources since the 1960s. Every major study, including a recent one by the British medical journal Lancet, finds the same thing: nuclear is the safest way to make reliable electricity.
Strange as it sounds, nuclear power plants are so safe for the same reason nuclear weapons are so dangerous. The uranium used as fuel in power plants and as material for bombs can create one million times more heat per its mass than its fossil fuel and gunpowder equivalents.
It’s not so much about the fuel as the process. We release more energy breaking atoms than breaking chemical bonds. What’s special about uranium atoms is that they are easy to split.
Because nuclear plants produce heat without fire, they emit no air pollution in the form of smoke. By contrast, the smoke from burning fossil fuels and biomass results in the premature deaths of seven million people per year, according to the World Health Organization.
Even during the worst accidents, nuclear plants release small amounts of radioactive particulate matter from the tiny quantities of uranium atoms split apart to make heat.
Over an 80-year lifespan, fewer than 200 people will die from the radiation from the worst nuclear accident, Chernobyl, and zero will die from the small amounts of radiant particulate matter that escaped from Fukushima.
As a result, the climate scientist James Hanson and a colleague found that nuclear plants have actually saved nearly two million lives to date that would have been lost to air pollution.
Thanks to its energy density, nuclear plants require far less land than renewables. Even in sunny California, a solar farm requires 450 times more land to produce the same amount of energy as a nuclear plant.
Energy-dense nuclear requires far less in the way of materials, and produces far less in the way of waste compared to energy-dilute solar and wind.
A single Coke cans worth of uranium provides all of the energy that the most gluttonous American or Australian lifestyle requires. At the end of the process, the high-level radioactive waste that nuclear plants produce is the very same Coke can of (used) uranium fuel. The reason nuclear is the best energy from an environmental perspective is because it produces so little waste and none enters the environment as pollution.
All of the waste fuel from 45 years of the Swiss nuclear program can fit, in canisters, on a basketball court-like wearhouse, where like all spent nuclear fuel, it has never hurt a fly.
We tend to think of solar panels as clean, but the truth is that there is no plan anywhere to deal with solar panels at the end of their 20 to 25 year lifespan.
Experts fear solar panels will be shipped, along with other forms of electronic waste, to be disassembled—or, more often, smashed with hammers—by poor communities in Africa and Asia, whose residents will be exposed the dust from toxic including lead, cadmium, and chromium.
Wherever I travel in the world I ask ordinary people what they think about nuclear and renewable energies. After saying they know next to nothing, they admit that nuclear is strong and renewables are weak. Their intuitions are correct. What most of us get wrong—understandably — is that weak energies are safer.
But aren’t renewables safer? The answer is no. Wind turbines, surprisingly, kill more people than nuclear plants.
In other words, the energy density of the fuel determines its environmental and health impacts. Spreading more mines and more equipment over larger areas of land is going to have larger environmental and human safety impacts.
It’s true that you can stand next to a solar panel without much harm while if you stand next to a nuclear reactor at full power you’ll die.
But when it comes to generating power for billions of people, it turns out that producing solar and wind collectors, and spreading them over large areas, has vastly worse impacts on humans and wildlife alike.
Our intuitive sense that sunlight is dilute sometimes shows up in films. That’s why nobody was shocked when the recent remake of the dystopian sci-fi flick, “Blade Runner,” opened with a dystopian scene of California’s deserts paved with solar farms identical to the one that decimated desert tortoises.
Over the last several hundred years, human beings have been moving away from what matter-dense fuels towards energy-dense ones. First we move from renewable fuels like wood, dung, and windmills, and towards the fossil fuels of coal, oil, and natural gas, and eventually to uranium.
Energy progress is overwhelmingly positive for people and nature. As we stop using wood for fuel we allow grasslands and forests to grow back, and the wildlife to return.
As we stop burning wood and dung in our homes, we no longer must breathe toxic indoor smoke. And as we move from fossil fuels to uranium we clear the outdoor air of pollution, and reduce how much we’ll heat up the planet.
Nuclear plants are thus a revolutionary technology—a grand historical break from fossil fuels as significant as the industrial transition from wood to fossil fuels before it.
The problem with nuclear is that it is unpopular, a victim of a 50 year-longconcerted effort by fossil fuel, renewable energy, anti-nuclear weapons campaigners, and misanthropic environmentalists to ban the technology.
In response, the nuclear industry suffers battered wife syndrome, and constantly apologizes for its best attributes, from its waste to its safety.
Lately, the nuclear industry has promoted the idea that, in order to deal with climate change, “we need a mix of clean energy sources,” including solar, wind and nuclear. It was something I used to believe, and say, in part because it’s what people want to hear. The problem is that it’s not true.
France shows that moving from mostly nuclear electricity to a mix of nuclear and renewables results in more carbon emissions, due to using more natural gas, and higher prices, to the unreliability of solar and wind.
Oil and gas investors know this, which is why they made a political alliance with renewables companies, and why oil and gas companies have been spending millions of dollars on advertisements promoting solar, and funneling millions of dollars to said environmental groups to provide public relations cover.
What is to be done? The most important thing is for scientists and conservationists to start telling the truth about renewables and nuclear, and the relationship between energy density and environmental impact.
Bat scientists recently warned that wind turbines are on the verge of making one species, the Hoary bat, a migratory bat species, go extinct.
Another scientist who worked to build that gigantic solar farm in the California desert told High Country News, “Everybody knows that translocation of desert tortoises doesn’t work. When you’re walking in front of a bulldozer, crying, and moving animals, and cacti out of the way, it’s hard to think that the project is a good idea.”
I think it’s natural that those of us who became active on climate change gravitated toward renewables. They seemed like a way to harmonize human society with the natural world. Collectively, we have been suffering from a naturalistic fallacy no different from the one that leads us to buy products at the supermarket labeled “all natural.” But it’s high time that those of us who appointed ourselves Earth’s guardians should take a second look at the science, and start questioning the impacts of our actions.
Now that we know that renewables can’t save the planet, are we really going to stand by and let them destroy it?
Michael Shellenberger is a Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment,” and president of Environmental Progress, an independent research and policy organization. Follow him on Twitter @ShellenbergerMD
SHELLENBERGER Related :
SEE also :
- DRACONIAN UN CLIMATE AGENDA EXPOSED : ‘Global Warming Fears Are A Tool For Political and Economic Change…It Has Nothing To Do With The Actual Climate’ | Climatism
- BILL GATES Slams Unreliable Wind & Solar: ‘Let’s Quit Jerking Around With Renewables & Batteries’ | Climatism
- UN Carbon Regime Would Devastate Humanity And The Environment | Climatism
- WHAT I See When I See a Wind Turbine | Climatism
- ‘GREEN’ Energy Future | Climatism
- IF CO2’s Your Poison, Renewable Energy Is No Antidote | Climatism
- TRULY GREEN? How Germany’s #Energiewende Is Destroying Nature | Climatism
- WIND TURBINES Are Neither Clean Nor Green And They Provide Zero Global Energy | Climatism
- WHY “Green” Energy Is Futile, In One Lesson | Climatism
- THE Greatest Threat To The Environment Is Not Affluence, It’s Poverty | Climatism
JAPAN ACKNOWLEDGES THE GLOBAL WARMING ‘PAUSE’ : Sanctions 35 New Coal Power Plants Added To The 100 Currently OperationalPosted: February 22, 2019
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming
at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
– Kevin Trenberth, National Center For Atmospheric Research, USA (2009)
“Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the
tropical troposphere … This is just downright dangerous.”
– Peter Thorne, Hadley Centre, Met Office, UK (2007)
THE Japanese government has identified and acknowledged the current ~20 year-long global warming “pause” or “hiatus”. The (inconvenient) atmospheric phenomenon that has been the subject of much research and debate in peer-reviewed scientific journals for many years now.
BASED on data from the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA), the government has justified the expansion of its global-leading, ultra-supercritical HELE coal-fired power plant technology both domestically and abroad.
PRIME MINISTER Abe has sanctioned the addition of 35 new coal power plants to the 100 currently operational.
“Japan’s use of coal is not justified exclusively on the basis of the country’s nuclear debacle. The heart of the reason is Japan’s climate.
For the past three decades, there has been no significant warming in its major cities.”
CLIMATE Scientist Vijay Jayaraj reports (Climatism attachments, bolds added) :
Sushi, Sake, and Coal: Japan’s Peculiar Response to the Climate Conundrum
We all know that the Japanese love their sushi. Japan is also famous for sake, a rice wine unique to the country. Lately, the Japanese have shown unrestrained love for a commodity that is increasingly demonized by climate groups: coal.
Global warming alarmists blame coal for causing dangerous global warming. But the Japanese beg to differ. They have revived their love affair with coal. Why? That’s an interesting story.
Soon after the Fukushima nuclear incident, public sentiment towards nuclear energy became hostile. Many organizations, including foreign non-profits, called for the closure of nuclear plants on fears of future mishaps.
The Fukushima plant was outdated and less safe than Japan’s other, modern nuclear plants. Yet, the impact of the Fukushima disaster (in which no one died from radiation exposure) remains fresh in people’s minds, and the nation was not ready to defend the operations of other nuclear plants.
The Japanese government caved in to the pressure and closed many nuclear plants. By 27 March 2012, Japan had only one out of 54 nuclear reactors operating. As a result, the country was forced to seek alternative sources of energy generation.
The Japanese understood that renewable sources like wind and solar could not provide stable and affordable electricity, at least not in the magnitude necessary to meet peak energy demands of Japan’s power-guzzling cities.
The most economical and safe solution was coal. Contrary to popular belief and the mainstream media, coal is not as polluting as you might think.
Moreover, coal is a tried and tested source of energy, guaranteeing superior-quality, stable output to meet the energy demands of modern cities and industries.
With the development of “clean coal technology,” coal combustion now results in fewer contaminants and more energy, making it far superior to the combustion plants of previous decades.
So, Japan went against the tide and embraced coal with both arms.
It now employs the most advanced and safest coal combustion technology available on the planet, becoming a leading manufacturer and exporter of clean coal technology.
But Japan’s use of coal is not justified exclusively on the basis of the country’s nuclear debacle. The heart of the reason is Japan’s climate.
For the past three decades, there has been no significant warming in its major cities.
Data from the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) clearly indicates that there has been no significant deviation in the monthly average temperature between 1998 and 2018. The period between is of special importance to the Japanese government.
As per the climate doomsday theorists, temperatures should have displayed a strong warming trend as the manmade carbon dioxide emissions increased exponentially.
But the temperature levels failed to display any warming trend. That flies in the face of the notion that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration levels control temperature over the island nation—or, for that matter, the world.
Last week, Sapporo recorded its coldest day in 40 years. In fact, winter in Japan had no warming trend from 1986 to 2018, with the January monthly mean temperature anomalies displaying a cooling trend. If anything, there has been a cooling trend in Japan between 1998 and 2018.
So, the reason for Japanese embrace of coal is pretty clear: no significant warming, coupled with the post-Fukushima anti-nuclear hysteria.
No country would want to reduce its emissions when its monthly average temperatures are actually decreasing. It is for this reason that Japanese Prime Minister Shinzō Abe refuses to stay true to the hasty anti-coal commitments he made at the UN’s international climate summits.
Instead of discouraging the use of coal, Japan is increasing its dependency on coal. Abe has sanctioned the addition of 35 new coal power plants to the 100 currently operational. The country is also encouraging its Asian neighbors and other developing countries to purchase its clean coal technology.
The Japanese response to the anti-coal establishment, besides being bold, accurately reflects climate reality. Japan understands the need to prioritize the domestic energy needs over faulty, pseudo-scientific forecasts of climate doom.
The lack of warming, however, is not limited to Japan. Satellite temperature measurements (between 1979 and January 2019) show no significant warming in the earth’s atmosphere during the past 19 years.
Other countries should emulate Japan’s example, especially in the developing world. Domestic energy needs are far too important to be slain on the altar of global warming hysteria.
FOLLOW Vijay on Twitter : @vjxxvj
REFRESHING to see government energy policy being driven by empirical evidence and real-world data, and NOT by fear, hysteria, mainstream media climate change advocacy and alarmism or politically-driven, CO2-centric, UN IPCC climate models.
BRAVO Japan for standing up to the climate groupthink bullies and misanthropic eco-activists. Instead, supporting their industry and citizens by providing them with cheap, abundant and clean (HELE) coal-fired power technology to advance and maintain their world-renowned pristine environment, civic cleanliness, health and wealth!
“The Japanese response to the anti-coal establishment, besides being bold, accurately reflects climate reality. Japan understands the need to prioritize the domestic energy needs over faulty, pseudo-scientific forecasts of climate doom.”
IF you haven’t been to Japan – GO! Incredible people, culture and country…
SEE also :
- THE Great Global Warming “Pause” | Climatism
- 100% Of Climate Models Prove that 97% of Climate Scientists Were Wrong! | Climatism (CMIP5 Climate Models)
- FATHER Of The 2°C Climate Target Admits Number Is Fabricated : ‘Two degrees is not a magical limit; it’s clearly a political goal’ | Climatism (UN IPCC)
- CLIMATE CHANGE : The Unsettled Science Of “Settled” Science | Climatism (ECS)
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to
frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
– emeritus professor Daniel Botkin
THE core objective of the $2,000,000,000,000 US per year (2 Trillion) Climate Crisis Industry has always been the centralised control of human beings and curtailment of free-market, capitalist ‘excesses’.
“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.” – Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit 1992
ENERGY rationing and the control of carbon dioxide (the direct byproduct of cheap, abundant hydrocarbon energy) key to the socialist Left’s Malthusian and misanthropic agenda of depopulation and deindustrialisation respectively. A totalitarian ideology enforced through punitive emissions controls under the guise of “Saving The Planet”.
STANFORD University and The Royal Society’s resident global warming alarmist and population freak Paul R. Ehrlich spelled out in 1976 the Left’s anti-energy agenda that has underpinned all ‘climate’ related scares to date :
“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the
equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
– Prof Paul R. Ehrlich
MAURICE STRONG (UNEP)
THE creator, fabricator and proponent of global warming alarmism Maurice Strong, founded UNEP and ‘science’ arm, the UN IPCC, under the premise of studying only human (CO2) driven causes of climate change.
STRONG and the UN’s ‘Climate Change’ agenda was clearly laid out before the ‘science’ of Climate Change was butchered and tortured to fit the Global Warming narrative…
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)
“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.” – Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit
“It is the responsibility of each human being today to choose between the force of darkness and the force of light. We must therefore transform our attitudes, and adopt a renewed respect for the superior laws of Divine Nature.“ – Maurice Strong, first Secretary General of UNEP
THE DEMONISATION OF TRACE GAS & PLANT FOOD CARBON DIOXIDE
ABSOLUTE CONTROL OF YOU AND YOUR LIFESTYLE
ATMOSPHERIC Physicist, MIT Professor of Meteorology and former IPCC lead author Richard S. Lindzen, examines the politics and ideology behind the CO2-centricity that drives the man-made climate change agenda.
“For a lot of people including the bureaucracy in Government and the environmental movement, the issue is power. It’s hard to imagine a better leverage point than carbon dioxide to assume control over a society. It’s essential to the production of energy, it’s essential to breathing. If you demonise it and gain control over it, you so-to-speak, control everything. That’s attractive to people. It’s been openly stated for over forty years that one should try to use this issue for a variety of purposes, ranging from North/South redistribution, to energy independence, to God knows what…”
“CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? – it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.”
THE GREEN NEW DEAL & THE METHANE LIE
BYE BYE RIB-EYE!
CHILD-SOCIALIST and freshly minted New York Democrat Socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s newly-released “Green New Deal” resolution has gotten a lot of attention for its 100 percent UNreliable-energy goal, but the bill also vaguely references another source of emissions.
THE resolution calls for a World War II-style mobilization effort to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural operations. If that’s the case, that means any subsequent “Green New Deal” legislation would have to deal with a major source of methane emissions — cow flatulence and burps.
ONE of the standard alarmist claims is that Methane is 30 times more potent than CO2 at wrecking the climate, and that cow farts threaten the future of humanity.
Methane is responsible for nearly as much global warming as all other non-CO2 greenhouse gases put together. Methane is 23 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2. While atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen by about 31% since pre-industrial times, methane concentrations have more than doubled.
Thomas Friedman at the New York Times takes climate stupidity to a new level:
Methane released in the atmosphere contributes much more to climate change than CO2.
ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS 101
ACTUAL science calls ‘Bull’ (pardon the pun) on the relationship between Methane and the atmosphere, contradicting the widely circulated claims of a planetary Methane disaster prophesied by global warming alarmists.
METHANE’s absorption bands almost completely overlap with H2O, and methane concentrations in the atmosphere are very low. CH4 quickly oxidizes and disappears from the atmosphere, so there can never be a lot of methane in a warm atmosphere with a large concentration of O2.
Methane contributes almost nothing to Earth’s greenhouse effect.
Methane is unstable and breaks down quickly in the atmosphere, and even if it doubled would have essentially no impact on the greenhouse effect. In the tropics, the effect would be an increase in downwelling longwave radiation of about 0.04%.
If everyone in Kansas City was an atmospheric molecule, only one of them would be methane. Anyone working on climate models and doesn’t know this, is driving under the influence of AGW stupidity.
ALL of the minimal absorption bands of methane are completely overlapped by water vapor. Methane has almost no effect on the Earth’s radiative energy balance.
TONY HELLER (aka Steve Goddard) sums up the Methane scam with the usual snarky flare that has earned him the reputation of a climate alarmists worst nightmare!
Grass absorbs CO2 and emits oxygen. Cows eat grass. The grass grows back, absorbing more CO2, and emitting more oxygen. Cows eat more grass. The grass grows back, absorbs more CO2 and emits more oxygen. If you look only at the front end of a cow, it is a carbon sink.
Our friends, being the horses asses that they are, look only at the back end of livestock. The amount of carbon coming out of an animal’s orifices is exactly equal to the amount that went in its mouth. Blaming cows for global warming is yet another example of the extreme stupidity of the flat-earth global warming religion.
DON’T give up on your BBQ and that juicy rib-eye just yet. Actual ‘science’ and the truth will eventually win out over alarmist rhetoric, fear and the scourge of socialism using the perceived threat of
global warming climate change as emotional cover.