In
spite of evidence from the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado
that “Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26
percent, since 2007,” it is politically and financially convenient for carbon
capture, carbon sequestration, and carbon tax proponents to continue the push
to fundamentally alter the U.S. economy with the worn out lie, “man has caused
global warming.”
“And
the planet is certainly warming. Humans releasing trapping gases into the
atmosphere are almost certainly
responsible for much, if not all, of that warming; the particular patterns of
warming, comparison to the historical record, and the basic precepts of physics
all indicate this.” (Op-ed, Washington Post, July 18, 2012)
How
can one argue with such non-scientific liberal thinking, backed up by “basic
precepts of physics?” Science is not “almost certainly,” science has to be
factual and exact. If you search, “basic precepts of physics,” you realize that
the above statement is shameless and worthless propaganda.
How
do environmentalists explain that on June 27, 2012, 116 cities from Montana to
Florida measured record low temperatures? Orlando measured 64 degrees
overnight, the lowest since 1920. June 1933 was much hotter than June 2012
although atmospheric carbon-dioxide concentration was less than it is today. U.S. has 2 percent of the Earth’s surface (3.8
million square miles) and it “does not indicate temperature patterns
elsewhere.”(The Washington Times, July 16, 2012)
What
are Americans to do when they suffer the next heat wave? Should they pay a tax
to the United Nations and its third world dictatorships for breathing and
economically existing? Would that fix the heat wave in the northeastern U.S. and
prevent others?
Washington
Post advises, in a typical narcissistic liberal view (humans are gods who can
control and affect the weather and planetary moves in the universe), that the
heat wave should “spur Americans to demand action from their leaders.” The
article does not suggest what action we should demand from our leaders, but I
am interpreting this to be CCS, carbon taxes, UN Agenda 21, and a return to a
primitive lifestyle devoid of industry, electricity, modern conveniences, A/C,
cars, and mobility, a world in which only the elites can pollute with their
jets and lavish lifestyles.
Carbon
capture and sequestration (CCS) traps and stores underground CO2, preventing it
from reaching the atmosphere. Electricity-generating plants are the first
candidates for CCS. According to the Congressional Research Service report on
carbon capture, “Electricity generation contributes over 40% of U.S. CO2
emissions from fossil fuels. Currently, U.S. power plants do not capture large
volumes of CO2 for CCS.” (Peter Folger, Carbon Capture and Sequestration: A
Primer, May 14, 2012)
CCS
has three steps:
1.
Capture
and separate CO2 from other gases
2.
Purifying,
compressing, and transporting the captured CO2 to the sequestration site3. Injecting the CO2 in subsurface geological reservoirs or storing it in the oceans
The
above process is expensive and uses more energy. Who will decide where compressed
and purified CO2 is stored and is it safe? What Pandora’s Box might be opened?
The oil and gas industry in the U.S. already injects 50 million tons of CO2
underground yearly for the purpose of enhanced oil recovery (EOR). However,
doing it on the mammoth proposed scale to the tune of billions of tons yearly and
keeping the CO2 trapped there indefinitely, may be a problem, expensive, and
not such a good idea.
CCS
would require significant investments of capital (network of pipeline). Peter
Folger said, “Time would be required to assess the potential CO2 storage
reservoir, inject the captured CO2, and monitor the injected plume to ensure
against leaks to the atmosphere or to underground sources of drinking water,
potentially for years or decades until injection activities cease and the
injected plume stabilizes.” (CRS, May 14, 2012)
The
proposed sites for storage are oil and gas reservoirs, deep saline reservoirs,
and un-mineable coal seams. Deep ocean injection of CO2 is controversial
because of mineral carbonation, reacting minerals with a stream of concentrated
CO2, which form a solid carbonate.
Peter
Folger admits, “Acceptance by the general public of large-scale deployment of
carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) may be a significant challenge.” I hope
the public will become aware of this new experimentation on their environment
and the possible adverse effects of concentrated CO2 injection tests in their
local communities.
Lucky for us, “To date, there are no commercial ventures in the U.S. to capture, transport, and inject industrial-scale quantities of CO2 solely for the purposes of carbon sequestration.” However, Congress has appropriated $6 billion since 2008 for CCS research and development at the Department of Energy’s Office of Fossil Energy, $2.3 billion through annual appropriations and $3.4 billion through President Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. (Congressional Report Service, April 23, 2012)
The
research and development of CCS may speed up since EPA proposed a new rule on
March 27, 2012 to limit emissions to no more than 1,000 pounds of carbon
dioxide (CO2) per megawatt-hour of production from new fossil-fuel power plants
with a capacity of 25 megawatts or larger under Section 111 of the Clean Air
Act. The air would be clean but the underground, water tables, and the ocean
would be infused with massive quantities of compressed and purified CO2. (CRS,
April 23, 2012)
The
proponents of global warming/climate change are quite powerful, political or
politically connected, and overflowing with cash. Rachel Swaffer wrote about
the left’s environmental extremists as political goliaths.”The constant
careening from environment disaster to environmental disaster allows these very
prophets of global doom to raise even more funds to promote their latest
scare.” (NetRightDaily.com, July 2012)
Corporate
oil interests have spent on the average $12.5 million a year on political
activism while environmentalists and other greenies have received mammoth
donations from Hewlett Foundation, Pew Charitable Trust, Tides, and Sierra
Club. The top 30 environmentalist groups donated close to $287 million in 2010
alone to promote climate change education, UN Agenda 21, sustainable growth,
and renewable energy. (Rachel Swaffer, writer for Americans for Limited
Government, in NetRightDaily.com, July 2012)
The
US Air Force is going to spend $59 per gallon of green biofuel and the Navy
will spend $56 per gallon. The justification is that “alternatives” to
traditional fuel will be needed in the future if United States would be unable
to produce or import petroleum. Such worry is not unjustified since our President
has promised, early in his campaign, that he will bankrupt the coal industry
and cause electricity prices to skyrocket by directing the EPA to reduce
drastically or rescind permits for drilling, shale oil and shale gas
exploration, and requiring onerous new regulatory guidelines for both coal and
oil industries. The moratorium on domestic drilling in the Gulf of Mexico under
the guise of saving humans from potential oil spills such as the BP disaster was
the “piece de resistance.” Meanwhile foreign companies were allowed to drill
even deeper than BP had.
A
House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a hearing in
Abingdon, VA on July 16, 2012. Dozens of coal miners who packed the room
complained about President Obama’s “war on coal.” Excessive regulations on
energy plants will raise energy costs for all sectors of the economy. The loss
of so many jobs and private household bankruptcies will destroy the U.S.
President
Obama supports an “all of the above” energy policy as stated in January this
year, yet the policy does not include fossil fuels. (Joe Gary Street, Vice
President of Sales for West River Conveyors and Machinery Co.)
President
Obama’s administration proposed a de facto ban on the construction of new
coal-fired power plants. The House of Representatives passed H.R. 2401
(Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation (TRAIN Act) that
“would put a stop to the new rule and require a study of the cumulative impacts
of several Obama administration regulations on jobs, energy prices, and
electric reliability.” (Katie Boyd, Speaker of the House, John Boehner, July
17, 2012)
“Citing
mercury and air pollution, the EPA ordered businesses to install the MACT
(Maximum Achievable Control Technology) to control emissions from their
plants.” EPA estimates the rule to cost $9.6 billion annually, to be paid by
utilities and customers alike for new equipment, monitoring and reporting, loss
of generating capacity, and higher electricity rates. Energy insiders say that
it is a low estimate of the cost.” (Amy Payne, Heritage Insider, June 20, 2012)
According
to Matthew L. Wald of the New York Times, EPA required oil companies to pay
$6.8 billion in fines and even higher fines in 2012 to the Treasury for failing
to “mix a special type of biofuel into their gasoline and diesel.” This
synthetic ingredient called “cellulosic biofuel” only exists in a few
laboratories around the country. In 2011, refineries were required to blend 6.6
million gallons of “cellulosic biofuel” into gasoline and diesel and 8.65
million gallons in 2012. (Becket Adams, Fire Blaze, January 11, 2012)
North
Dakota is currently thriving, with lowest unemployment rate in the nation,
thanks to oil shale exploration (fracking), unless the EPA will step in to stop
them with possible new regulations.
A
Washington Post headline was boldly declaring in July 2012, “Scientists link
monster fires in Colorado to climate change.” Somewhere in the middle of the
article the author says, “Scientists do not have the data to link climate
change to Colorado’s decreased snow and rain. Why then claim that they are
linked, for deception and to sell newspapers?
“But
climate change has been linked [Where? By whom?] to warmer temperatures that
cause snow to melt earlier and rain to evaporate faster, parching the land,
contributing to drought and drying out the vegetation that can fuel fires, said
John Nielson-Gammon.” (Darryl Fears, Washington Post, July 2012)
Dr.
Robert Zubrin, author of “Merchants of Despair,” attributed the recent Colorado
fires to the western pine beetle that decimated 6 million acres of forest. The
fact that environmentalists forbade logging and thinning of forests facilitated
the burning of millions of dead trees and the rapid fire spread over large
areas. According to Dr. Zubrin, the western pine beetle has destroyed twice as
much forest surface as the 3 million acres logged in the Amazon forest. He
calls the environmentalist disinformation agenda, the “antihumanism” movement. (Interview
on Savage Nation in July 2012)
Carbon
tax or a “national energy tax,” the replacement of the failed cap-and-trade tax
system defeated in 2009-2010, was discussed in a left and right wing coalition
meeting last week at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative
think-tank in D.C. Marlo Lewis called the coalition the “carbon tax
cabal.”
Daniel
Wiser made several points in the Washington Times why a carbon tax is a bad
idea.
-
It
cannot be revenue neutral since it can be raised any time
-
Poor
people spend a higher percentage of their incomes on energy, thus are taxed
more- A carbon tax would not reduce fuel consumption unless it is high like Europe, $5 per gallon; coal would then cost $500 per ton instead of the current $65 per ton
The
carbon tax as an alternative to onerous regulations is still a tax we do not
need to pay. Using the hot weather to promote faux manmade global warming
agenda in order to empower elites to collect more undeserved taxes is a farce. The
government must learn to live within its means and stop spending so much money
we do not have. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
said in March 2012 that long-term weather trends “have not been attributed to
natural or anthropogenic climate change.”
No comments:
Post a Comment