GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[bloodman33 + 20]

Get a life.  All you do is write on this message board.   Echonothing.

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

3 minutes ago, bloodman33 said:

Get a life.  All you do is write on this message board.   Echonothing.

Thank you for supporting the oil industry by filling your gas tank with fossil fuels. That is a great encouragement to the fossil fuel industry.

[TailingsPond + 460]

On 5/2/2023 at 1:17 PM, Ecocharger said:

 

"Transportation fuels, gasoline and jet fuel suffered the largest declines as lockdowns affected people’s ability to travel."

That explains the temporary decline. 

 

Covid lockdown effects are far from temporary.  Working from home was largely successful and people do not want to return to the old norm.  A huge portion of fuel use was just commuting to work or work related travel.

The paradigm has shifted. 

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

2 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

Covid lockdown effects are far from temporary.  Working from home was largely successful and people do not want to return to the old norm.  A huge portion of fuel use was just commuting to work or work related travel.

The paradigm has shifted. 

Inventories of oil and gasoline are down last week and today the price jumped up, erasing the temporary losses caused by fears of interest rate hikes, just as I predicted above, oil production expected to reach an all-time high this year...what is new?

[TailingsPond + 460]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

Inventories of oil and gasoline are down last week and today the price jumped up, erasing the temporary losses caused by fears of interest rate hikes, just as I predicted above, oil production expected to reach an all-time high this year...what is new?

Put a date and number on your prediction.   Right now you are behind.

Can't be like Eyes Closed always saying "just wait."   A prediction without terms is the same as no prediction, as it can't be falsified with data.

 

Edited May 5, 2023 by TailingsPond

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

1 hour ago, TailingsPond said:

Put a date and number on your prediction.   Right now you are behind.

Can't be like Eyes Closed always saying "just wait."   A prediction without terms is the same as no prediction, as it can't be falsified with data.

 

I guess you have reading problems again, old man, check my posts on the previous page. I predicted that the price of oil would bounce back after the panic subsided from the speculated interest rate hikes and that is exactly what happened. Anyone with a modicum of economics training could have called that one. Apparently that excludes you.

Biden & Co. are calling for a 34% increase in oil production through 2050. I gave that information to you a few days ago, have you already forgotten it? You have a leaky memory, old fellow.

Edited May 6, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Ron Wagner + 642]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/no-other-way-biden-big-140243000.html

 Now Biden is looking for help from the natural gas industry so they will have enough electricity. Reality finally struck, but green extremists want no ban development on federal lands (the consumers land.)

‘No other way to do it’: Biden about to go big on power plants

 

Evan Vucci/AP Photo

185

Jean Chemnick, Pamela King and Robin Bravender

Fri, May 5, 2023 at 9:02 AM CDT

 

 

The Biden administration is poised to unveil its most ambitious effort yet to roll back planet-warming pollution from the nation’s thousands of power plants — an effort that’s certain to bring a legal and political attack from conservatives but may disappoint some supporters of the president’s climate agenda.

The proposal from EPA, expected to be formally unveiled next week, makes key trade-offs in its efforts to slash the power industry’s greenhouse gas output without running afoul of a skeptical Supreme Court, according to four people briefed on the upcoming regulations.

EPA is expected to rely on advanced technologies rarely if ever employed in the U.S. power industry, such as capturing coal plants’ carbon pollution before it hits the atmosphere or blending hydrogen into the fuel mix at natural gas plants.

But it could also exempt hundreds of the nation’s dirtiest gas plants from strict pollution limits, these people said. That may lessen the rules’ legal peril and keep more units online, but it may also provide fewer benefits to the low-income, Black or Hispanic communities where the dirtiest plants are disproportionately located.

 

The proposal will be a capstone of President Joe Biden’s climate efforts before he faces voters next year and follows the historically aggressive pollution standards his agencies have proposed for oil and gas, cars and other industries. Its fate will likely determine whether the U.S. comes within reach of meeting his pledges to cut carbon pollution. It could also help Biden win support in 2024 from climate-minded voters turned off by some recent administration decisions favoring fossil fuel production.

If it succeeds, the rule would transform the U.S. economy by accelerating the dwindling of coal as a major power source, just as EPA’s proposals to limit car and truck pollution aim to spur a rapid shift to electric vehicles.

But the effort faces dangers. One is from the courts, which rejected both the Obama and Trump administrations’ attempts to enact climate rules for power plants. And Biden’s rule is coming so late in his term that if a Republican wins the White House next year, the new administration could sweep it away.

Supporters say Biden has no choice but to go big.

Biden will need both the power plant and automobile rules to reach his climate goals, said Bob Perciasepe, who was EPA’s deputy administrator under then-President Barack Obama. “You have to do these things. There's no other way to do it.”

Opponents are eager to pounce. West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, a Republican who led a Supreme Court fight last year that constrained EPA’s ability to tackle carbon emissions at power plants, last week vowed: “We’ll be ready.”

‘We need to go further’

As a presidential candidate, Biden promised to cut the economy’s carbon emissions in half by 2030, compared with 2005. That’s now the U.S. commitment to the rest of the world in the Paris climate deal.

But the U.S. can’t reduce its climate pollution that sharply without much steeper, faster cuts from the power grid, the nation’s second-largest carbon source. (Transportation is No. 1.)

Zero-carbon wattage is needed to provide power to new corners of the economy, including electric cars. And the power sector is a comparatively easy target for cuts that can buy extra time to bring down emissions from other sources, such as industry and agriculture, that are even more practically and politically challenging.

The grid has already shed more than a third of its greenhouse gas emissions since 2005, mainly thanks to the fracking boom that helped cheap natural gas gobble market share from coal.

Then last year, Congress approved $369 billion in clean energy investments and incentives in the climate law Democrats have dubbed the Inflation Reduction Act. Analysts said that moved the U.S. economy within striking distance of the 50 percent target — to about a 40 percent reduction by 2030, according to the research firms Energy Innovation and Rhodium Group.

The power plant rule could help make up the difference.

“When it comes to carbon pollution, the IRA made a significant down payment,” said Sam Ricketts, a co-founder and senior adviser at Evergreen Action. “But we need to go further.”

With Republicans now controlling the House and another presidential election on the horizon, EPA’s standards are the administration’s last, best chance of narrowing that gap before his term ends.

The administration’s environmental allies are demanding no less, saying EPA must propose game-changing rules for the power sector — both to address the climate emergency and to avoid dampening climate-minded voters’ enthusiasm. Biden has taken heat from climate activists lately in the wake of his administration’s approval of the massive Willow oil and gas project in Alaska.

“We applaud the positive steps Biden is taking with EPA regulations, but it’s not enough," said Michael Greenberg, a spokesperson for the youth-led group Climate Defiance that protested at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner last weekend. "He needs to step up to the plate and stop extraction on federal lands and stop approving new projects."

Rule may spare the dirtiest plants

The four people briefed on the draft rules and granted anonymity to speak freely said EPA is eyeing a pollution standard that is based on a technology not now used in the U.S. power industry — capturing the carbon pollution from all coal-fired power plants, most new gas plants and large existing gas units that run consistently.

New gas plants that are being built to run at high capacity would either capture their carbon emissions or opt for an alternative way to comply with the rule, the people said: blending hydrogen, which one day might produce few emissions, into their fuel.

The standards for existing plants would offer enough flexibility that some could keep running without undergoing expensive retrofits. And owners of some plants could choose to shut them down rather than comply with the rule.

The template tracks roughly with what influential green groups like Evergreen Action, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Clean Air Task Force have advocated.

On the other hand, the rules are also expected to set lighter standards for gas plants that run only infrequently — so-called peaker plants that provide electricity during times of highest demand. The country has about 1,000 such plants, which are dirtier and less efficient than power plants that run consistently. They’re also more likely to be located in urban areas, with the dirtiest ones sited near communities of color.

Some environmental groups have expressed concern about going easy on those plants. But setting a standard that the peaker plants can’t practically meet could expose the rule to trouble in court or compromise the reliability of the grid, some legal experts told E&E News this week.

Much of the industry argues that carbon capture isn’t ready for prime time even for standard power plants. But environmentalists point to the Inflation Reduction Act's generous incentives for the technology, as well as carbon capture systems already used overseas and in U.S. industrial facilities, to argue that it is “adequately demonstrated,” as federal law requires.

They argue EPA need not base its standard on a technology that is in wide use already.

“A pollution-control technology need not be on every street corner in order to be the basis of standards,” said Jay Duffy, litigation director for the Clean Air Task Force. “If it was, the Clean Air Act wouldn’t be necessary.”

In the 1990s, EPA set standards for acid-rain-causing sulfur dioxide that could be achieved by installing devices known as scrubbers on power plants, Duffy noted. And at the time, only three units were using them, and they were only available from one vendor. That rule held up in court.

The specter of SCOTUS

But EPA is now working in the shadow of a very different Supreme Court — a bench dominated by six conservative justices, many of them extremely skeptical of federal agencies’ ability to take aggressive action on issues like climate change.

“EPA has done just about everything it can do to pass muster with the Supreme Court,” said Jennifer Rushlow, dean of the Vermont School for the Environment at Vermont Law and Graduate School. “But with this lineup of justices, it may still not be enough.”

EPA got a huge brushback from the court last summer, when the justices ruled that the Obama administration’s efforts to curb power plant pollution went beyond the bounds Congress had written into the Clean Air Act. That statute was passed a half-century ago, before the modern understanding of climate change — but it was designed to give federal agencies space to apply their scientific and technical expertise to emerging problems.

The Obama rule had taken a sharp departure from the strategy courts are used to seeing in Clean Air Act cases: Instead of limiting pollution at individual plants, it set state-by-state reduction targets that probably would have pushed some utilities to close their coal-fired plants or switch to renewable sources like wind.

The Supreme Court’s ruling last year rejected the Obama approach and endorsed a legal theory, the “major questions” doctrine, that says agencies need clear approval from Congress to take actions with vast economic and political significance.

The Biden administration appears to have heeded that message by focusing its rule on carbon reductions at individual plants, Rushlow said — even if the limits it’s proposing are aggressive.

“Based on what we’ve heard about the Biden administration’s rule,” she said, “it sounds like they’ve done the very best that they can to thread the needle between what environmentalists want — and what the Supreme Court might accept.”

The effort may indeed work, said former Biden White House climate official David Hayes, who called the Obama-era approach “its own animal.”

It appears that the Biden effort will take “a much more traditional approach that’s technology-based, that’s facility-based,” Hayes added. “So folks at this point would be, I think, foolish to suggest that this thing is immediately in jeopardy in the courts.”

But the rule may still be in legal jeopardy if the justices don’t agree with EPA’s reasons for selecting a given technology.

The technologies the Biden administration is said to be considering, including carbon capture and co-firing with hydrogen, were studied and rejected by the Trump-era EPA in its own bid to regulate power plant carbon, said Jonathan Brightbill, a partner at the law firm Winston & Strawn LLP.

In his former role as a top Justice Department environment attorney during the years of then-President Donald Trump, Brightbill defended that administration’s power plant rule against legal attack. He also argued in court against the Obama regulation.

Brightbill said EPA had appeared to get the memo on the major questions doctrine. But the agency still has to make its case that carbon capture meets the Clean Air Act’s dictates.

“EPA will have a hard time showing that [carbon capture] is adequately demonstrated sufficient to use it as a basis for regulation,” said Scott Segal, a partner with Bracewell LLP, in an email. He predicted that the fact that a plant may have to store its captured carbon offsite might be a complication.

“The Court will likely be on high alert for a power plant regime that pushes the envelope of its previous decision,” he said.

A chill from the Hill?

The Biden EPA must also grapple with political threats to its climate policies, which are already facing repeal demands from congressional Republicans and are embedded in the standoff over the federal debt limit.

Trump’s EPA scrapped Barack Obama’s rules for oil and gas and put forward weaker rules for both power plants and vehicles. A similar reversal would likely happen again if Biden were to lose to a Republican next year.

And greens worry that if EPA waits to finish its the power rules until June 2024 — as its regulatory agenda now indicates — that could allow a Republican Congress and president to use a procedural tool called the Congressional Review Act to instantly undo the standards without a lengthy rulemaking process. The act allows simple majorities in both the House and Senate to reverse recently enacted regulations, a step GOP lawmakers used to quash more than a dozen late-Obama-era rules during Trump’s first few months in office.

 

View comments

Read next

 

 

 

Edited May 6, 2023 by Ron Wagner

[Ron Wagner + 642]

On 5/3/2023 at 7:54 AM, Rob Plant said:

The North Sea Energy Transition

https://www.siemens-energy.com/global/en/news/magazine/2023/the-north-sea-energy-transition.html#tblciGiAhrNkoHajMKR8U3V01HZciiMfrpaPPO5SnZWzrK2yxxyDGr14oi9S0-Pu_mvqyAQ

Rob, do you know of any wind turbines that can handle high winds without having to shut down? It would be great if any of them can be produced at a good price.

 

around 50-55 mph

 

Most of what you would call large-scale wind turbines typically start turning in winds of seven to nine miles per hour. Their top speeds are around 50-55 mph, which is their upper safety limit. Large-scale wind turbines normally have a braking system that kicks in around 55 mph to prevent damage to the blades.Aug 16, 2021

 

How Wind Turbines Could Be Used in NC

PBS North Carolina

https://www.pbsnc.org › blogs › science › how-m

[Ron Wagner + 642]

https://www.ge.com/news/reports/riders-storm-ge-building-wind-turbine-can-weather-violent-typhoons-hurricanes

WIND ENERGY

Riders On The Storm: GE Is Building A Wind Turbine That Can Weather Violent Typhoons, Hurricanes

June 17, 2018

• 
• 
• 
• 

Much like hurricanes in the northern Atlantic, typhoons are a perennial menace threatening Japan, the Philippines, China and other nations sitting on the Pacific Rim. Last year the region endured 11 of these tropical cyclones, whose winds can toss vehicles into the air, uproot trees and tear roofs from houses.

They're also a threat to the adoption of wind power in island nations like Japan, where wind power represents a small — 3.4 gigawatts — but growing generating capacity. Engineers from GE are now working to make sure that new wind farms can survive nature’s tantrums.

 

A “normal” wind turbine can withstand wind speeds of up to 42.5 meters per second, or about 94 miles per hour. That’s around the same strength as a Category 1 storm like last year’s Hurricane Nate, which hammered Central America.

 

So GE Renewable Energy is building a stronger one. A team in Barcelona is working on a special class of turbine called the 4.2-117. It can withstand violent typhoons with gusts of up to 57 meters per second, or 128 mph. “These turbines are not a normal class of turbine,” says Ismael Hidalgo, an onshore engineering manager at ‎GE Renewable Energy in Barcelona, who is leading the team designing these machines.

 

How do they go about doing this? First, a brief lesson in turbine engineering. There is a simple rule of thumb for wind turbines: The bigger the blades — or rotor diameter — the more power it can generate.

GE wind turbines serve all over the world. Above are turbines powering the Ararat wind farm in Australia. Top image: A GE technician performs maintenance on a GE wind turbine near Galati, Romania. Images credit: GE Renewable Energy.

For example, the rotor diameter for GE’s 1.7 MW onshore model is 100 meters, which is around the length of a soccer field. As its name suggests, the turbine can generate 1.7 MW. The 4.8 MW version is a whopping 158 meters — just a bit shorter than the Washington Monument. So you can see how that extra length packs a punch.

 

Longer blades are typically better because they work like a lever and need less wind to make the generator spin. Made mostly from fiberglass, they are designed to flex and handle the vast majority of what the weather blows their way.

 

You might think the solution is obvious — shorter blades. That's certainly part of it — GE’s 4.2-117 typhoon-resistant turbine has a relatively modest rotor diameter of 117 meters, which Hidalgo says is critical to reducing the mechanical load on the tower.

 

But typhoon-proofing a turbine involves fine-tuning the dimensions of other main parts, as well. For instance, the tower that holds the turbine and rotor in the air is made from steel that is thicker than usual. This meatier trunk anchors the turbine like a mighty redwood tree. The entire 4.2-117 turbine weighs around 460 metric tons, which is 100 to 150 metric tons heavier than a standard turbine. True, the installation requires a bigger crane — but the extra cost can work as insurance for future storms.

 

Despite its clipped wings, the 4.2-117 turbine still packs top-tier power, generating 4.2 MW. You might wonder how smaller turbine blades punch above their weight in terms of power output. Hidalgo explains that wind power is a factor of the swept area of the blades and wind speed. So the unusually strong winds do the heavy lifting in the equation.

 

Another upside: The shorter blades are easier to move on the road. “Sometimes you are limited by the roads and bridges in Japan, so you need blades that can actually access the area for your wind farm,” Hidalgo says, adding that it takes nine trucks to transport the typhoon turbine to its location.

 

Typhoon-resistant turbines make good sense in Japan, where typhoon season begins in late August and runs until late October. About 30 typhoons and tropical storms form every year over the northwest Pacific Ocean, and several of them make landfall in Japan.

 

The sturdy turbines can work anywhere in the world. In strict weather terms, a typhoon is not really any different from a hurricane or cyclone. This means the tough 4.2-117 could stand tall on the blustery pampas of Argentina, on the U.S. Gulf Coast or in India.

 

GE will start assembling a prototype of its typhoon-proof turbine at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in the Netherlands in June. The turbine will also undergo six months of rigorous testing. “We’re building a turbine to withstand an exceptional event,” says Hidalgo. “So we will simulate extreme conditions, and see if the data that we collect matches up with our expected values.”

CATEGORIES

Energy

[Ron Wagner + 642]

On 5/4/2023 at 5:10 AM, Rob Plant said:

This seems crazy to me, NG surely is a key transition energy resource and is crucial to an economic and stable transition. In fact you could argue it should remain as a key energy resource for many many decades to come.

New York State Successfully Passes Ban On Natural Gas Stoves

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/New-York-State-Successfully-Passes-Ban-On-Natural-Gas-Stoves.html

@Ron Wagner I bet you would agree with me on this one Ron!

New York and all strongly Blue States try to live in a fantasy world at the expense of their citizens. It is hellish for a rational and ethical person who values freedom. 

[bloodman33 + 20]

econothing! they are talking about you!!

We are doomed!  Doomed.

Big oil must be destroyed along with coal!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHGt9l6U5fM

[Ron Wagner + 642]

On 5/2/2023 at 3:05 AM, Rob Plant said:

But that isnt with Joe consumer yet, its still astronomical!

Try living here and you'd know.

Where do you live? I live in Illinois. My electricity and natural gas are very reasonable in price. My electric comes from Constellation in Texas. My natural gas is from Ameren Illinois. I spend as much on delivery of energy and its taxes as I do on the energy itself. 

If we had our ICE vehicles set up for natural gas, I could pump it at home and would not need to go to a gas station. My engines would last longer also. That should have all been encouraged rather than discouraged by state and federal governments. 

[specinho + 439]

On 5/4/2023 at 4:15 PM, notsonice said:

If the news regarding majority of newly built dams are not sustainable due to unpredictable weather????

do you understand how pump storage works????  they are net zero on water use

Pump storage - do you mean when the water is low, water will be pumped from the reservoir into the dam and vice versa? Hence, zero usage of water? 

You might have missed a few highlighted events.....

1. Soil erosion upstream causing heavy sedimentation at dams and a lot of troubles in maintenance and sustaining them... 

2. Unexpected draught causing dams to be underutilized or low in productivity

3. Unexpected down pour that caused dams to be in a status of near to burst... Released of water caused severe flood with heavy damage down stream...

The design around the dams is probably problematic... Which led to "coal plants might not be just a back up plan"... 

 

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

2 hours ago, bloodman33 said:

econothing! they are talking about you!!

We are doomed!  Doomed.

Big oil must be destroyed along with coal!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHGt9l6U5fM

Then why do you insist on filling your gas tank with fossil fuels? Either you are a defeatist or you do not really believe that fossil fuels are a danger.

Either way, your arguments are nonsense.

Your own video debunks the warming nonsense, admitting that during the past eight years the trend in cooling. That is consistent with the predictions of solar variable-caused temperature cycles which indicate a cooling trend beginning in this period. 

Thanks for the support in debunking climate alarmism. You have been very helpful.

Edited May 6, 2023 by Ecocharger

[TailingsPond + 460]

12 hours ago, specinho said:

3. Unexpected down pour that caused dams to be in a status of near to burst... Released of water caused severe flood with heavy damage down stream...

 

 

Dams greatly decrease the risk of flood damage.

[TailingsPond + 460]

10 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Then why do you insist on filling your gas tank with fossil fuels? Either you are a defeatist or you do not really believe that fossil fuels are a danger.

Why do people eat junk food, gamble, smoke, drink, use drugs?

Many detrimental things are highly popular. 

MAGA

 

[TailingsPond + 460]

Seriously, the idea that usage = good is really bad logic.

Also cheaper = good is really bad logic.

Broccoli is more expensive than a cheeseburger on a calorie/$ basis. 

Metformin sales are huge.

Edited May 6, 2023 by TailingsPond

[specinho + 439]

14 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

Dams greatly decrease the risk of flood damage.

 

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

On 5/6/2023 at 1:36 PM, TailingsPond said:

Why do people eat junk food, gamble, smoke, drink, use drugs?

Many detrimental things are highly popular. 

MAGA

 

The question is why do YOU fill your gas tank with fossil fuels? You apparently do not really believe in the climate alarmist nonsense you are spouting. I have no pity for addictions to false ideas. Sorry.

Edited May 8, 2023 by Ecocharger

[bloodman33 + 20]

oilprice.com article says oil companies are destroying the planet!

ecogashead do something!  Maybe you should troll the website?

 

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/14000-Inactive-Oil-Gas-Wells-In-US-Unplugged.html

[Rob Plant + 2,600]

On 5/6/2023 at 3:53 AM, Ron Wagner said:

Rob, do you know of any wind turbines that can handle high winds without having to shut down? It would be great if any of them can be produced at a good price.

 

around 50-55 mph

 

Most of what you would call large-scale wind turbines typically start turning in winds of seven to nine miles per hour. Their top speeds are around 50-55 mph, which is their upper safety limit. Large-scale wind turbines normally have a braking system that kicks in around 55 mph to prevent damage to the blades.Aug 16, 2021

 

How Wind Turbines Could Be Used in NC

PBS North Carolina

https://www.pbsnc.org › blogs › science › how-m

No Ron I dont know of any as that would be unsafe obviously, but then again above 55mph is a rareity in the North Sea!

Please see statistics for the last 15 years in knots.

https://www.windfinder.com/windstatistics/forties_north_sea_platform

[Rob Plant + 2,600]

On 5/6/2023 at 5:56 AM, specinho said:

Pump storage - do you mean when the water is low, water will be pumped from the reservoir into the dam and vice versa? Hence, zero usage of water? 

You might have missed a few highlighted events.....

1. Soil erosion upstream causing heavy sedimentation at dams and a lot of troubles in maintenance and sustaining them... 

2. Unexpected draught causing dams to be underutilized or low in productivity

3. Unexpected down pour that caused dams to be in a status of near to burst... Released of water caused severe flood with heavy damage down stream...

The design around the dams is probably problematic... Which led to "coal plants might not be just a back up plan"... 

 

Most pumped storage are from naturally occurring lakes, not dams

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

On 5/8/2023 at 6:31 PM, bloodman33 said:

oilprice.com article says oil companies are destroying the planet!

ecogashead do something!  Maybe you should troll the website?

 

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/14000-Inactive-Oil-Gas-Wells-In-US-Unplugged.html

You have already provided me with the data showing that global warming is nonsense. Thank you for that.

Perhaps sometime you should actually read your own material.

Here is from the article you cite above, showing that CO2 is not a powerful greenhouse gas,

"Although methane does not usually get the same bad rap that carbon dioxide does, it’s actually a far more potent greenhouse gas, more than 80X more powerful at warming the earth than CO2 over 20 years and 28x more powerful on a 100-year timescale."

Edited May 10, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Rob Plant + 2,600]

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

You have already provided me with the data showing that global warming is nonsense. Thank you for that.

Perhaps sometime you should actually read your own material.

Here is from the article you cite above, showing that CO2 is not a powerful greenhouse gas,

"Although methane does not usually get the same bad rap that carbon dioxide does, it’s actually a far more potent greenhouse gas, more than 80X more powerful at warming the earth than CO2 over 20 years and 28x more powerful on a 100-year timescale."

You dont need much of this to warm up the planet!

SF6: The Little Gas That Could… Make Global Warming Worse

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thebakersinstitute/2021/03/25/sf6-the-little-gas-that-could-make-global-warming-worse/?sh=37777e4f22ad

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49567197

It makes Co2 seem like a food for plants not a planet killer

Electrification of the planet is keeping this quiet, havent seen many climate protesters moaning about this.

 

[bloodman33 + 20]

 The methane is coming from all the old uncapped oil wells.