JM

GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

Recommended Posts

(edited)

Biden & Co. are still trying to understand how the economy works. Oil and gasoline production  increases when taxes on them are reduced and oil and gasoline production declines when taxes are increased....it does not take an Einstein to figure this out, but I guess that Einstein has taken a pass on the White House.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/What-Biden-Is-Getting-Wrong-About-Big-Oils-Profits.html

"President Joe Biden has targeted Big Oil companies, accusing them of price gouging.

The high profits and soaring inflation are both a result of high oil prices, and oil companies have little influence over that.

The oil companies are always a convenient scapegoat, particularly for Democrats."

Edited by Ecocharger
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

19 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Ah, nobrain debunked yourself once again.  You used countries with all their refineries etc going as CO2 values which then get exported instead of what the people actually use.  Please keep posting.  This is hilarious. 

And do be brave and use values from 10 years ago before everyone decided to install a few wind turbines.  Don't be shy now. 

 

 

you are the braindead moron stating countries that use the most  FF per capita   have longer life expediencies....

I post real numbers and facts that show that you are wrong , and you ??? all you do is post BS with nothing to back it up.......

 

 

 

 

Edited by notsonice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Coal production and coal usage is ramping up in Germany. Europe is going all out for fossil fuels.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Germany-Turns-To-Coal-Power-Amid-Natural-Gas-Crisis.html

"As Europe continues to struggle to wean itself off Russian oil and gas, coal is going to play an increasingly important role in electricity production.

German Economy Minister has admitted that the country will have to use more coal-fired power generation for a transition period.

Germany’s top priority with regard to natural gas right now is ensuring that there is enough in storage to ensure a winter supply"

Edited by Ecocharger
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Coal production and coal usage is ramping up in Germany. Europe is going all out for fossil fuels.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Germany-Turns-To-Coal-Power-Amid-Natural-Gas-Crisis.html

"As Europe continues to struggle to wean itself off Russian oil and gas, coal is going to play an increasingly important role in electricity production.

German Economy Minister has admitted that the country will have to use more coal-fired power generation for a transition period.

Germany’s top priority with regard to natural gas right now is ensuring that there is enough in storage to ensure a winter supply"

Far-right sends shockwaves in France after electoral breakthrough

Securing 42% in April's presidential election, Le Pen had already tapped into the general disenchantment with President Emmanuel Macron and identifying anger across the country over the rising cost of living and the decline of many rural communities.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/far-right-sends-shockwaves-france-after-electoral-breakthrough-2022-06-19/

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

23 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Hey, its almost as if energy/power = life.  Who knew...

Oh right, science says so. 

Given that "science says so," check out this scientific article (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab7461) in which the researchers conclude that CO2 emissions are not significant contributors to improvements in human development (e.g., life expectancy). Some quotations from the article:

"The presence of strong dynamic coupling, as measured by FDD, cannot demonstrate a causal connection, but a weak coupling can disprove one. In particular, the weak dynamic couplings between CO2 emissions and primary energy use on the one hand, and life expectancy on the other, demonstrate that fossil fuels are not, as often imagined or stated [53, 54], significant contributors to improvements in human development." (p. 6)

"Past advances in life expectancy are very weakly coupled to increases in primary energy use and carbon emissions. The implications of this are profound: rapidly decreasing emissions, even through reductions in primary energy demand, need not be catastrophic in terms of
our well-being, so long as instrumental need satisfiers (such as food and household electricity) are prioritized [22, 26, 27, 38, 58, 59]." (p. 7)

Also, the 2022 Air Quality Life Index research update indicates that "...particulate air pollution takes 2.2 years off global average life expectancy, or a combined 17 billion life-years, relative to a world that met the WHO guideline. This impact on life expectancy is comparable to that of smoking, more than three times that of alcohol use and unsafe water, six times that of HIV/AIDS, and 89 times that of conflict and terrorism."  https://aqli.epic.uchicago.edu/reports/

Edited by Polyphia
  • Rolling Eye 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Far-right sends shockwaves in France after electoral breakthrough

Securing 42% in April's presidential election, Le Pen had already tapped into the general disenchantment with President Emmanuel Macron and identifying anger across the country over the rising cost of living and the decline of many rural communities.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/far-right-sends-shockwaves-france-after-electoral-breakthrough-2022-06-19/

How is this related to (green) energy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/19/2022 at 10:25 AM, Polyphia said:

Are you claiming that increased use of fossil fuels causes life expectancy to increase?

America has lowered its pollution by exchanging coal use with natural gas to a large extent. Renewables are also helping. Biden has artificially raised the price of diesel and gasoline by restricting pipelines and exploration and leasing. Natural gas exports are helping our economy despite him. The rest of the world is competing to produce or import more fossil fuels due to Russian aggression. 

Fuel use has little to do with life expectancy. Health habits and medical care are the main problems worldwide. Obesity is a major problem in some countries, including America. Obesity causes diabetes, heart disease, bone problems, cancer, depression, etc. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, notsonice said:

you are the braindead moron stating countries that use the most  FF per capita   have longer life expediencies....

I post real numbers and facts that show that you are wrong , and you ??? all you do is post BS with nothing to back it up.......

The only fossil fuel of real concern is coal. Also the use of very low grades of diesel used in ships by some nations. 

The industrial era was based on wood, then coal, then diesel and gasoline. It will take several decades for renewables to match up to the energy produced by fossil fuels worldwide. Asia and Africa will be a major factor. Why do you overlook such a huge part of worldwide reality? Are you in favor of ignoring China manufacturing our solar panels etc? Basically dealing with our greatest enemy for crucial infrastructure? 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Polyphia said:

Given that "science says so," check out this scientific article (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab7461) in which the researchers conclude that CO2 emissions are not significant contributors to improvements in human development (e.g., life expectancy). Some quotations from the article:

"The presence of strong dynamic coupling, as measured by FDD, cannot demonstrate a causal connection, but a weak coupling can disprove one. In particular, the weak dynamic couplings between CO2 emissions and primary energy use on the one hand, and life expectancy on the other, demonstrate that fossil fuels are not, as often imagined or stated [53, 54], significant contributors to improvements in human development." (p. 6)

"Past advances in life expectancy are very weakly coupled to increases in primary energy use and carbon emissions. The implications of this are profound: rapidly decreasing emissions, even through reductions in primary energy demand, need not be catastrophic in terms of
our well-being, so long as instrumental need satisfiers (such as food and household electricity) are prioritized [22, 26, 27, 38, 58, 59]." (p. 7)

Also, the 2022 Air Quality Life Index research update indicates that "...particulate air pollution takes 2.2 years off global average life expectancy, or a combined 17 billion life-years, relative to a world that met the WHO guideline. This impact on life expectancy is comparable to that of smoking, more than three times that of alcohol use and unsafe water, six times that of HIV/AIDS, and 89 times that of conflict and terrorism."  https://aqli.epic.uchicago.edu/reports/

 

Highly biased analysis. Without fossil fuel vehicles, the medical system would stop working and life expectancy would dramatically decline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Reduced refining capacity is setting up a fuel disaster scenario for American and European economies, and drastically lower standards of living for the average American and European.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Can-The-Global-Gasoline-And-Diesel-Crisis-Be-Solved.html

"Diesel and gasoline markets are witnessing crack spreads in the $50-$60 per barrel range due to inventory stocks across the world being at record lows.

The global oil demand recovery looks resilient as the final Covid-related restrictions are being removed around the world.

Refining capacity in both Europe and the U.S. has fallen dramatically in the last decade, making the replacement of low inventories particularly difficult."

Edited by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Highly biased analysis. Without fossil fuel vehicles, the medical system would stop working and life expectancy would dramatically decline.

And thank you once again for providing absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support your claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Polyphia said:

And thank you once again for providing absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support your claims.

An appeal to common sense is sufficient for any thinking human being.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

3 hours ago, Polyphia said:

And thank you once again for providing absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support your claims.

Enjoy hand tilling behind a horse from before the sun is up to after sundown.  Enjoy no medicenes as they are made from FF.  Let me know what your life expectancy is again.  Good luck with your average 40 year old life!

Oh right, you will be the slave owner, so you will have a nice pampered OLD life, while all the slaves die before age 30.  👍

Edited by footeab@yahoo.com
proper sarcasm
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Polyphia said:

How is this related to (green) energy?

The Greens and socialists do work together against fossil fuel and nuclear power. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/17/2022 at 9:11 PM, Boat said:

That’s Eco speak for sold out, come back next year. 

I think that the existing and still coming ICE vehicles will be kept running nearly twice as long as expected due to the rising prices. Many will be smaller and more efficient, many will be "mild hybrids" and many will be plug in hybrids that will get you around town only. Those that want hybrids will gradually increase their numbers. 

There is no reason that small ICE vehicles cannot compete very well with electrical vehicles. Just make them with smaller engines and continuously variable transmissions. Make them as large as is needed for practicality and comfort but no larger. My Mitsubishi Mirage is about $15,000 and gets 40 MPG. No stops to charge up and it could become a mild hybrid or plug in hybrid in the future. You can have $15,000 to spend on gasoline, not pay the interest on the $15,000 difference, pay less on car insurance, not have to plug in and waste time waiting, or worry about range. I can get close to 400 miles on a fill up of 9.2 gallons in the tank. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Polyphia said:

Given that "science says so," check out this scientific article (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab7461) in which the researchers conclude that CO2 emissions are not significant contributors to improvements in human development (e.g., life expectancy). Some quotations from the article:

"The presence of strong dynamic coupling, as measured by FDD, cannot demonstrate a causal connection, but a weak coupling can disprove one. In particular, the weak dynamic couplings between CO2 emissions and primary energy use on the one hand, and life expectancy on the other, demonstrate that fossil fuels are not, as often imagined or stated [53, 54], significant contributors to improvements in human development." (p. 6)

"Past advances in life expectancy are very weakly coupled to increases in primary energy use and carbon emissions. The implications of this are profound: rapidly decreasing emissions, even through reductions in primary energy demand, need not be catastrophic in terms of
our well-being, so long as instrumental need satisfiers (such as food and household electricity) are prioritized [22, 26, 27, 38, 58, 59]." (p. 7)

Also, the 2022 Air Quality Life Index research update indicates that "...particulate air pollution takes 2.2 years off global average life expectancy, or a combined 17 billion life-years, relative to a world that met the WHO guideline. This impact on life expectancy is comparable to that of smoking, more than three times that of alcohol use and unsafe water, six times that of HIV/AIDS, and 89 times that of conflict and terrorism."  https://aqli.epic.uchicago.edu/reports/

 

WHO speculation is only a guess. There are too many variables and many other ways to increase life expectancy. Losing weight, eating right, not smoking or abusing drugs of any kind, preventive health measures, health screening and treatment are sure ways of increasing life expectancy. 

Particulates, that can be eliminated, come mainly from coal. Dust is nearly impossible to control outdoors but can be and is controlled indoors in air conditioned homes, to a great extent. 

The availability of fentanyl is the main thing that is now reducing youthful lifespans. That has a far greater effect than the deaths of the old, feeble, and diseased. Thank China, Mexico, and others for that. Our ignorant drug users are killing themselves accidentally because they are impulsive, uninformed, naive, followers, or have suicidal tendencies. They may have parents or other influences that use drugs of their own with prescriptions. The ignorant equate one with another. Often they are trusting black market drugs which are fentanyl pills made in the form of safe drugs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

871005574_has-bright-idea(1).jpeg.65cf71f024bc39431e0bafbc985b5091.jpeg

Bad link.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Now the absurdity of this world is coming to light.....

 

Gravitas: India asks rich countries to pay for climate damage

https://user.india.com/sso/prelogin?utm_source=https://news.google.com/&utm_medium=Organic&source=wion&ru=https://www.wionews.com/zeesso/verify?destination=/videos/gravitas-india-asks-rich-countries-to-pay-for-climate-damage-488912

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-58922398

India is the third largest emitter of carbon dioxide (CO2) after China and the US.

With its rapidly growing population and an economy heavily dependent on coal and oil, its emissions are on a steep upward trajectory unless action is taken to curb them.

Along with China, India forced a last minute change to the agreement at the COP26 climate summit, softening a commitment to tackling emissions from the burning of coal.

COP26: China and India must explain themselves, says Sharma

China teaming up with India to water down the language will have come as something of a blow to those who wanted a much more ambitious outcome at the conference.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59280241

MY MY it would seem something is "A FOOT"...

https://ballotpedia.org/Fact_check/China,_India,_and_the_Paris_Climate_Agreement

In a June 5 appearance on "The Story with Martha McCallum," EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said that the Paris Climate Agreement "did not hold China and India accountable," and that "India didn't have to take any steps in the agreement to reduce CO2 emissions until they received $2.5 trillion in aid. China didn't have to take any steps until the year 2030."[1]

Is this true?

Each signatory to the Paris Climate Agreement is required to submit a plan, called a nationally determined contribution, detailing emissions reductions.[2] There is no penalty if China, India, or any other signatory does not achieve those targets.[3]

Under the Paris agreement, developed countries such as the United States pledge to provide funding and technical support to developing countries such as India and China to assist with emissions reductions. The agreement does not specify how much funding will be provided, nor does it name the recipient countries.[4][3]

In its nationally determined contribution, India estimated that it would need "at least USD 2.5 trillion" in aid by 2030 to achieve its emissions reduction targets.[5]

In its nationally determined contribution, China forecast it would reach peak emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) by 2030, at the latest. (This means that China will not reduce CO2 emissions, on net, until after 2030, unless it peaks earlier.) China also outlined emissions reduction activities that it plans to undertake before 2030, such as developing renewable energies; increasing forested areas; and developing more intensified low-carbon alternatives.[6]

 

Background

Scott Pruitt is the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). He previously served as the attorney general of Oklahoma (2011 to 2017) and in the Oklahoma State Senate (1998 to 2006).[7]

Paris Climate Agreement

In September 2016, President Barack Obama committed the United States to join more than 190 countries in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in hopes of preventing the global average temperature from increasing by 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels and to limit any temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100.[8][3]

On June 1, President Donald Trump announced the U.S.' withdrawal from the agreement.[9]

Aid to Developing Countries

Article 9 of the agreement stipulates that developed countries "shall provide financial resources to assist developing country Parties" with mitigation and adaptation efforts. It also encourages developed countries to "take the lead in mobilizing climate finance from a wide variety of sources, instruments and channels, noting the significant role of public funds" and says that "[s]uch mobilization of climate finance should represent a progression beyond previous efforts."[3]

Article 10 of the agreement states that developed countries shall provide "[s]upport, including financial support," to developing countries for technology development and transfer.[3]

Additionally, developed countries were "strongly urge[d]" to increase their financial support for developing countries, building on a joint goal of $100 billion per year by 2020, and to increase that goal before 2025.[10][3]

India

The agreement does not specify the amount of aid India will receive or the steps the country must take to receive aid.[3]

In its nationally determined contribution plan, India declared its intent to reduce emissions per unit of gross domestic product (GDP) by 33 to 35 percent over 2005 levels by 2030; to increase electric power installed capacity from non-fossil fuels; and to create a carbon sink of 2.5 to 3 billion tons of CO2 emissions.[11][5]

The plan estimated India's "international climate finance needs" to be "at least USD 2.5 trillion (at 2014-2015 prices)" between 2016 and 2030.[5]

China

In its nationally determined contribution, China detailed four goals to achieve by 2030 (or earlier): (1) to reach peak CO2 emissions; (2) to reduce CO2 emissions per unit of GDP by 60 to 65 percent from the 2005 level; (3) to increase consumption of non-fossil fuels; and (4) to increase forest stock volume by 4.5 billion cubic meters over 2005 levels.[6]

Pledging to reach “peak” CO2 emissions by 2030 means that carbon dioxide emissions will not continue to rise, on net, after 2030. Chinese officials claim that the country has already lowered CO2 emissions per unit of GDP by 33.8 percent of 2005 levels; increased use of non-fossil fuels; increased forested areas compared to 2005 levels; and increased renewable energy capacity.[6]

Conclusion

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, appearing on "The Story with Martha McCallum," said that the Paris Climate Agreement "did not hold China and India accountable," and that "India didn't have to take any steps in the agreement to reduce CO2 emissions until they received $2.5 trillion in aid. China didn't have to take any steps until the year 2030."[1]

Developed countries have pledged to provide $100 billion annually to assist developing countries in reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. The agreement does not specify how much developing countries will receive. However, India estimated a financial need of "at least USD 2.5 trillion" in aid by 2030 to achieve its objectives.[3][5]

China has pledged to reach peak CO2 emissions by 2030, at the latest, and outlined other programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.[6]

See also

Sources and Notes

 

  1.  Jump up to:1.0 1.1 Fox News, "EPA head Pruitt: Paris climate change agreement 'all hat and no cattle,'" June 5, 2017
  2.  The nationally determined contributions are slated for review every five years and can be changed at any time. The agreement features a framework for tracking progress, but there is no penalty for failing to achieve the emissions targets. See footnote 3.
  3.  Jump up to:3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, "Adoption of the Paris Agreement," December 12, 2015
  4.  The Paris Climate Agreement references "developed" and "developing" countries but does not provide any definitions for these terms. However, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change divides countries into three main groups: (1) Annex I countries: industrialized countries and countries with economies in transition; (2) Annex II countries: only industrialized countries; (3) Non-Annex I countries: all other parties to the convention. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, "Parties & Observers," accessed June 15, 2017
  5.  Jump up to:5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, "India's intended nationally determined contribution," October 2, 2016
  6.  Jump up to:6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, "Enhanced actions on climate change: China's intended nationally determined contributions," September 3, 2016
  7.  United States Environmental Protection Agency, "EPA's Administrator," accessed June 20, 2017
  8.  The White House, "President Obama: The United States Formally Enters the Paris Agreement," September 3, 2016
  9.  The White House, "President Trump Announces U.S. Withdrawal From the Paris Climate Accord," June 1, 2017
  10.  Carbon Brief, "Paris 2015: Tracking requests for climate finance," September 17, 2015
  11.  A carbon sink absorbs more carbon that it emits. Fern, "What are carbon sinks?" accessed June 20, 2017
 
 

 

Edited by Eyes Wide Open

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

An appeal to common sense is sufficient for any thinking human being.

You must not have read the article, or if you did, you didn't understand it. Stating that a research article has "highly biased analysis" without expressing what led you to that conclusion is a bit of a give away. And I doubt that you are anywhere near cornering the market on common sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.