JM

GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

Recommended Posts

(edited)

12 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

I promote natural gas and have seen virtually no subsidies in expanding the use of natural gas versus the other alternativies. I have seen many fiascos involving billions of dollars in green subsidiesl. 

IMF says $4.7 trillion in fossil fuel subsidies, 85% of which is coal or petroleum. Presumably the rest might be NG related.

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2019/05/02/Global-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Remain-Large-An-Update-Based-on-Country-Level-Estimates-46509

Keep in mind that they are interpreting 'subsidy' a certain way, but is probably fairly mainstream, or getting mainstream in large parts of the world: https://www.vox.com/2019/5/17/18624740/fossil-fuel-subsidies-climate-imf

Edited by surrept33
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

I promote natural gas and have seen virtually no subsidies in expanding the use of natural gas versus the other alternativies. I have seen many fiascos involving billions of dollars in green subsidiesl. 

649 billion per year for US fossil fuels: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/06/15/united-states-spend-ten-times-more-on-fossil-fuel-subsidies-than-education/?sh=3457fbc14473

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, surrept33 said:

IMF says $4.7 trillion in fossil fuel subsidies, 85% of which is coal or petroleum. Presumably the rest might be NG related.

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2019/05/02/Global-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Remain-Large-An-Update-Based-on-Country-Level-Estimates-46509

Might be. Nothing compared to what it should have been. From recent discussions and my own research natural gas run ships are the biggest factor that could be improved soon, 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The IMF is not a group I trust as a source to base American energy or tax policy on. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Monetary_Fund

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, surrept33 said:

Your reference here is not to a scientific article, but to a summary review by an unidentified author.

The work on solar cycles is not even referred to in your article, although they provide a much better explanation of global climate change than CO2 models. 

The CO2 models are plagued with fundamental scientific errors in model specification which over-rate the significance of CO2 as a force in climate change. Bad science which even an undergraduate in statistical models could easily spot.

Here is one example of the solar cycle models, in addition to the University of California studies linked above.

Interestingly, this work agrees with the California studies that a cooling phase will now begin, and will continue for some time. 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3

Edited by Ecocharger
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

21 hours ago, surrept33 said:

IMF says $4.7 trillion in fossil fuel subsidies, 85% of which is coal or petroleum. Presumably the rest might be NG related.

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2019/05/02/Global-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Remain-Large-An-Update-Based-on-Country-Level-Estimates-46509

Keep in mind that they are interpreting 'subsidy' a certain way, but is probably fairly mainstream, or getting mainstream in large parts of the world: https://www.vox.com/2019/5/17/18624740/fossil-fuel-subsidies-climate-imf

Do they include roads and railways as "subsidies" to the oil industry? 

That is wild, like the EV industry does not use roads or railways.

Just looking at it, some of the alleged "subsidies" are questionable, such as failing to levy carbon taxes on oil producers and consumers because of CO2  "pollution", or the military expenditures made to defend shipping lanes which carry oil tankers. Real nonsense.

This is definitely not mainstream.

Edited by Ecocharger
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Your reference here is not to a scientific article, but to a summary review by an unidentified author.

The work on solar cycles is not even referred to in your article, although they provide a much better explanation of global climate change than CO2 models. 

The CO2 models are plagued with fundamental scientific errors in model specification which over-rate the significance of CO2 as a force in climate change. Bad science which even an undergraduate in statistical models could easily spot.

Here is one example of the solar cycle models, in addition to the University of California studies linked above.

Interestingly, this work agrees with the California studies that a cooling phase will now begin, and will continue for some time. 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3

It's based on this IPCC (AR4) report - see the bibliography.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter2-1.pdf

More recent IPCC reports include more recent studies w.r.t the solar cycle.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, notsonice said:

we need CO2 to survive as a species? We need Oxygen to survive as a species unless you are a vegetable.

We need both!

No CO2 = no food, so no us

No O2  also = no us obvs

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 4/25/2021 at 6:19 PM, Meredith Poor said:

See attached. Picture of wind farm near Portland, Texas. Those sure look like plowed fields.

Most landowners in Texas try to milk everything they can from their real estate. Oil, Gas, Wind, Solar, Cows, Corn, Cotton, and Soybeans. A careful look at the picture shows some oil/gas wells as well as the turbines.

PortlandTexasWindTurbines.jpg

This photo is apparently the Midway Wind farm.  From the ground, no pumpjacks, no Christmas trees.  So, no oil and gas.

image.png.726c74ae85fda87792e896112de70b6d.png

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

20 hours ago, surrept33 said:

It's based on this IPCC (AR4) report - see the bibliography.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter2-1.pdf

More recent IPCC reports include more recent studies w.r.t the solar cycle.

No, the same criticisms apply to the more recent reports by the IPCC. The IPCC has not even looked at the major solar cycles in any of their cited work. The IPCC models are plagued with specification error which excluded solar cycle data. That resulted in overestimating the significance of CO2 as a factor in climate change. 

That is junk science which even an undergrad in stats could see through. Specification error in models is a common problem and renders these climate models which the IPCC relies upon to be of no value.

The solar-based models which I linked to you above give a better than 95% explanatory power for climate change, vastly superior to the CO2 models. 

Edited by Ecocharger
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

16 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

High oil prices will be tremendous for EV demand! 

Odd what i see when the TX debacle is done, i give you the Green Revolution!

Hey buddy got a spare dime comes to mind. Or another pump.

1X7__hq64-h6W9Fe7RoxTsMImzv40yu4TBZ7_cZbbgY (1).jpg

Edited by Eyes Wide Open
  • Haha 4
  • Upvote 1
  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

High oil prices will be tremendous for EV demand! 

It is very apparent you have no clue how businesses operate and supply and demand.

 

Oil prices go up, so do the prices of all commodities ... including all the REE's, Li is already sky rocketing, so is copper and along with the the list of all REE's. The hype is amazing for the promoters of EVs and all these green hogwash being pushed.

They are not green the only thing green about all these "green" techs (99% of green tech) is the GREEN GREED!!!!

All these tech companies and other companies developing so called EVs and other such techs are still polluting but getting credits by buying and selling those , I dig a hole here, I burn this here but I plant 50 trees there so I get a green credit. SHAM!!!

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ARROGANCE of some humans is just amazing, they think they can effect and affect climate!

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lundin Energy AB has announced that it has sold the world’s first ever certified carbon neutrally produced oil to Saras S.p.A from its Edvard Grieg field offshore Norway.

The company highlighted that the cargo was carbon neutral across the full life of the field, including exploration, development, and Scope 1 and 2 emissions from production. In order to supply a fully carbon neutral barrel to Saras, residual emissions of 2,302 tons of CO2 were compensated through a nature-based carbon capture project, certified by the Verified Carbon Standard, Lundin revealed.

Lundin noted that the trade was independently certified as carbon neutral by Intertek under its CarbonZero standard. The company, which outlined that it will produce every barrel as carbon neutral from 2025, highlighted that its Edvard Grieg field is the first oil field in the world to be independently certified by Intertek.

“We were the first company to have one of its field’s carbon emissions independently certified as low carbon, and this certified carbon neutral transaction with Saras, is the next stage in what we believe will become a key value differentiator for Lundin Energy,” Nick Walker, the president and chief executive officer of Lundin, said in a company statement.

“The provenance of a barrel and how it is produced is increasingly important as society and industry require lower carbon feedstocks to achieve emission reduction targets and meet the goals of the Paris Agreement,” he added.

“This trade has been enabled by our industry leading decarbonization strategy and offers a proof point of where the crude market is heading and the potential value that can be realized through efficient, industry leading emissions reductions,” Walker continued.

Dario Scaffardi, the chief executive officer and general manager of Saras, said, “we are very proud to be one of the first refining companies in taking this innovative opportunity”.

“The purchase from Lundin of certified carbon neutral produced crude oil demonstrates the continuous and increasing attention that our group gives to the environmental sustainability of its activities and goes along with various other projects that we have implemented to support our low-carbon strategy,” he added.

 
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ceo_energemsier said:

Lundin Energy AB has announced that it has sold the world’s first ever certified carbon neutrally produced oil to Saras S.p.A from its Edvard Grieg field offshore Norway.

The company highlighted that the cargo was carbon neutral across the full life of the field, including exploration, development, and Scope 1 and 2 emissions from production. In order to supply a fully carbon neutral barrel to Saras, residual emissions of 2,302 tons of CO2 were compensated through a nature-based carbon capture project, certified by the Verified Carbon Standard, Lundin revealed.

Lundin noted that the trade was independently certified as carbon neutral by Intertek under its CarbonZero standard. The company, which outlined that it will produce every barrel as carbon neutral from 2025, highlighted that its Edvard Grieg field is the first oil field in the world to be independently certified by Intertek.

“We were the first company to have one of its field’s carbon emissions independently certified as low carbon, and this certified carbon neutral transaction with Saras, is the next stage in what we believe will become a key value differentiator for Lundin Energy,” Nick Walker, the president and chief executive officer of Lundin, said in a company statement.

“The provenance of a barrel and how it is produced is increasingly important as society and industry require lower carbon feedstocks to achieve emission reduction targets and meet the goals of the Paris Agreement,” he added.

“This trade has been enabled by our industry leading decarbonization strategy and offers a proof point of where the crude market is heading and the potential value that can be realized through efficient, industry leading emissions reductions,” Walker continued.

Dario Scaffardi, the chief executive officer and general manager of Saras, said, “we are very proud to be one of the first refining companies in taking this innovative opportunity”.

“The purchase from Lundin of certified carbon neutral produced crude oil demonstrates the continuous and increasing attention that our group gives to the environmental sustainability of its activities and goes along with various other projects that we have implemented to support our low-carbon strategy,” he added.

 

Yeah quite the scam trying to green wash the product when it is the actual burning of the product that is the real problem not the emissions from its production.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, ceo_energemsier said:

All these tech companies and other companies developing so called EVs and other such techs are still polluting but getting credits by buying and selling those , I dig a hole here, I burn this here but I plant 50 trees there so I get a green credit. SHAM!!!

Keep in mind 'smart data centers' basically just shift load around like this these days.

https://blog.google/inside-google/infrastructure/data-centers-work-harder-sun-shines-wind-blows

Massive amounts of RECs are still a thing, but perhaps just a bootstrapping phenomenon on a low carbon journey.  All of the major (tech/cloud) players are shifting towards this type of carbon-aware 'load shedding', or are in the process of implementing such a mechanism within the next year or two (obviously the goal is to be running on carbon free electricity 24x7x365).

Data centers are also extremely energy efficient. That means, as little energy usage devoted to things other than processing information as possible. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Yeah quite the scam trying to green wash the product when it is the actual burning of the product that is the real problem not the emissions from its production.

There is no problem, Jay....unless you think that human beings eating and breathing is a problem.

I guess you do think that, judging from your other posts.

Edited by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ceo_energemsier said:

The ARROGANCE of some humans is just amazing, they think they can effect and affect climate!

No, ARROGANCE is thinking we don't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

There is no problem, Jay....unless you think that human beings eating and breathing is a problem.

I guess you do think that, judging from your other posts.

Have you found that evidence to show that returning to pre-industrial CO2 levels is harmful?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

No, ARROGANCE is thinking we don't. 

Arrogance in relation to think humans are capable of effecting and affecting climate change by the ideas that humans think is brilliant.

Some scientists recently advised against flooding the Sahara with solar panels as it will have numerous and extremely harmful effects across the globe.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

That does not delineate natural gas which is possibly cleaner in real pollutants than wind turbines plus batteries or solar panels. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, surrept33 said:

CO2, in the world that we know of, needs to stay in a band. 

The arctic is rapidly changing:

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/snow-and-ice/extent/sea-ice/N/8

If significant permafrost melting happens, a lot more GHG gets released into the air in a hurry, which causes more climate change: https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-nine-tipping-points-that-could-be-triggered-by-climate-change

Agriculture in some parts of the world would be greatly disrupted if the monsoons fail. 

Coral are very susceptible to increased amounts of dissolved carbonic acid (which is what a lot of CO2 ends up as) in the ocean. Coral bleaching is very much a thing:

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/coralreef-climate.html
 

Coral has survived with far higher levels of CO2 in ages past, as have hundreds of other species. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

12 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Coral has survived with far higher levels of CO2 in ages past, as have hundreds of other species. 

Hundreds of other species??? That's all? That would be a mega extinction of the worst kind. 

The same data and same author that was used to show no correlation between CO2 and temperature found:

"A prominent 15 million-year CO2 cycle coincides closely with identified mass extinctions of the past,"

"I report that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 oscillated regularly during the Phanerozoic and peaks in CO2 concentration closely match the peaks of mass extinctions identified by previous investigators."

Correlation does not mean causation but it is damn suspicious and can't be ignored without significant research.

Do you have evidence to support your claim?

 

Edited by Jay McKinsey

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.