USA Continues To Lead Wrong On Climate, More Than Ever… Agreeing With Greta?

The question is not what fossil fuels do to us. The question is what would we do without them. Answer: not enough, not even enough to install the intermittent “renewables”, and their indispensable complement, hydrogen.

It takes 3.6 billion tons of CO2, roughly ten percent of the world CO2 production, to undertake all the mining we need now to operate civilization. Said mining will augment when extracting minerals for the ELECTRIC ECONOMY,

Some smart ass declared that we extract more tonnage of fossil fuels now than we would by extracting minerals for electricity. Irrelevant. First of all, fossil fuels mostly extract themselves. Whereas minerals extraction requires huge tailings and, or strip mining. Examples are strip mining for lignite, the most polluting coal, in Germany. German lignite extraction is one of the Earth’s most formidable, and most disgusting spectacle… and tar sands in Canada (an even greater monstrosity). Both Germany and Canada pose as ecological saints… when in truth, they are pretty disgusting as national policies… Notwithstanding good ecologist provinces like Quebec, thanks to huge hydro.

Extracting metals and lithium is another matter. Lithium extraction requires humongous quantities of sulfuric acid, thousands of trucks per week in a typical lithium mine as the one authorized by Trump in Nevada… to the horror of hypocritical US ecologists who prefer to devastate China than America…

So, to create the renewable industry, so called, we need NEW clean, low carbon energy, before we have the renewables…And we also need new low carbon base energy… and there is only one, nuclear (under various forms: 4th generation, Thorium, fusion, etc.)!

In answer to Greta Thunberg@GretaThunberg”…the [US] administration prepares to hold the largest offshore oil and gas lease sale in U.S. history on Nov. 17.”The USA continues to “lead on climate”

Meanwhile. power hungry John Kerry, the US energy Czar, said that he would resign if Biden asked OPEC+ to increase production for more than 5 years (Biden did not evoke a date). That is disingenuous, a lie, or amazingly stupid. Indeed…

Oil leases are never coming under exploitation any faster than a five-ten year horizon… They require huge investments. Now these investments are discouraged, worldwide. This is why the price of fossil fuels is going up, feeding worldwide inflation. That would self-correct… If nuclear was developed enough to be a replacement as base energy… but it’s not. 51 nuclear reactors are under construction (2/3 of them delayed) .. We would need thousands of reactors as base energy… To compete as replacement for electricity alone… This absence of competition and investments, combined, will force fossil fuel prices up. Coal is now restricted by supply, not demand (India wants more coal, it’s apparently not polluted enough…)

China reported the day after the end of the COP-OUT 26 UN conference in Scotland, that its coal production surged to its highest level in years… While officials in India’s capital< New Delhi, readied a lockdown due to air pollution… This shows that the world doesn’t give a hoot to the lies from the most developed countries about combating global warming… Just after the end of a landmark U.N. conference, China, Russia, India and Brazil, about half of humanity are saying: we will espouse your rhetoric, but we know very well that you exported your dirty work in our countries, and you are tongue in cheek with all this CO2 blah blah blah…. And you know that we know that you know what you are up to…

Welcome to Jurassic park!

Patrice Ayme

There are thousands of off shore oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. US has thousands, Mexico has thousands… My own, Africa born dad got one of these monsters to explore for off shore oil off Senegal. It was an exploration platform, so it was even bigger. The oil was found, and there was a lot of it, below salt domes… But was too thick to SELF-EXTRACT. So Senegal stayed poor. The platform, heavier than the Eiffel Tower, was then dragged to Gabon, and found exploitable oil there… making Gabon very wealthy…

4 Responses to “USA Continues To Lead Wrong On Climate, More Than Ever… Agreeing With Greta?”

  1. ianmillerblog Says:

    Interestingly, back in the 1950s when I was in school we had an oil company representative give a talk on science and the future of energy. He claimed that by now Nuclear would be the primary energy provider. That dream got spoiled by, yes, the environmental protestors who are now protesting about the consequences of their previous protests. They simply don’t think through the consequences of their protests. Sound familiar?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Ian:
      I am less charitable. I think there was a conspiracy to boost the anti-nuclear mood, from the powers that be, who are connected financially, politically, and in direct ownership, to fossil fuels. Nuclear energy was, and is, something more intellectual, where the owners (of the world) would have been at the mercy of scientists. Plutocrats always prefer stupidity in the masses, and no dependence upon smarts… Because oligarchies are intrinsically anti-intellectual: big time civilizational intelligence, the type which threatens, and replaces, or displaces oligarchies, comes from the many, not the few.

      World plutocracy controls all media (even Google, Twitter and Facebook)… So it was easy for it to organize an anti-nuclear mentality, complete with obsessing about nuclear waste, viewed as an intrinsic problem… When, in truth, that’s something associated only to primitive 1940s nuclear reactors… and part of it was deliberate…

      Thus now we are condemned, even if we deployed nuclear and intermittent energy as fast as possible, to another 20 years on track with 7C rise by 2100… 7C would mean a migration of thermal lines of 1,000 miles towards the poles, so Antarctica’s ice shelves would become unstable and disintegrate….

      If environmental protesters were sincere, they would study science and try to scientifically help (for example in helping eco systems, lots of manpower hungry research needs to be done in replacement species…)

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Gmax Says:

    Yeah I read the argument that clean energy needed less mass of materials than fossil fuels
    It is STUPID. Enormous masses of pollutants have to be used to extract small masses of needed stuff. Tons for example for a few pounds of cobalt

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Patrice Ayme Says:

    FOSSIL FUEL air pollution kills at least 10 million a year, probably more. Meanwhile the 500+ working nuclear reactors kill basically nobody, while using obsolete generation 2 polluting nuclear tech. Generation 4 nuclear is more efficient, safer, much less waste. Thorium nuclear tech produces one hundred times more short lived radioactive waste, eliminating the waste problem. And there is much more (“fertile”) Thorium than (“fissile”) Uranium…

    Liked by 1 person

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: