Where Greenhouse Hypocrisy Comes From

Myths abound in how to deal with the Anthropogenic GreenHouse Gas Crisis (AGGC): electric cars, a bit of wind, carbon credits, mysterious “carbon capture”. One of the myths, indeed, baked into the United Nations’ IPCC models, is that we will remove billions of tons of CO2 from the air within decades. Problem: no established, economical, scalable method to do this exist, or is even plausible with existing technology. That could be done, as with many AGGC consequences only if we had massive amounts of free energy…

Massive free energy is plausible when thermonuclear fusion works very well: just freeze the CO2 out of the air, and geomorph it into rocks at suitable locations… but that won’t be for generations (or as soon as thermonuclear fusion or other nuclear provides with giant energy).

Reducing basalt into dust, or injecting CO2 deep in the right rocks is not presently economically viable, until that point (except in a few special places, like the very special island of Iceland, and on a small scale). Meanwhile gimmicks, such as proclaiming forests as carbon sinks, as California did for years, as an illusionist, literally went up in smoke during the last two summers, with fascinating orange skies and the world’s most polluted air on much of a continent.

What nobody says is that many leaders do not not view the worst case scenario as plausible, nor think that it would be terrible. Russia would love to warm up by ten degrees centigrades. That many Russian cities would be deep under water looks unimaginable, so is not imagined…. The fault there is from scientists, who are paid to optimistically renew the fossil fuel industry with hopelessly optimistic fake climate “models”. 

By the same token, a two meter sea level rise, which is now guaranteed, within a generation, will be an unimaginable disaster, so it’s not imagined. In general, nonlinear effects, where the land and oceans warm-up by themselves, from releasing latent heat stored in land and sea, CO2, CH4, and reducing albedo, are viewed as distant possibilities… whereas there is evidence they have already kicked in.

Overall, people get elected as “representatives” when big money and big power have selected them. And as 84% of the energy comes from fossil fuels, that’s where the power is. Our “representatives”, and our media, are as smart, good and diligent as the fossil fuel money who bought them.

French Windmill, as tall as Eiffel tower, being installed. For old broken bladeless rusty ones, check the coast of Brittany. They are ten times smaller, but the sea got and gutted them. Problem: enormous cost to dismantle. How does one deal with an old carbon fiber, 100 meter long, stronger than steel blade? Burn it? Just kiffing, I’m a great humorist.

Wind energy has a future, perhaps, but, even more than solar, it needs storage, or this is all only fossil fuels in disguise… And storage means hydrogen and derivatives (although gravity storage, tried in Switzerland and with dams, is an existing, albeit limited, method…)

The correct climate policy must involve financing massively fundamental research in nearly all domains pertaining to energy. Biden said he would, he didn’t. Part of the plot?

Patrice Ayme

Tags: ,

2 Responses to “Where Greenhouse Hypocrisy Comes From”

  1. Ian miller Says:

    I do not believe there is any simple solution, but planting trees can’t do any harm if you plant them where they will be stable.

    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:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: