Posted on 10/31/2019 7:35:43 AM PDT by yesthatjallen
October is National Energy Awareness Month, and the topic of energy production and its role in driving climate change — very rightfully — is as important a topic as ever. While the United States is leading the way in developing energy in significantly cleaner ways than countries like Russia, Venezuela and China, Democrats continue to promote a policy agenda that would cripple our economy and cause energy prices to skyrocket for American families.
This month, Democrats on the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources held a hearing on their latest virtue-signaling messaging effort: Net-Zero Emissions. Their goal, though well-intentioned – is to implement a federal mandate to achieve net-zero emissions by the year 2050. For those who are not well-versed in left-wing policymaking, “net-zero” means that once all greenhouse gas emissions from humans are eliminated, the remaining emissions will be removed from the atmosphere by natural and artificial sinks.
How do Democrats plan on getting us to net-zero? Through unrealistic and unattainable mandates that will only harm average Americans. What happens if we end all fossil fuel development as House Democrats and their leading presidential candidates propose? First and foremost, the destruction of the 10.3 million jobs directly and indirectly supported by the oil and gas sector. In fact, some of my Democrat colleagues have proposed pie-in-the-sky legislation that would eliminate cars, air travel, and even meat. Yes, meat. Additionally, they have called for the elimination of nuclear energy and natural gas, two energy resources that have actually helped the U.S. lower our emissions. Finally, pursuing net-zero in the manner prescribed by Democrats would cause American household energy bills to skyrocket. House Democrats are 10 months into their majority, and they are still only offering unrealistic promises instead of actual solutions.
SNIP
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Maybe if they stopped all the stuff falling off of trees etc in the Fall it wouldn’t rot in the Spring ,LOL
Their goal is NOT well-intentioned; it uses the disguise of global warming to get to their real goal: totalitarian government with them in control. After all, you might not make the right decisions, so your "decisions" must be the ones approved by Deep State.
Now wait a minute. Death and decay also contribute to Carbon Emissions. And we do plant all those fields and then kill all the crops at harvest. Are they counting those emissions, associated with farming as part of the “net-zero”?
If they want to be consistent, we are going to have to eliminate all farming too. So no meats, no vegetables and no fruit either. We’ll have to “Eat the Children” to save the planet. And that’s fine with democrats. They support the slaughter of babies. The organs can be sold and the rest can be processed for food.
AND he doesn't touch on the fundamental problem with all of this: less freedom and more governmental control which is the driving force behind everything that Democrats do. We need more government control over our lives like we all need pancreatic cancer.
2050. A feel good measure to play to the base, and postpone every time their deadline gets within 10 years.
...their real goal...
____________________________
Want food? Want heat? Want transport? Want medicine?
Pay up, slaves. And by that we mean: pay the elite progs.
As long as people exhale CO2, there can never be “net zero emissions”.
What’s next, a “one child policy”?
“net-zero” means that once all greenhouse gas emissions from humans are eliminated”
That is simply not attainable, by 2050 or otherwise. No matter how energy production and use is reoriented human activity is always going to produce some CO2.
Instead of chasing after CO2 it will be less costly and more efficient to use our scientific, technological and engineering know how to adapt to, and mitigate effects of “climate change”, observing that change over time and investing for adaptations and mitigation ONLY as observable change demonstrates the needs for that.
Humans can adapt; LIFE writ large on earth will.
Democrats make Net Zero effectively impossible by opposing nuclear and hydro, and by harping on wind and solar, and also all-electric cars.
1. In large-scale commercial applications, wind and solar do not produce much energy above the energy needed to install the solar cells and wind turbines, and their power distribution systems.
2. Neither wind nor solar is dependable, and we would need 100 percent backup from other sources (most probably oil and natural gas).
3. All-electric cars are extremely limited by the weight of the batteries they need. Larger batteries weigh down the car and, so, don’t really extend their range.
In recent years we have developed some alternatives that Boris Johnson has worked into his country’s plan to get to net zero.
The first is to capture the CO2 from conventional power plants and pipe it underground. This will do about half the job.
The second is to grow trees. This will do the other half (basically, cars, trucks, trains, etc., and homes heated by oil and natural gas).
These options almost cost from nothing to $1 per gallon. Basically, it depends. For example, Texas currently uses CO2 to captured from a power plant to frack its oil and gas fields. So, the cost is entirely covered by the extra oil and gas that is produced.
A recent paper says that irrigating the Sahara and Australia could bring the entire world to net zero, and they estimate the cost to be $1 a gallon.
BOTTOM LINE: nobody should worry about a climate armemgeddon. Even if the alarmists are correct, we have good options ranging from zero to a modest cost.
Though I generally agree with much of what Rep. Young is saying, Hydro power is not zero emission. There are HUGE amounts of steel and concrete used in the making of hydroelectric dams and their generation system. Concrete, in particular, is one of the major sources of anthropogenic CO2 entering the atmosphere. I believe that the fear of CO2 greatly exceeds its actual problems, and that issue should also be addressed. It’s an area where most politicians greatly fear to tread.
Humans can adapt
I'm still waiting for our metabolisms to adapt to an era where food is abundant and obesity kills more than starvation (in the US at least).
“I’m still waiting for our metabolisms to adapt to an era where food is abundant and obesity kills more than starvation (in the US at least).”
The problem is not the “abundance” of food, but a combination of lifestyle and choices of what to eat.
Millions of humans do not have obesity, because they have adapted, their eating habits and their uses of physical activity. They don’t need their metabolism to “adapt” to gluttony or sloth.
“I’m still waiting for our metabolisms to adapt to an era where food is abundant and obesity kills more than starvation (in the US at least).”
You don’t have to wait.
Its already here in the US!
“I believe that the fear of CO2 greatly exceeds its actual problems...”
Hmm, maybe I’ll go back to school and get a psych degree so I can specialize in treating “carbonophobia”. Should be a growth industry!
So what if we Flush all the environmentalists that are causing the wild fires in californicate? Lack of forest management has caused more pollution that virtually anything else.
Your reply should have gone to another poster, not me. They wrote the line you quoted, not me. I only copied and put their line in quotes, so they knew what my response was directed at.
Sorry!
If we could just eliminate all the carbon dioxide that liberals are emitting we could solve this problem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.