Net zero emissions — the math doesn't add up

The Hill ^ | 10 31 2019 | Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska)

[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

[bert]

The solution to the climate change is not eliminating CO2 emissions. The secret remedy is eliminating progressives. No progressives, no problem

There can be no co existence

[FormerFRLurker]

Oh, I see. You meant adapting our behavior while I thought you meant adapting our bodies. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Any ideas on how we could adapt our behavior to deal with climate change? Higher pollen counts and longer blooming periods are a pain to deal with when you’ve got allergies.

[Wuli]

“Higher pollen counts and longer blooming periods are a pain to deal with when you’ve got allergies.”

Neither higher or lower pollen counts nor shorter or longer blooming periods will be a given for all species. There will likely be some combination of those conditions, and differences geographically. It will not be one set pattern fits all species and all geographic areas. We already have plenty of pharmaceutical remedies for our allergies. Different ones work better or not for different folks.

Finding the ones that work for you will be your contribution to “adapting”. LOL

[Ozark Tom]

Go and research the amount of concrete reinforced with steel required to stabilize the base support of one windmill.

Argue with Warren Buffet’s point on the value of a tax write-off in this article exploring what goes in to building a windmill. The energy return on investment is paltry compared to hydroelectric. If not for subsidies, none would be built. When subsidies run out, maintenance ends.

http://energyskeptic.com/2015/900-tons-of-material-to-build-just-1-windmill/

[norwaypinesavage]

Net zero emissions are a fantasy with windmills, too.

[Do_Tar]

> If we could just eliminate all the carbon dioxide that liberals are emitting we could solve this problem.

On a totally unrelated subject. Really, it is. I promise.
What is the carbon footprint of a 30-06?