America continues to lead in
cutting greenhouse gas emissions
Hot Air,
by
Jazz Shaw
Original Article
Posted By: Pluperfect,
2/25/2020 4:21:16 AM
If you listen to the mainstream media, you probably think that the Bad Orange Man is boosting pollution and destroying the climate because we withdrew from the Paris climate agreement. (It’s not a “treaty” as defined in the United States because Congress never approved it.) The reality, however, is very different. The U.S. Energy Information Administration has quietly released yet another report saying that America once again reduced greenhouse gas emissions in 2019 and they project that such emissions will be going down even further this year. So why isn’t CNN blanketing the airwaves with this good news so everyone can celebrate the progress? (Washington Examiner)
Reply 1 - Posted by:
4Justice 2/25/2020 4:26:14 AM (No. 328913)
You mean we didn't need to participate in the Kyoto Protocol or the Paris Accord?? We are doing better without hampering business or our economy??
8 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
MattMusson 2/25/2020 6:46:47 AM (No. 328975)
Fracked Natural Gas is the reason the air is so much cleaner. We have replaced coal in generating plants and nasty #2 fuel oil in boilers with fracked natural gas. And, we have saved billions and billions of dollars doing it.
13 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
jeffkinnh 2/25/2020 7:33:01 AM (No. 329018)
The Left rates things on how much virtue you are signaling, not on how much emissions you actually cut. This is typical. When BO did things he SAID were fair but did nothing for the people he was claiming to help, often hurting them instead, all was good because he signaled his intent as fairness. If we leave it up to the Left, they will kill us with fairness.
12 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
walcb 2/25/2020 8:19:44 AM (No. 329061)
Nuclear power, we need more. Natural gas is short term. This is for the ones who actually believe in global warming. CO2 is still a small fraction of one percent in the atmosphere.
10 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
fayebeck 2/25/2020 8:27:39 AM (No. 329079)
Why is cutting green house emissions a good thing when the entire climate change stuff is a hoax? Costing trillions of dollars for absolutely nothing.
11 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
Ida Lou Pino 2/25/2020 11:16:29 AM (No. 329241)
But - - but - - but - - the real polluters will never give them any money.
Leftist "greenies" follow the Willie Sutton model - - go after the Untied States - - because that's where the money is.
5 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
NotaBene 2/25/2020 11:18:28 AM (No. 329243)
All President Donald John Trump had to do to justify my vote was to get US out of the Paris Global Warming Agreement. Thus, I will be voting for Donaldus Maximus and straight Republican on November 3rd.
The climate is not warming despite small amounts of CO2. It´s the solar activity, stupid. Frack, Greta, frack.
6 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
TennDon 2/25/2020 12:55:06 PM (No. 329335)
The caption below this must read, reads: “ Time for Greta and the rabid Greenies to
haunt the real polluters.”
The “real polluters” are the Chicoms. What do ya think they’d do to Precious Widdle Greta-snowflake if she started preaching her drivel in China?
There, I knew you’d know!
5 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
Deltadawn 2/25/2020 1:20:36 PM (No. 329366)
My husband just returned from a church mission in Ghana. This was his second trip. Both times he showed me pictures of the garbage and trash on the streets (there is no sanitation system there) that chickens, dogs, etc eat from. There is constant burning of the tall grasses to allow the people to see the poisonous snakes that lurk there such as the Black Mamba. The electricity is irregular, at best, and at night all you can see are fires burning for miles around.The water is contaminated and the visitors are told not to drink it. Apparently the people living there have developed an immunity to it.
On this most recent trip, he said the "smog" (they have no factories) was at ground level and combined with the smoke from the burning fires caused such low visibility making it not only difficult to get around but his throat became so sore (even with the masks) he could barely talk and now has an upper respiratory infection.
My question is why these environmental nuts keep blaming things on us. We should ship them to Africa where they might be able to do some good, if they don't get bitten by a Black Mamba because they forbid them to burn the grasses.
It reminds me of those "do good" feminists who complain about things here instead of going to Muslim countries where women really are treated badly (and, yes, I am a female)
THEY ALL WANT TO COMPLAIN AS LONG AS THEY DON'T HAVE TO MAKE ANY REAL EFFORT OR COULD POSSIBLY BE IN DANGER!
4 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
DVC 2/25/2020 2:26:49 PM (No. 329434)
OK, to produce 1 million British Thermal Units (BTU), a standard measure of energy, burning coal produces about 205 lbs of carbon dioxide. To produce 1 million BTUs with natural gas (CH4) produces about 117 lbs of carbon dioxide.
So, for every million BTUs we use in our central power plants from nat gas instead of coal produces 88 lbs less carbon dioxide.
BUT, WHY are we substituting natural gas for coal in central power stations?
The reason we are using natural gas more than coal now days is that the COST of natural gas has dropped dramatically as the supply has increased dramatically with new fracking type extraction methods. Supply increases, cost drops. So, a power plant can burn either coal or nat gas, but nat gas costs less.
THIS is why we are "cutting greenhouse gases" - purely as a side effect due to fracking and ECONOMICS not any BS foolishness about "saving the planet". And carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, and not the major greenhouse gas. Water is about 30 times as important for actual greenhouse effects than carbon dioxide, and the amounts of water in the air are essentially unlimited and uncontrollable because 70% of the planet is covered with water.
The whole discussion is bogus. CO2 is a plant nutrient, critical for all green plants, the foundation stone of all life on Earth. We need more CO2, not less.
3 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
DVC 2/25/2020 2:28:46 PM (No. 329438)
34, exactly right. That small fraction is under 1/2 of 1 tenth of one percent. Double the CO2, and still under one tenth of one percent in the atmposphere.
3 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
Dodge Boy 2/25/2020 4:36:10 PM (No. 329527)
And if we can wake up and build more and, safe by the way, nuclear power, there will be HUGE cuts to emissions. On the chance that cutting CO2 emissions is actually relevant, that is.
3 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
DVC 2/25/2020 6:04:07 PM (No. 329605)
#12, the problem with nuclear power, is that without fuel reprocessing, banned by Jimmy Carter, IIRC, we only get 1% of the energy contained in the nuclear fuel on the first "burn". And we do not have ANYPLACE to put the used fuel rods, even if we (foolishly) don't reprocess them. All the fuel rods are now stored on site at their nuclear power plants in pools of water. If the water is drained (as happened at Fukishima due to earthquake cracking the pool walls, water leaking out) the rods overheat, melt and release radioactive debris into the air. We need either reprocessing or permanent underground storage, and we have neither even though we have paid for each and built each, several times, only to be cancelled at the last minute by politicians under intense political pressure.
THAT is the issue for nuclear power, not technical, but political, purely political.
2 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Pluperfect"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)