Thanks to the Pennsylvania Capital-Star for carrying my new op-ed on the importance of the development of carbon capture and sequestration technologies, particularly for Pennsylvania.
Thanks to Energy Central for picking up my recent article stressing the importance of U.S. leadership on advanced coal technology!
Missed this interesting article in Morning Consult first published on December 9 of last year. It provides a summary of the Global CCS Institute’s annual global status report on carbon capture technologies. Some highlights:
- Nineteen operating, large-scale CCS projects currently dot the globe, 10 of which are in the United States;
- More than 25 million metric tons of CO2 were stored over the year through CCS;
- The year also marked the launch of the Gorgon project off Australia’s coast which, once fully operational, is expected to store 3.4 to 4 million metric tons of carbon annually, making it the largest dedicated geological storage facility to date;
- In terms of capture and storage capacity, the pipeline for CCS projects worldwide ticked up again in 2019 by 37 percent from 2017, continuing a growth trend since that date after seven years of decline that the report attributes to the global financial crisis, which resulted in market uncertainty and reduced CCS investments;
- To date, there are at least 42 CCS facilities in the United States have been completed or are in operation, construction or advanced development, including pilots and test centers, according to the institute. Those projects span enhanced oil recovery, enhanced coal bed methane recovery, dedicated geological storage and other projects.
This is good news because fossil fuels continue to be a major provider of energy worldwide. We need these advanced technologies to allow fossil fuels to provide reliable and affordable energy into the future.
Thanks to LifeZette for publishing my new piece on China’s continued use of ozone-depleting chemicals – in violation of international agreements – is often overlooked in the conversation about global warming.
The problem is that these ozone-depleting chemicals affect the stratospheric ozone layer, which protects us from ultraviolet radiation. Increasing the amount of ultraviolet rays getting through the atmosphere ultimately leads to increased surface temperatures. This should receive greater global scrutiny, particularly from those who focus on climate issues.
Real Clear Energy carries an article by Samuel Davis, Jr. (Chairman of the APGA Board of Directors), in which he argues that Natural gas bans leading to forced electrification are bad public policy. This new energy monopoly will force homeowners and businesses to forgo their preferred energy source and settle for costlier, less reliable electricity.
Over at Real Clear Energy, Jude Clemente has this post discussing the decision in the court case that ExxonMobil did not deceive or mislead investors over climate change impacts. There, the New York Attorney General had sued the oil and gas giant, alleging the company had misled investors over the true cost of climate change.
“The Office of the Attorney General failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that ExxonMobil made any material misstatements or omissions about its practices and procedures that misled any reasonable investor,” Judge Barry Ostrager of the trial-level state Supreme Court wrote in his ruling.
“The office of the Attorney General produced no testimony from any investor who claimed to have been misled by any disclosure, even though the Office of the Attorney General had previously represented it would call such individuals as trial witnesses,” he added.
One of Clemente’s themes is that all of these climate change cases are frivolous and a tremendous waste of taxpayer dollars. Agreed. But even more importantly, he reminds us just how important oil and gas are to us:
The hollowness of these climate cases is really as obvious as it seems. ExxonMobil and the other producers aren’t the oil and gas users: we are. Oil, for instance, is literally the basis of globalization, the sine qua non of our increasingly connected world. Oil and its petrochemicals are ingrained in basically everything that we do, the foundation of over 6,000 products that we use everyday. Most ironically, oil is an essential component of the manufacturing processes to create, transport, and install renewable energy systems.
Gas will supply 40% of U.S. electricity this year, up from 20% a decade ago. And not just the backup for intermittent wind and solar power, gas is expected to easily add the most new generation in the years ahead. “10 ‘Reality Check’ Problems That Must Be Addressed By Opponents Of Coal, Oil And Natural Gas.” As a cleaner fuel with less CO2 and criteria emissions, our shift to gas is specifically cited by the International Energy Agency as the reason why the U.S. is lowering emissions faster than any other nation ever – “in the history of energy.”
Our love affair with their indispensable products will continue to give oil and gas companies the ultimate “social license to operate:”
- Every day, Americans use 410 million gallons of oil-based gasoline
- Every day, Americans use 170 million gallons of oil-based diesel fuel
- Every day, Americans use 75 million gallons of oil-based jet fuel
- Every day, Americans use 90 billion cubic feet of natural gas
Looking forward, the U.S. Department of Energy couldn’t be clearer: oil and gas will still supply the bulk of all U.S. energy supply through 2050 – as far out as it currently models. Further, just looking through the 2020s, the International Energy Agency has the U.S. accounting for 85% of new oil and 35% of new gas globally. Already the largest oil and gas producer, we are set to become the largest exporter of these essential fuels within a few years. Those seeking expansionism and oil and gas hegemony know this of course, and they are doing all that they can to derail the age of U.S. Energy Dominance: “Intelligence: Putin is Funding the Anti-Fracking Campaign.”
Indeed, those seeking to damage the U.S. oil and gas industry with frivolous lawsuits aren’t just hurting Americans they’re doing the bidding of our adversaries.
The National Post carries a piece by Rex Murphy in which he reports that celebrities and the super-rich are flocking to Sicily to attend the Google-sponsored Summer Camp to discuss global warming. How are they getting there, you might ask? Rex tells us:
How did this coven of illuminati get to Sicily? Did they walk and row? Come by Greyhound? Hitchhike? Nein. Official count of the private jets wafting into Palermo air for the “great consult” stands at 114. This for a maximum 300 people attending — three persons per jet.
Not all came from the carbon-rich sky. Some came by personal super-yacht.
These are not self-propelling bathtub toys. Outside of aircraft carriers and (“hi, irony”) supertankers, none want oil more. Super-yachts are vultures, gluttonous for fossil fuels. They can be rivaled only by the excesses of private jets flying thousands of miles to hold meetings to persuade the poor of the world to cut down on the consumption of fossil fuels.
For these folks, it’s do as I say, not as I do. Why is anybody listening to them? Rex’s perspective is spot on, and the article is well worth the read.
Have you noticed that every time the weather changes for the worse, “climate change” is to blame? If it floods, it’s due to climate change. If there is a drought, it’s due to climate change. If it’s extremely hot, it’s due to climate change. If it’s extremely cold, it’s due to climate change.
Well, Scott Adams is a great satirist, and below is his hilarious take on the climate change hysteria. Enjoy (click on image to enlarge)!
Thanks to the following newspapers for publishing two of my new op-eds!
- Deseret News, the Farmington Daily Times and the Towanda Daily Review carry my new op-ed in which I argue that the ACE rule offers a realistic plan to address climate concerns while still ensuring the future reliability of America’s power grid.
- The Waco Tribune-Herald carries my Texas specific op-ed where I conclude that it would be unwise to further reduce coal-fired generation in Texas given the high electricity needs of the state.
I live and work in Jefferson City, MO. It is Missouri’s capital city, situated in the middle of the state on the banks of the Missouri River. It’s a sleepy river town, and a great place to live for families.
Late Wednesday evening just before midnight, a strong ECF 3 tornado tore through the center of town, leaving lots of devastation in its wake. My office building was in the middle of its path. It sustained fairly extensive damage to the roof and windows, but at this point it looks repairable. Others were not so fortunate. The furniture store right next to my building was almost totally destroyed. With all of the damage, it it a miracle that there were no fatalities. Our early warning system saved lives, if not property.
I live on the west edge of town, 3-4 miles from downtown. The sirens going off woke me up around 11:45 pm, and I quickly switched on the TV. One of our local meteorologists was imploring everyone in Jefferson City to move to their basements NOW. Luckily, my neighborhood escaped unscathed. Others were not so lucky.
One of the more intriguing things I have seen on Twitter is the rush to politicize the tragedy. One twitter post said: “Hey, climate change deniers, Jefferson City, Mo was just hit w a ef 4 maybe 5 tornado. When was the last time a mountainous river town had a tornado? Please stop #tornadojeffersoncity”. This tweet, and others like it, are just erroneous on so many levels.
First, Jefferson City is not “mountainous.” The city’s elevation is 630 ft. It is hilly, but nowhere near mountainous. Second, tornadoes are not that rare around this area. Records indicate that since 1950, a total of 56 historical tornado events that had recorded magnitude of 2 or above have occurred in or near Jefferson City, MO. We are located right in the heart of Tornado Alley. Since it is a rural area, most tornadoes that occur here inflict minimal property damage–it’s when they hit populous areas that you see the terrible destruction.
We spend a lot of time on tornado emergency preparedness here in Jefferson City as well as in the entire state. We have a first-rate warning system. We also have monthly state-wide testing of the warning systems during the spring and summer months. Our schools run regular tornado drills, and have been doing so decades before there was any talk about “climate change.”
The point is, blaming climate change on this tornado event is irresponsible, in poor taste, and just plain wrong-headed.
Here in the heartland, we are a resilient bunch. We face all kinds of extreme weather events–heat, cold, drought, floods, tornadoes, you name it. Blaming it all on “climate change” to score political points would be laughable if it wasn’t so tragic.
One of my favorite blogs, Not a Lot of People Know That, never fails to bring some sanity to the Climate Change Debate. Today it carries a cautionary tale entitled ‘Unprecedented’: Energy operator in daily fight to keep lights on in Australia. It describes that the problems caused by an increasing level of wind and solar power have forced the power system to change faster than expected and that it was failing to keep up. Apparently, the grid is holding up but only because the energy market operator is intervening on a daily basis to keep the lights on.
This is one of the problems with relying too heavily on one source of energy, especially when that form of energy (renewables like wind and solar) only generates electricity intermittently. Wind and solar are becoming a more important part of our energy mix, but moving too fast, too soon is a recipe for disaster. It’s much better to have an “all of the above” strategy when is comes to energy policy in the United States.
The left is like the boy who cried wolf and Chicken Little. We need the Green New Deal because the world will end in 12 years if we don’t do something, they cry.
Fox News carries this post by Maxim Lott which details 10 (actually only 9, no. 5 was skipped in the article–I’ll post an update if the article is corrected) instances where the experts predicted the world would end by a date certain. Last time I checked, we are still here. Here is a list (read the article for details):
1.– GLOBAL WARMING TO WIPE NATIONS “OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH” IF CLIMATE CHANGE NOT ADDRESSED BY YEAR 2000
2.– MASS STARVATION BY 1975
3.– GLOBAL FREEZING AS DANGEROUS AS NUCLEAR WAR
4.– MASSIVE WARMING BY THE YEAR 2000
6.– AL GORE SAYS 10 YEARS ARE LEFT IN 2006
7.– ENVIRONMENTAL CATASTROPHE WILL CAUSE “NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST” BY THE YEAR 2000
8.– MASS EXTINCTION BY 1995
9.– METALS DEPLETED BY 1990
10.– THE REAL REASON?
I would like to introduce readers to Paul Driessen. Paul is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and author of articles and books on energy, environmental and human rights issues. I am happy to post his latest article below. It is a thoughtful take on the Green New Deal and climate change.
Democrats, climate campaigners and renewable energy interests are in full outrage mode over news that President Trump intends to launch a Presidential Committee on Climate Science. He should do it now.
The PCCS would, at long last, review and question the “dangerous manmade climate change” reports by federal agencies and investigations funded by them. The committee would be led by Dr. Will Happer, a highly respected scientist and well known skeptic – not of climate change, but of manmade climate chaos. He would be joined by other prominent experts – of whom there are many – who share his doubts.
No way! the climate alarmists rant. How dare you question our disaster claims? Our settled science?
No! How dare YOU use those claims to justify your agenda – and your continued efforts to bludgeon and silence us into submission – without letting anyone examine, much less debate, your supposed evidence?
For years, you have loudly and incessantly asserted that the United States and world must end fossil fuel use, or we are “doomed.” Now you’re demanding that the United States completely upend its energy production, transportation and manufacturing sectors, housing and office buildings, and entire economy. You want the federal government to control and limit our lives, choices and living standards – and redistribute our wealth, even to those “unwilling to work,” according to confiscatory socialist principles.
For years, you Democrats, environmentalists, Deep State bureaucrats, government-grant-dependent scientists, news and social media have colluded to censor and silence manmade climate chaos skeptics, and stifle any debate. All of you have huge financial, reputational and power stakes in this.
And still you insist that the science is settled, that there is no room for discussion, that we must act immediately to “save the planet” from climate and extreme weather disaster. Now you want to wrap up your kangaroo court proceedings – with our side given no opportunity to present our evidence, defend fossil fuels and carbon dioxide, examine your alleged evidence, or cross-examine your experts.
If your evidence is so solid and unimpeachable, you should be more than happy to lay it on the table, subject it to scrutiny, question our experts, and let us question yours – extensively and mercilessly.
After all, the future of our planet is at stake – or so you claim. The future of our country certainly is.
Your radical agenda and actions are un-American, totalitarian, anti-science, and contrary to our most fundamental principles of open, robust debate – on one of the most critical issues in US history.
A large majority of Americans believe our planet has warmed and is warming. No one denies that. And thank goodness, or we’d still be stuck in the Little Ice Age. But that’s not the issue. The issues are: Is any likely future warming going to be disastrous? And are humans and fossil fuels to blame?
You claim the answer is Yes. Again, where is your proof? If you have any actual evidence, lay it on the table. Show us exactly where the natural forces that have driven countless climate changes throughout history end – and where the human factors begin. Quantify them. Don’t give us computer models that simply reflect the assumptions that went into them. Present solid, Real World evidence. If you have any.
While you’re at it, you also need to prove that dismantling America’s energy and economic system will make one whit of difference in our climate and weather (assuming for the sake of argument that human carbon dioxide emissions now drive climate and weather) – when China, India and other countries are building thousands of coal and natural gas fueled power plants, and millions of cars and trucks.
Their emissions already dwarf ours. And they are not going to give up fossil fuels for decades, if ever.
Prove your GND energy system can actually power America, without destroying jobs, living standards, manufacturing, health, prosperity and environment. As I have said over, over and over, it cannot be done. Your alternatives are not workable, affordable, green, renewable, ethical, ecological or sustainable.
Here’s just a few of the Real World climate science facts that alarmists don’t want exposed or discussed.
Temperatures have risen by tenths or hundredths of a degree in recent years – less than the margin of error, and most of the “highest temperatures on record” have been in urban areas, where local manmade heat skews the data. We’re also experiencing record cold and snow in numerous locations.
The average prediction by 102 climate models is now a full degree Fahrenheit above what satellites are measuring. Michael Mann’s climate model could concoct hockey sticks from telephone numbers and other random numbers. Are we supposed to trust these models on critical energy policy?
Violent tornadoes (F3 to F5) averaged 56 per year from 1950 to 1985. But from 1986 to 2018 only 34 per year touched down in the USA on average – and for the first time ever not one did in 2018. The March 3 Alabama tornado was tragic, and the 2-mile-wide 2013 Oklahoma City monster lasted 40 minutes. But the 1925 Tri-State Twister was a mile wide, traveled a record 220 miles, lasted a record 3.5 hours, and killed a record 695 people.
Hurricanes becoming more frequent and intense? From 1920 through 1940, ten Category 3-5 hurricanes made US landfall; from 1960 through 1980, eleven; 1980 through 2000, ten; 2001 through 2018, nine. There is no trend. Moreover, Harvey and Irma in 2017 were the first category 3-5 hurricanes to make U.S. landfall in a record twelve years. The previous record was nine years, set in the Civil War era.
A warmer Arctic? The Washington Post did report that “the Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer, and in some places seals are finding the water too hot.” But that was in 1922!
Polar bear populations are the highest on record: between 24,500 and 28,500 or more of them!
Oceans cannot become “more acidic,” because they are not and have never been acidic. Earth’s oceans are slightly alkaline. That slight alkalinity has decreased slightly (from 8.2 on the pH scale to 8.1) over the past few decades. But they are not getting acidic … and won’t anytime soon.
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is the miracle molecule without which most life on Earth would cease to exist. In fact, the more CO2 in the air, the faster and better crop, forest and grassland plants grow – and the better they can withstand droughts, diseases, and damage from insects and viruses.
In fact, a slightly warmer planet with more atmospheric CO2 would be tremendously beneficial for plants, wildlife and humanity. A colder planet with less carbon dioxide would greatly reduce arable land extent, growing seasons, wildlife habitats, crop production and our ability to feed humanity.
Millions of Americans are exasperated with Republicans like Congressman John Shimkus of Illinois, who recently whined that it’s “just not worth the fight anymore” to battle climate alarmism – and protect our nation and our children’s future. Elected officials like him need to get spinal implants, learn the Climate Facts, or resign and turn their seats over to someone who will fight for us. That’s why we need the PCCS.
It’s why they hope the President Trump we elected to clean out the Deep State … show why manmade climate chaos claims are pseudo-science … and Make America Great Again for decades to come … will demonstrate his toughness and leadership right now, when we so need him to.
We need to tell Mr. Trump: Please stand up to these Climate Totalitarians who want to destroy our nation, in the name of saving the planet from climate disasters that exist only in computer models, Hollywood movies, and self-serving assertions by the Climate Industrial Complex. Alarmists have controlled the climate narrative thus far. Now we need to give other experts a chance to weigh in, loud and clear.
Appoint your Presidential Committee on Climate Science now! Give sound, honest science a chance.
Even people on the left are abandoning ship on the Green New Deal. Lifezette reports that Patrick Moore, the co-founder of the environmentalist group Greenpeace, ripped into New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez over the weekend as a “pompous little twit,” saying the Green New Deal plan she’s advocating is “completely crazy.”
In a series of tweets, Moore argued that Ocasio-Cortez, who has called for drastically reducing fossil fuel production, doesn’t realize what would happen across the world if the radical plan were implemented.
“If fossil fuels were banned, every tree in the world would be cut down for fuel for cooking and heating,” Moore said in a tweet Saturday directed at Ocasio-Cortez.
“You would bring about mass death,” he also said.
Moore said, “You don’t have a plan to grow food for eight billion people without fossil fuels, or get food into the cities.”
Moore also unloaded on her for calling climate change “our World War II.”
“It’s her @GND that would be worse than WW2,” he said.
“Imagine no fuel for cars, trucks, tractors, combines, harvesters, power-plants, ships, aircraft, etc. Transport of people & goods would grind to a halt.”
Gotta love President Trump’s take on the left’s pet project, the Green New Deal. He voiced his opinion in his speech over the weekend at the Conservative Political Action Conference. Here is the quote, from Politico:
“The new green deal or whatever the hell they call it. The Green New Deal, right?” Trump said. “I encourage it, I think it’s really something that they should promote. They should work hard on it. … No planes, no energy. When the wind stops blowing, that’s the end of your electric — ‘Darling, is the wind blowing today? I’d like to watch television, darling.”
You better not mess with Americans’ TV watching habits, or else you might have a rebellion on your hands.
The Seattle Times reports that Governor Jay Inslee (D-WA) is running for president. His campaign will have a focused message that he’s the only candidate who would make defeating climate change the nation’s top priority. Can a candidate win the presidency solely on the climate change issue?
Turns out that with all of the issues that are facing our country, voters don’t view climate change as very important. According to this column by Robert Samuelson in the Investor’s Business Daily, polling showed that while many do consider climate change an important issue in isolation, it is not as important in comparison with other national issues.
Samuelson reports that Pew conducted a poll in 2018, asking about the importance of 19 public policy priorities. Dealing with Climate Change ranked next to last. Fighting terrorism and improving schools were ranked 1 and 2. What the poll suggests is that “Americans want government to do almost everything, from fighting terrorism to strengthening the economy to helping the poor … and on and on.”
The reality is that government can’t do everything for everybody. Practical politicians judge where public pressure demands action — and where it can be minimized or ignored. Combating global warming seems to be in a gray area. It bothers more and more people, but it hasn’t reached a critical mass of public opinion that would compel Congress and the White House to act decisively.
For a one-issue candidate with climate change as the one issue, success doesn’t seem very likely.
Over at the Manhattan Contrarian, Francis Menton posts the 21st–yes, the 21st!–in a series showing the shenanigans that go on under the ruse of climate “science.” It turns out that the climate alarmists like to manipulate the data to support their premise that temperatures are climbing. They accomplish this by adjusting earlier-year temperatures downward.
Earlier today I posted about the scandal brewing over the manipulation of data by climate “scientists” who are pushing the narrative that temperatures are rising so fast that we need action now. The Manhattan Contrarian (one of my favorite blogs!) carries this post from Francis Menton in which he describes “the systematic downward adjustment of early-year temperatures in order to create a fake enhanced warming trend, the better to bamboozle voters and politicians to go along with extreme measures to try to avert the impending ‘climate crisis.'” As you can tell from the title of his post, this is part 20 of a continuing saga. It is well worth the read!
The Western Journal carries an op-ed by Jay Lehr and Tom Harris in which they report about the egregious manipulations of data in the absurd global warming debate.
Meanwhile, over at Power Line, John Hinderaker provides the details about this scandal in his post The Greatest Scandal In The History Of Science.