Source; SNGLR
Danish researcher and ex-GreenPeace founder Björn Lomborg says the commitments countries made in Paris to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will fall far short of the goal of keeping temperature increases well below 2°C over the next century--Even if carbon dioxide has a direct effect on temperature. Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus on Climate project finds the best long-term strategy for reducing the threats of climate change is to end green energy production subsidies for wind and solar power and instead dramatically increase investment in fracking to produce and use more natural gas to generate electricity.
-At a press conference in Paris, James Hansen, Ken Caldeira, Kerry Emanuel, and Tom Wigley had the temerity to state if one really desires a quick and dramatic reduction in the use of fossil fuels to slow the rise in carbon dioxide levels, expanding renewable energy will not be enough; there must also be a large-scale expansion of the world’s nuclear reactors.
-A study in the Journal of Geophysical Research warns the push to use cleaner boat fuels may result in additional warming, the amount of black carbon (a form of soot) emitted by incomplete combustion has been underestimated by an order of magnitude in previous studies.
-Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs), the nuclear fuel is immediately dissolved in salt and continuously circulated, creating non-stop fission. In contrast to conventional nuclear reactors, which use only about 3% of the nuclear fuel, MSRs use almost all of the nuclear material, producing far less spent nuclear fuel. The spent material left over from an MSR is substantially less radioactive than conventional spent nuclear fuel, requiring safe storage for only a few hundred rather than 10,000 years. MSRs have an additional characteristic that promises to prevent Fukushima-style incidents, since the salt in which the fuel is mixed keeps it cool even if the reactor shuts down. The safety characteristics of MSRs make them considerably less expensive to build than conventional reactors, resulting in electric power produced at lower costs than even natural gas- fired power.
-Research by the Technical Research Centre of Finland (VTT) demonstrates the EU’s Renewable Energy Directive pushing the use of biofuels to fight global warming is likely increasing greenhouse gas emissions overall while doing damage to the environment. VTT found EU biofuel regulations “ignore uncertainties related to greenhouse gas calculation” and may even double-count the environmental benefits of the regulations.
A carbon tax would harm the U.S. economy. The National Association of Manufacturers have found “Such marketplace manipulation represents a recipe for unintended consequences and self-inflicted economic damage and would be regressive, imposing disproportionately high costs on middle- and lower-income families and thereby harming most those who can afford it least. NAM found a carbon tax could eliminate the equivalent of 21 million jobs over the next 40 years and reduce workers’ wages by up to 8.5%. CBO noted a carbon tax would cost the poorest 20% of American households two-and-a-half times more than the richest 20% of households. A national energy tax would cripple our economy, raise electricity bills, and cost families more money when they fill up at the pump.
A carbon tax would harm the U.S. economy. The National Association of Manufacturers have found “Such marketplace manipulation represents a recipe for unintended consequences and self-inflicted economic damage and would be regressive, imposing disproportionately high costs on middle- and lower-income families and thereby harming most those who can afford it least. NAM found a carbon tax could eliminate the equivalent of 21 million jobs over the next 40 years and reduce workers’ wages by up to 8.5%. CBO noted a carbon tax would cost the poorest 20% of American households two-and-a-half times more than the richest 20% of households. A national energy tax would cripple our economy, raise electricity bills, and cost families more money when they fill up at the pump.
-The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), which coordinates and oversees federally funded climate research across 13 departments and agencies, has recommended undertaking research on possible geoengineering responses to climate change. Geoengineering is the deliberate manipulation of environmental processes in order to counteract the negative effects of climate change. Under Obama efforts focused on limiting the use of fossil fuels, geoengineering responses to climate challenges was basically verboten.
The Tradesman
Replies