Junk science running amok…. :
Buried in a little-noticed rule on microwave ovens is a change in the U.S. government’s accounting for carbon emissions that could have wide-ranging implications for everything from power plants to the Keystone XL pipeline.
The increase of the so-called social cost of carbon, to $38 a metric ton in 2015 from $23.80, adjusts the calculation the government uses to weigh costs and benefits of proposed regulations. The figure is meant to approximate losses from global warming such as flood damage and diminished crops.
“As we learn that climate damage is worse and worse, there is no direction they could go but up,” Laurie Johnson, chief economist for climate at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in an interview. Johnson says the administration should go further; she estimates the carbon cost could be as much as $266 a ton.
the Environmental Protection Agency is late on issuing rules to cap greenhouse-gas emissions from new power plants, a standard that would preclude the construction of new coal-fired power plants that don’t have expensive carbon-capture technology.
We know from reliable and objective geological and fossil data, that at a time of much higher levels of CO2 in the air the Earth was teeming with vastly more abundant plant and animal life than we have today, even with the nearly 7 billion humans having displaced and replaced nature through destruction of habitat.
As anyone with access to Google Earth can verify, if you consolidate all the urbanized areas everywhere on Earth, the total would still fit within the borders of Texas. The rest is still richly covered by plants, except for the high mountains, deserts and seas.
We have weather data from all sorts of short term and long term sources that cast doubt on, dispute and contradict the claim that a warmer climate necessarily leads to more floods and storms. I guess these conscientious government scientists have never heard of winter storms that dump 2-4 feet of juicy wet snow in half a day.
We have more evidence, again from geological and weather data throughout written history that periods of warming and cooling occurred long before humans engaged in carbon-fueled industrial activity at today’s levels, long before human population exploded to its present numbers.
We know from nature’s own carbon cycle (look it up in your high school biology book) that carbon is NOT a pollutant, it is the single most essential building block of ALL life on earth. CO2 (carbon dioxide) is NOT a pollutant; it is what animals at all times and plants at night breath out. CO2 is where plants get the carbon they need to build biochemical molecules that are the starting point of the food chain, CO2 is where plants get the oxygen that they release in daytime and which all animals need to breathe.
Therefore the initial assumption of “damage” from human use of carbon is dead wrong, right at the start. How can you possibly reach any valid conclusions from wrong assumptions?
But notice that the zealots are claiming that the “actual” cost of carbon is ten times the current estimate by whatever strange accounting method they are using; not $23 but $266 per ton. No wonder; the “solutions” they propose are insane:
We know from basic chemistry that the product of the complete combustion of carbon-based fuel, whether it’s wood, coal. oil or gas burning in your furnace, or food “burning” in your body (look it up in your high school chemistry and biology textbooks) is simply water vapor and carbon dioxide:
carbon fuel + O2 —> H2O + CO2 plus heat
Pollution comes from incomplete combustion, which is why cars have “catalytic converters” and power plants have “smoke stack scrubbers.” Pollution control becomes insanely expensive only when you engage in the insanely inane attempt to “scrub” or “recover” CO2 from the exhaust, as if it were a pollutant such as unburned hydrocarbons.
Did anybody bother to teach these “economists” any SCIENCE? Or did they major in economics (or law) because they couldn’t hack it in science class? It really is a tough blow to one’s ego that they have to learn and conform to the laws of nature, rather than let their whims make up whatever they “feel” like at the moment.
What kind of civilization will we have if energy will cost ten times as much as today? We will go back to the Dark Ages, with starving peasants scratching at the earth with sticks, never traveling outside the county where they were born, dying within ten years of puberty. What a brave new world they have in store for us…