To uncover the CLIMATE FACTS that challenge our global environment
To expose the CLIMATE FICTION of the Green New Deal and zero carbon solutions
To propose a CLIMATE SOLUTION that is based on science, not science fiction
We are not climate change skeptics or in denial that climate change exists or that the use of fossil fuels causes global warming.
We are alarmed that we have found little work that addresses our 5 GLOBAL CLIMATE FACTS. We feel that the problems of climate change are far more challenging than simply using new forms of pollution free energy technologies.
Today the typical solution is to stop all fossil fuel consumption and immediately convert to current alternative energy sources. Sounds simple and easy, but unfortunately this is where Climate Facts Meet Climate Fiction.
These problems are global and affect all nations and all citizens. There are no easy answers and we don’t have all the solutions either, but proposals such as the ‘Green New Deal’ simply don’t take into account the five GLOBAL CLIMATE FACTS.
We are your neighbors, your co-workers, consumers of energy, concerned voters, environmentally aware and concerned for our family’s future. We don’t have a political axe to grind but also don’t support ineffective and wasteful policies that increase our taxes and penalize our businesses.
1. Finding viable alternatives to fossil fuels
2. Working with 195 nations
3. Living in a world of global poverty
4. Continuous population growth
5. Controlling our planet’s climate
There are currently no viable substitutes for fossil fuels. Solar, wind, hydro, tidal, geothermal, none can match the energy contained in a single barrel of oil when compared to the space and infrastructure needed to bring energy equivalent alternative sources on-line. We use ‘Viable’ to eliminate the fictional qualities attributed to most alternative sources of energy. As an example, LED lightbulbs are a VIABLE alternative to incandescent lightbulbs; you simply replace the incandescent bulb with the LED bulb and you have comparable light output with 85% energy savings. Disconnect from the utility power grid and you would have to invest in wind or solar as a replacement, not a very VIABLE alternative.
“Most Americans (77%) say it’s more important for the United States to develop alternative energy sources, such as solar and wind power, than to produce more coal, oil and other fossil fuels, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey. Which raises the question: How does the U.S. meet its vast energy needs, and how, if at all, has that changed?
The answer, as one might expect, is complicated. Solar and wind power use has grown at a rapid rate over the past decade or so, but as of 2018 those sources accounted for less than 4% of all the energy used in the U.S. (That’s the most recent full year for which data is available.) As far back as we have data, most of the energy used in the U.S. has come from coal, oil and natural gas. In 2018, those “fossil fuels” fed about 80% of the nation’s energy demand, down slightly from 84% a decade earlier. Although coal use has declined in recent years, natural gas use has soared, while oil’s share of the nation’s energy tab has fluctuated between 35% and 40%.” (1)
In 2000, Wood as an energy source in the U.S. was equal to or greater than any of the following: Hydroelectric, Wind, Solar, Biofuels, Waste-To-Energy or Geothermal. The same was true in 2018, so if we couldn’t replace wood as an energy source in the U.S. in 18 years, how are we expected to replace oil, natural gas or coal in the next 12 years? (see graph below from the US Energy Administration). Three billion people around the world still use wood as a form of cooking fuel and heat. There are many excellent examples of new technologies being provided to these families who simply can’t afford to use or maintain them and they end up reverting back to using wood. (2)
Wind and solar wouldn’t exist without government subsidies. Arguments over subsidies forget that even a $1 subsidy payment makes the alternative energy source non-viable. Subsidized housing places families that can’t afford housing next to families that can. Is this fair and equitable to homeowners who pay 100% of their own costs? The U.S. began using incentives in the early 20th century to encourage the exploration for and the development of fossil fuels. This was necessary because there were no roads, navigable bodies of water (dredging shallow rivers, building bridges), drafting survey maps, etc. all expenses that would have to be born by private companies to get to, extract and refine the sources of energy. Subsidies today for wind and solar are different. They primarily focus on making up the cost difference between producing and consuming a kwh of energy to place solar and wind on par with fossil fuels.
“The more honest politicians promoting a zero carbon future admit it would eliminate a lot of oil, gas, coal, petrochemical, manufacturing and other high-paying jobs. But, they claim, their pseudo-renewable energy world would create millions of new jobs. A look behind The Great Oz’s curtain is very revealing. Coal-fired power plants generate 7,745 megawatt-hours of electricity per mine and power plant worker; natural gas generates 3,812 MWh per oil and gas field and utility worker. That super high efficiency and resultant low-cost electricity sustain millions of jobs in manufacturing and countless other industries.” (3)
“In stark contrast, wind turbines produce a measly 836 MWh for every employee, while solar panels generated an abysmal 98 MWh per worker. Put another way, it takes 79 solar workers to produce the same amount of electricity as one coal worker or two natural gas workers. Not only will this expensive, intermittent, weather-dependent electricity kill millions of good American jobs; the GND wind and solar jobs will mostly be lower-wage positions installing, maintaining, repairing and replacing turbines and panels, and hauling huge dilapidated blades, panels, hulks and concrete foundations to monster landfills.” (3)
Known reserves of fossil fuels are increasing, not decreasing and crude oil prices are declining. These two important economic factors are driving the continued use of fossil fuels over other alternative energy sources. There is little incentive to shift to alternative energy sources if you are paying less for what is in place and readily available. Most importantly, every car, plane, boat, engine that is in service today around the world can consume this energy source. The best example is the automobile. Own a gas or diesel car or truck in 2020, no matter if it is new or 20 years old and you are paying less to drive it than in previous years in most countries. But what if you were forced to switch to an electric vehicle, could you afford it? Most of the world’s population could not and this will be discussed in the section on global poverty.
What about Products Made from Fossil Fuels?
What is not discussed in the Green New Deal is the use of fossil fuels for DURABLE products as opposed to NON-DURABLE consumption, e.g., transportation, heating, cooling and lighting. Will we continue to make products from fossil fuels or will all of these items be banned as well? Do we have a ready source of alternatives to fossil fuels for making durable products? A quick search will turn up thousands of products made from oil including such common items as plastics, fertilizers, cleaning products, cosmetics, aspirins, etc.
(1) Desilver, Drew, “Renewable Energy is Growing Fast In The U.S., But Fossil Fuels Still Dominate” from Pew Research Center, 1/15/2020,
(2) Nijhuis, Michelle, “Three Billion People Cook Over Open Fires ― With Deadly Consequences” from National Geographic, 8/14/17 https://www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/proof/2017/07/guatemala-cook-stoves/
(3) Driessen, Paul, “How Exactly Do They Plan To Replace Fossil Fuels” from WUWT What’s Up With That, 3/16/2020, https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/03/16/how-exactly-do-they-plan-to-replace-fossil-fuels/
The U.S. is only one of 195 countries and cutting our emissions, even to net carbon zero, will have little global effect. We live in a world made up of independent governments with 195 countries recognized by the United States. We’re just one country with less than 5% of the world’s population.
Any effort to globally reduce the use of fossil fuels and convert to 100% clean energy sources would require every country to change and adopt a green energy policy. This is simply not possible with most of the world dependent on fossil fuels. As an example, in 2019, Russia continued to expand their coal production and coal exports to some 80 countries. Russia is the world’s third largest coal exporter, with the World Coal Association estimating that in 2013 it exported 118 million tons of thermal coal and 22 million tons of metallurgical coal. The US Energy Information Administration noted in July 2015 that Russian coal exports “have almost tripled over the past decade.” (1)
Do you think it would be possible to convince Russia to stop and completely eliminate the use of coal? Remember the Green New Deal Requirement, “Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources."
Fossil fuels powered China's economic surge over the last thirty years, and the nation burns about half the coal used globally each year. Between 2000 and 2018, its annual carbon emissions nearly tripled, and it now accounts for nearly a third of the world's total greenhouse gases linked to global warming. The country that was responsible for releasing the corona virus without alerting the world and who expands its military presence in the South Pacific against United Nation objections will most likely not comply with the Green New Deal. China supports the Paris Agreement because it is not subject to the strict restrictions that the United States faces since China is still listed as a developing nation. (2)
Carbon Brief has provided a map that features 10,000 retired, operating and planned coal units, for a total of 3,000 gigawatts (GW) across 99 countries. The EU has 468 and is building 27 more, Turkey has 56 and is building 93 more, South Africa has 79 and is building 24 more, India has 589 and is building 446 more, The Philippines has 19 and is building 60 more, South Korea has 58 and is building 26 more, and Japan has 90 and is building 45 more. China has 2,363 and is building 1,171 more while the U.S. has15 and is building 0 more. (3)
The U.S. doesn’t rely on coal so it is easy for us to suggest that the rest of the world is out of step and that they must stop their use of coal. This is the main reason why net carbon zero is a myth. Politicians with their "green new deal” want to shut down those 15 plants in order to "save” the planet. Whatever the United States does or doesn’t do won’t make a difference regarding Co2 unless the rest of the world, especially China and India reduce their coal-fired power plants as well.
(1) Israel, Ron, Russia’s Coal Exports Continue To Rise, Climate Scorecard, 5/9/2019, https://www.climatescorecard.org/2019/05/russia-coal-exports-continue-to-rise/
(2) PHYS-ORG, 'Two-headed beast': China's coal addiction erodes climate goals, September 27, 2020, https://phys.org/news/2020-09-two-headed-beast-china-coal-addiction.htm
(3) Evans, Simon and Pearce, Rosamund, Mapped, The World’s Coal Power Plants, 2019, Carbon Brief, https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-coal-power-plants
The Number of Countries In The World: https://www.thoughtco.com/number-of-countries-in-the-world-1433445
A List of Countries by System of Government: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_system_of_government
Most people live in a world of poverty. Two-thirds of the world’s population live on less than $10 per day and one in every tenth person lives on less than $1.90 per day. If you are poor, your primary concern is day to day living; food, water, shelter, and heat. You can’t expect someone living in these conditions to be concerned with global warming. (1)
The myth here is the $1.90 per day level set by the United Nations. While this definition of poverty provides for food and basic daily living needs, it does not provide for any additional luxuries of living. After food, shelter and water, this population will be concerned with their health, clothing, transportation and living conveniences such as furniture, bedding, washing machines, lighting, etc.
Achieving net carbon zero among this population is extremely unlikely. Their basic shelter will most likely be using fossil fuels for heating and cooking, requires almost no maintenance, in many cases is gathered for free and is primitive but reality compared to the fake climate change view that somehow this population will convert to wind and solar. Unless a government is willing to take on the heating, lighting, cooling needs of this population there will be little change in years to come. The poor citizens of Myanmar have taken to eating rats during the Covid crisis with little hope for survival long term.
Poverty rates have fallen globally but the cost of living has also increased for this population. It doesn’t really matter that more people cross the $1.90 per day threshold if the cost of living doubles over the same time period.
The median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers in 2018 was $886 current U.S. dollars. (2) This is one of the highest national wages in the world and yet it is an income that barely allows for savings, owning and managing a home or raising a family. The Green New Deal would impose large carbon fuel taxes on this population requiring higher gas and home heating and cooling taxes, retrofitting expenses for home owners that would also pass through costs to renters and conversion to electric and fuel cell autos.
The median U.S. existing house price for all home types (single-family, townhomes, condominiums, and co-ops) was $284,600 in May 2020 according to the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR). The median sale price for existing homes increased to $295,300 in June, 2020. These U.S. housing price points translate to a total monthly cost for mortgage, taxes and utilities of anywhere between $1,200 and $2,000 per month. Little would be left over for daily living expenses including health care, child care, food, clothing and transportation.
(1) Max Roser and Esteban Ortiz-Ospina, Global Extreme Poverty, Our World in Data, 3/27/2017, https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty
(2) Erin Duffin, Median weekly earnings of full time wage and salary workers U.S. 1979-2018 , Statista, Nov27,2019 https://www.statista.com/statistics/184664/median-weekly-earnings-of-full-time-wage-and-salary-workers
All population projections show that our World is growing. Even with declining birth rates, the population will continue to grow given that overall global health has improved and mortality rates have declined. It is a simple fact that more people lead to an increased use of resources. Population growth will continue and it is highest in poorer countries that will consume more fossil fuels regardless of what the U.S. does.
“The 7-fold increase of the world population over the course of two centuries amplified humanity’s impact on the natural environment. To provide space, food, and resources for a large world population in a way that is sustainable into the distant future is without question one of the large, serious challenges for our generation. We should not make the mistake of underestimating the task ahead of us. Yes, I expect new generations to contribute, but for now it is upon us to provide for them. Population growth is still fast: Every year 140 million are born and 58 million die – the difference is the number of people that we add to the world population in a year: 82 million.” (1)
The World Population Clock is a counter that shows the global population growth, estimated in real time. It also shows daily and annual births, deaths and overall population growth. Click here to see it in action: https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
At the dawn of agriculture, about 8000 B.C., the population of the world was approximately 5 million. Over the 8,000-year period up to 1 A.D. it grew to 200 million (some estimate 300 million or even 600, suggesting how imprecise population estimates of early historical periods can be), with a growth rate of under 0.05% per year. A tremendous change occurred with the industrial revolution: whereas it had taken all of human history until around 1800 for world population to reach one billion, the second billion was achieved in only 130 years (1930), the third billion in 30 years (1960), the fourth billion in 15 years (1974), and the fifth billion in only 13 years (1987).
While 200 years sounds like a long time, imagine the the town or city you live in with twice the population. Drive 5 miles out of town and you would still be in town. Sprawling suburbs gobbling up agricultural land and cities with tighter, denser, high rises with overtaxed water and sewer systems. How will this all happen with net carbon zero requirements?
Poor countries will experience the fastest population growth and will require an even greater dependence on readily available fossil fuels. There is little hope for these countries to reduce their carbon emissions, in fact their carbon emissions will increase at an increasing rate.
Source, Human Population Through the Ages, Econosystemics.com, Copyright Bryan Long, 2009.
(1) Roser, Max, Future Population Growth, 11/2019, Our World in Data, https://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth
The greatest myth of all is geoengineering, the belief that we can somehow control our global climate by tinkering with mother nature. It is comforting to think that we can control our living planet, our destiny, the weather, but the fact is our planet is responsible for most of our climate change.
We recommend reading Howard Lee’s article titled, “How Earth’s Climate Changes Naturally (and Why Things Are Different Now)” published in Quanta Magazine, July 21, 2020. He discusses ten natural changes that cause climate change, things such as solar cycles, volcanic sulfur, short term climate fluctuations, orbital wobbles, etc., but attributes our Co2 emissions to be equal to any of these natural changes. This article provides evidence that even if we can control our global Co2 emissions, and we assert that we can’t, there are other forces that are out of our control that will always affect our climate.
The world stands on the brink of failure when it comes to holding global warming to moderate levels, and nations will need to take “unprecedented” actions to cut their carbon emissions over the next decade.
With global emissions showing few signs of slowing and the United States — the world’s second-largest emitter of carbon dioxide — rolling back a suite of Obama-era climate measures, the prospects for meeting the most ambitious goals of the 2015 Paris agreement look increasingly slim. To avoid racing past warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) over preindustrial levels would require a “rapid and far-reaching” transformation of human civilization at a magnitude that has never happened before, the group found.
“There is no documented historic precedent” for the sweeping change to energy, transportation and other systems required to reach 1.5 degrees Celsius, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) wrote in a report requested as part of the 2015 Paris climate agreement.” (1)
“Mother Earth is angry,” Speaker Pelosi says, discussing wildfires burning in California. “She’s telling us with hurricanes on the Gulf Coast, fires in the West, whatever it is...the climate crisis is real and has an impact.” 9/10/2020 None of these climate events are occurring any more frequently than they have in the past 100 years, but the fact is we have only a brief glimpse into climate patterns with accurate records. Hand written notes greater than 100 years ago may or may not have described climate events accurately, surely not using the required scientific method for data accuracy that are our standards today. Only in the last 50 years have we globally recorded climate events accurately which is a very short moment in the history of our planet. Think of it as one second compared to a 24-hour day.
(1) Mooney, Chris, The world has just over a decade to get climate change under control, U.N. scientists say, 10/7/2018. The Washington Post, https://www.washingtonposton.com/energy-environment/2018/10/8/world-has-only-years-get-climate-change-under-control-un-xcientists-say
Is Human activity Primarily Responsible For Climate Change? https://climatechange.procon.org/is-human-activity-primarily-responsible-for-global-climate-change-pro-con-quotes/
Politicians and climate change proponents are pushing the ‘Green New Deal’, based on the elusive goal of living in a world with ‘Net Carbon Zero’ emissions.
The Green New Deal calls for the creation of a 15-member “Select Committee for a Green New Deal” that would “have authority to develop a detailed national, industrial, economic mobilization plan” to make the U.S. economy “greenhouse gas emissions neutral.” As if that weren’t ambitious enough, the Select Committee’s detailed national plan would also have the goal “to promote economic and environmental justice and equality.” The draft specifically mentions spending $1 trillion over ten years, in addition to extensive taxes and regulations to steer the economy and society as the 15 committee members see fit.” (1)
We believe that the Green New Deal has less to do with environmental science and more to do with government. We have been told that unless we enact the Green New Deal we will have less than 12 years before the world will end.
We also believe that the centerpiece of the Green New Deal, Net Carbon Zero, is not an attainable goal, not by he United States, nor by any other country on Earth, now or at any time in the future.
As of June 2020, fewer than 10% of all countries have adopted Net Carbon Zero targets. (2) If 90% of the world won’t acknowledge and adopt a target then how can we expect to meet current proposed Global deadlines? Look at the list of countries that have signed up and you’ll see that the world’s largest polluters aren’t even on the list. More than half of the world’s pollution comes from India, China, Brazil, the Southeast Asian Countries and the the Middle East.
According to The Washington Post (February 11, 2019), the Green New Deal calls for a "10-year national mobilization" whose primary goals would be:
"Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States."
"Providing all people of the United States with – (i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security; and (iv) access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature."
"Providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States."
"Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources."
"Repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible."
"Building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and ‘smart’ power grids, and working to ensure affordable access to electricity."
"Upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification."
"Overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in – (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; and (iii) high-speed rail."
"Spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible." "Working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible." (3)
The first point of the Green New Deal and its centerpiece has nothing to do with the environment, “"Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States." How would this goal reduce carbon emissions, given that 100% employment would increase pollution as people commute to their jobs, use equipment that consumes energy, etc.
The second point of the Green New Deal also has nothing to do with the environment, "Providing all people of the United States with – (i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security; and (iv) access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature."
The third point of the Green New Deal discusses education, "Providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States." What does this have to do with zero carbon emissions?
Our fourth point concerns the use of the phrase, “as much as is technologically feasible”. If the science of alternative energy and conservation was certain, then the use of a legal ‘out’ such as “as much as technologically feasible” wouldn’t be necessary. California’s high speed rail project between Los Angeles and San Francisco has stopped after wasting several billion dollars because of the cost overruns and engineering difficulties. It is our belief that many of the Green New Deal projects will never meet the hurdles of cheap fossil fuels and costly overruns for retrofitting busineses and homes and these projects will be halted midstream.
(1) Murphy, Robert “Flaws With a “Green New Deal,” Institute for Energy Research, 12/20/2018, https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/regulation/flaws-with-a-green-new-deal-part-1-of-2/
(2) Levin, Kelly and Davis, Chantal, What Does "Net-Zero Emissions" Mean? 6 Common Questions, Answered, World Resources Institute, 9/17/2019 https://www.wri.org/blog/2019/09/what-does-net-zero-emissions-mean-6-common-questions-answered
(3) Rizzo, Salvador, What’s Actually In The Green New Deal From Democrats? 2/11/2019, The Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/11/whats-actually-green-new-deal-democrats/
The quest for alternative low-cost efficient energy is on-going, always has been and always will be due to human ingenuity and one important fundamental economic principle: The Rule of Economic Efficiency.
Since the beginning of time, humans have used the most efficient and least wasteful methods to produce goods and services and this includes the use of fossil fuels and energy as well. If cars could run on water we’d be driving them.
Consumers will adopt green energy technologies that work and reject solutions that are costly and difficult to implement. Wind and solar are technologies that are difficult to implement, try installing solar panels on your roof or building a wind generator in your backyard. They also require government subsidies in order to be on an economic equivalent basis with fossil fuels. Few consumer would foot the entire bill in order for to install wind and solar in their homes.
Climate Solution #1
Energy Conservation for Consumers, Businesses and Government
-Cost to Taxpayers = Unknown cost to promote this public message (use NPR funds!)
-Direct Government Tax on Consumers and Businesses = None
Institute programs for consumers, businesses and government and set attainable goals for consuming less energy and eliminating energy waste.
We’ve been taught that comfort and convenience are key and won’t tolerate the thermostat program. Same with driving, nationwide speed limits have increased and at 70 miles per hour, almost all fuel driven vehicles consume more energy than they do at 55-60 miles per hour. How about excessive lighting? Any major city is filled with parking lots, both private and municipal awash in light from dusk until dawn, a great example of energy waste.
Conserving energy gets little attention in the press today because it doesn’t fund the Green New Deal. It is a practice that some of us adhere to in our daily lives but one that is no longer taught. There was a time not too long ago with a president who practices what he preached, jimmy Carter. “WASHINGTON -- The Jimmy Carter thermostat control program that saved about 300,000 barrels of fuel daily has been turned off by President Reagan for being an 'excessive regulatory burden. 'In a proclamation issued Tuesday, Reagan terminated the 22-month-old program that prohibited public buildings from setting thermostats above 65 degrees in the winter or below 78 in the summer. An Energy Department aide said the restrictions saved an estimated $4.5 billion, or about 123 million barrels of imported oil. No building owner has ever been fined or reprimanded under the low-budget program.”
Climate Solution #2
Pollution Controls for Small Engines and Recreational Equipment
-Cost to Taxpayers = A small percentage of the cost of the equipment, we estimate on average based on horsepower, $20-$50 per engine.
-Direct Government Tax on Consumers and Businesses = None
Most of the engines that power this type of equipment have very minor national standards for pollution and the majority have only been implemented since 2010. California has the most restrictive laws and most have only come into effect in 2020. Problem is, most of these small engines are older models that won’t ever have to be modified until they are no longer in use.
“One 2011 study by car experts at Edmunds found that a consumer-grade leaf blower pumped out more pollutants than a 6,200-pound 2011 Ford F-150 SVT Raptor. In their tests, a two-stroke engine leaf blower emitted nearly 299 times the hydrocarbons of the pickup truck and 93 times the hydrocarbons of a sedan, in addition to many times more carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides. A four-stroke mower was better than the two-stroke but still emitted more pollutants than either vehicle. Overall, while estimates are of course hard to make, a 2011 EPA study concluded that gas-powered lawn equipment was responsible for 24-45 percent of non-road gasoline emissions. The California government predicts that within a few years, gas-powered lawn equipment will be the biggest source of ozone pollution in the state.” (1)
Wasteful pleasure boating, personal aircraft, mowed lawns, ATVs, are prevalent and yet we focus on electric cars as the solution. Older engines are terribly inefficient in terms of fuel burning, with about 30% of engine fuel failing to undergo complete combustion. This means greater levels of air pollutants are produced, including carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, and hydrocarbons, the latter two leading to increased smog formation.
Estimated Number of Gasoline Powered *Non-Automotive” Engines in the United States:
9.8 million ATVs
220,000 private aircraft
12 million registered power boats
2.5 million manual lawnmowers sold each year.
25% of all carbon pollution comes from the small engine category yet there is no mention of it in the Green New Deal.
Climate Solution #3
Energy Efficiency for Lighting, Heating, Cooling and Appliances
-Cost to Taxpayers = Difficult to measure, complex industrial equipment but a percentage of the cost of the equipment based on how stringent the requirements are, e.g., zero polluting would be significant. Costs would be passed on to consumers.
-Direct Government Tax on Consumers and Businesses = None
There are many examples of energy efficiency such as the use of LEDs for lighting that uses 85% less energy than incandescent light bulbs an innovation that has swept the U.S.in the last decade thanks to government subsidies to the private sector. Not mandated but encouraged and consumers embraced this new cost saving technology . Green is energy efficiency and energy efficiency is a most valuable capitalistic goal for companies seeking profits who are driven to deliver thee solutions. Take away the profit incentive and you will be looking in the rearview mirror for old technologies to solve modern problems, e.g. covering football field sized plots with solar cells, does that make sense?
Traditional incandescent bulbs waste a lot of energy as heat in order to create light. They last about one year, on average. Improved halogen incandescents use up to 30 percent less energy than traditional light bulbs and can last three times as long. Curly compact fluorescent bulbs use up to 75 percent less energy than traditional bulbs and can last for 10 years. But they can be slow to brighten and have a colder light quality. LED bulbs, or light emitting diodes, use up to 85 percent less energy than traditional bulbs and can last for 25 years, without some of the drawbacks of compact fluorescents. (6)
The U.S. is the leading innovator in energy efficiency and energy conservation. The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) estimates that $83 billion was invested in 2018 on energy efficiency in the United States. Existing policies, such as federal appliance standards, along with other Federal and State policies, and market forces are drivers of energy efficiency in the United States.
Climate Solution #4
Programs for Industry to Encourage Energy Consumption Performance Improvement
-Cost to Taxpayers = Difficult to measure, these costs would be passed on to the consumer as the cost of doing business based on how stringent the requirements.
-Direct Government Tax on Consumers and Businesses = None
The industrial sector accounts for the largest share of energy consumption in the United States, and energy efficiency improvements in this sector can significantly reduce the nation’s demand for energy. In 2012, the industrial sector accounted for 32 percent of all energy consumption, and by 2025 this share is expected to exceed 36 percent. In 2012, manufacturers accounted for 74 percent of industrial energy consumption, which represents 24 percent of all energy consumed in the United States. (2)
Industrial end-use energy efficiency includes a broad range of energy-efficient technologies and management practices that can be implemented in the manufacturing sector to reduce energy consumption. Examples that illustrate the diversity of technologies and practices include advanced electric motors and drives, high efficiency boilers, waste heat recovery, energy efficient lamps and lighting controls, modernization of processing equipment, improved process performance through the use of sensors and controls, and implementation of systematic energy management systems. (2)
Climate Solution #5:
Put the Resources and Commitment of the Green New Deal Toward Nuclear Energy; Canada’s Doing It!
-Cost to Taxpayers = Depends on how involved government wants to be. The private sector who would fund the majority has been hamstrung by the government's regulations.
-Direct Government Tax on Consumers and Businesses = Unknown
250 nuclear power plants could provide 50% of all of our energy needs with zero pollution. “Unlike fossil-fuel power plants, nuclear plants do not produce carbon dioxide, sulfur or nitrogen oxides. Nuclear power production in the U.S. annually avoids the emission of more than 175 million tons of carbon that would have been released into the environment if the same amount of electricity had instead been generated by burning coal.“(5) Nuclear plants would take up less than 5% of the land area required for wind and solar and the majority of the land required for nuclear is for safety reasons, for security and to the prevent terrorist attacks including by airplane. The plants themselves are the size of two football fields and the surrounding safe zone land, approximately one square mile, could be used for solar panels.
“Electricity generation from commercial nuclear power plants in the United States began in 1958. At the end of December 2019, the United States had 96 operating commercial nuclear reactors at 58 nuclear power plants in 29 states. The average age of these nuclear reactors is about 38 years old. The oldest operating reactor, Nine Mile Point Unit 1 in New York, began commercial operation in December 1969. The newest reactor to enter service, Watts Bar Unit 2, came online in 2016—the first reactor to come online since 1996 when the Watts Bar Unit 1 came online. According to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission as of November 2019, there were 17 shut down commercial nuclear power reactors at 16 sites in various stages of decommissioning.”
“Although in 2019 there were fewer operating nuclear reactors than in 2013, total nuclear electricity generation capacity at the end of 2019 was about the same as total capacity in 2003, when the United States had 104 operating reactors. Power plant uprates—modifications to increase capacity—at nuclear power plants have made it possible for the entire operating nuclear reactor fleet to maintain a relatively consistent total electricity generation capacity. These uprates, combined with high capacity utilization rates (or capacity factors), have helped nuclear power plants maintain a consistent share of about 20% of total annual U.S. electricity generation since 1990. Some reactors have also increased annual electricity generation by shortening the length of time reactors are offline for refueling.” (3)
There is a persistent fear and false information about nuclear, even though it is still the safest large-scale non-polluting form of energy generation. Simply look at the long-term track record of nuclear compared to coal, oil, natural gas, even wind and solar accidents.
The two worst accidents in history were Chernobyl and Fukushima. “When it comes to the safety of nuclear energy, discussion often quickly turns towards the nuclear accidents at Chernobyl in Ukraine (1986) and Fukushima in Japan (2011). These two events were by far the largest nuclear incidents in history; the only disasters to receive a level 7 (the maximum classification) on the International Nuclear Event Scale. 31 people died as a direct result of the Chernobyl accident; two died from blast effects and a further 29 firemen died as a result of acute radiation exposure (where acute refers to infrequent exposure over a short period of time) in the days which followed. In the case of Fukushima, although 40 to 50 people experienced physical injury or radiation burns at the nuclear facility, the number of direct deaths from the incident are quoted to be zero. In 2018, the Japanese government reported that one worker has since died from lung cancer as a result of exposure from the event.” (4)
We’ve wasted billions of dollars on space exploration with little to show for our efforts except in two categories, satellites and military. What did we discover on the moon and Mars? With what we have already spent and plan to spend we would have had a 100% nuclear pollution free country with fissionable reactors coming on line now. In addition there are new nuclear technologies that are currently being developed that would add to their efficiency, safety and the lower operating costs. Little attention has been paid to nuclear energy’s capacity for producing hydrogen for use in transportation fuel cells and other cleaner power plants. (5)
(1) Cooper, Ryan, The Government Must Regulate Lawn Equipment, Seriously, The Week, November 28, 2017, https://theweek.com/articles/739688/government-must-regulate-lawn-equipment-seriously
(2) United States Department of Energy, Report to Congress, Barriers to Industrial Energy Efficiency, June, 2015, https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/06/f23/EXEC-2014-005846_6%20Report_signed_v2.pdf
(3) U.S. Energy Information Administration, Nuclear Explained, Last updated: April 15, 2020, https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/us-nuclear-industry.php
(4) Ritchie, Hannah, What Was The Death Toll From Chernobyl and Fukushima?, Our World in Data, June 24, 2017, https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-chernobyl-and-fukushima
(5) Lake, James, A., Next Generation Nuclear Power, Scientific American, January 26, 2009, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/next-generation-nuclear/
(6) Popovich, Nadja, America’s Light Bulb Revolution, NY Times, March 8, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/08/climate/light-bulb-efficiency.html
Energy Consumption and Efficiency in the U.S.: https://www.selectusa.gov/energy-industry-united-states
Contact Federal, State and Local Government Officials and tell them you don't want wasteful spending on far fetched ideas that will have no effect. Just like lockdowns don't work with COVID, The Green New Deal won't work stop global Co2, but it will line the pockets of a whole new industry of supposed green energy providers. Your tax do
Contact Federal, State and Local Government Officials and tell them you don't want wasteful spending on far fetched ideas that will have no effect. Just like lockdowns don't work with COVID, The Green New Deal won't work stop global Co2, but it will line the pockets of a whole new industry of supposed green energy providers. Your tax dollars will be used to create a new class of green millionaires whose buddies are in Washington.
We're already on the right track, we don't need to rebuild every building in America to be energy efficient. According to the International Energy Agency, "The United States saw the largest decline in energy-related CO2 emissions in 2019 on a country basis - a fall of 140 Mt, or 2.9 percent, to 4.8 Gt. U.S. emissions are now down almost
We're already on the right track, we don't need to rebuild every building in America to be energy efficient. According to the International Energy Agency, "The United States saw the largest decline in energy-related CO2 emissions in 2019 on a country basis - a fall of 140 Mt, or 2.9 percent, to 4.8 Gt. U.S. emissions are now down almost 1 Gt from their peak in the year 2000, the largest absolute decline by any country over that period."
Government should support private sector innovation on a competitive basis..........those that make the greatest gains in energy efficiency get the biggest benefits in funding, reduced taxes, grants, etc. Capitalism works and profits drive innovation and creativity. The Green New Deal mandates efficiency by punishing users of energy. More will be gained by rewarding efficient users of energy.
Your support and contributions will enable us to meet our goals and improve conditions. Your generous donation will fund our mission.