President Obama's national energy policies is founded upon decades of left Democratic political leadership's promotion of "renewable energy" waste, fraud, and corruption by promotion of wind, solar, ethanol, and carbon-cap-and-trade. President Obama and left Democratic political leadership has assured human races 2050-2055 destruction by ignoring global warming and by enacting shutdown of nuclear energy. It is critical that global warming temperature increase be corrected or it is assured that all human races die too soon.
Tempus Fugit
There are only three modern anthropological avenues available that might alter the course global warming, environmental, and human events: ● Reduce and stop (extremely limit) using hydrocarbon energy (coal, oil, natural gas) ● Modify long-term land, groundwater, and sea use practices ● Limit or reduce long-term human population rate of growth. Only rapidly expanding nuclear energy may produce desired global warming results.
Nuclear electrical energy is only energy source that is clean enough and has capacity to make a global warming difference. Majority of U.S. energy is derived from fossil fuels: in 2009, EIA data showed 37% of the nation's energy came from petroleum, 21% from coal, and 25% from natural gas. Carbon free nuclear power supplied 9% and 6.5% from hydroelectric dams. Energy demand sectors are: electric power 41%, transportation 28%, industrial 20%, and residential & commercial 11%. In 2010, the U.S. electricity generation was 4361 billion kWh gross, 46% of it from coal-fired plant, 23% from gas-fired, 19% nuclear, and 6.5% from hydroelectric.
"Renewable energy" is politically popular since 1992: biomass, geothermal, solar, and wind. Hydropower and nuclear energy should not be lumped within extremely limited category of green renewable energy. Ethanol for automobiles (MTBE is to replace ethanol), municipal waste, and biomass burning are largest energy sources within green renewable energy category. Geothermal, solar, and wind produce only a "very small fraction of U.S. energy." A nation investing in geothermal, solar, and wind has no meaning. If in ten years a very small fraction of U.S. energy is tripled you still wind up with a very small fraction of U.S. energy. Nothing is gained by investing in renewable energy. On the other hand, had political systems invested in carbon free nuclear energy, electric energy capacity is increased, U.S. energy independence is improved, and a there is a reduction in global warming greenhouse gases.
In 1960s, electric utilities kicked-off "Total Electric Living" advertising programs promoting all electric homes. For the past 50-years politicians should have supported nuclear energy sector to produce inexpensive clean electrical energy. It is inexpensive energy that make rich nations richer. Expensive energy keeps poor nations poor. Global Warming Era destroys all nations -- be they rich or poor.
Only realistic global warming temperature reduction method available is to vastly increase nuclear electrical generation. Core global warming task is to reduce global energy share of coal, natural gas, and petroleum, to be replaced nationally and globally with hydrocarbon free nuclear and hydroelectric energy. Hydroelectric energy expansion is limited by available dam site locations.
Stresses of increased human populations; 250-years of increased hydrocarbon energy use; increased gross domestic product (GDP); and resulting increased global temperatures is evident. Most likely response projections over time include uncontrolled population growth; limited technology changes; limited changes in types of energy used; critical political decisions not made; extensive political corruption; delays; limited funding for effective clean nuclear energy; evil politicians; and several proposed impossible legislated changes to fundamental laws of physics by untoward politicians and surrogates. No politician has proposed changes to global warming business as usual politics, corruption, and payoffs. Global warming temperature increase concerns have been known by scientists since around 1960s. There are no known formed plans to alter course or impact of life terminating global warming temperature increase. Political global warming responses to date -- nil.
Over the coming next five years, least-cost global warming option is lowering global warming by steadily transforming global human hydrocarbon energy systems to clean nuclear energy; lower human/natural greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; and then over time lower to zero human GHG emissions. Difficult to reduce are increasing Arctic Region natural methane levels that are ocean current temperature dependent and land surface-air temperature dependent. Arctic Region natural methane/carbon emissions form a reinforced positive feedback loop that is directly proportional to temperature.
Too many world leaders, national politicians, media, and hydrocarbon industries remain committed to continuing hydrocarbon energy dependence. Therefore, not done are necessary planned successful responses to global warming temperature increase that are essential, many, varied, and involve saving lives of more than 9 billion people. No nation has identified a viable organization to respond to countering global warming temperature increase.
Electricity demand is increasing twice as fast as overall energy use and is likely to rise 76% to 2030. Nuclear energy is the only existing and foreseeable technology that has enough molecular energy to convert to clean energy that might alter rate of global warming temperature increase. As always, it is politicians who are responsible for global warming outcome -- politicians just need to act upon best scientific response plans for saving human races.
U.S. national and global energy policies are in long-term political disarray. Other than U.S. military and intelligence agencies, there is no apparent leadership or organizations that are capable of effectively planning what it takes to alter global warming temperature increase.
Statements
"To meet U.S. projected demand over the next two decades, America must have in place between 1,300 and 1,900 new electric plants." "National Energy Policy, Report of National Energy Policy Development Group," May 2001.
With 2009 "stimulus" monies of more than $90 billion earmarked for renewable energy, President Obama and left Democratic leadership promised funds would be invested in solar, wind, biodiesel, ethanol, and other alternatives to energy approaches. Alternative "green energies" have failed to produce any measurable long-term global warming benefits. Also supported was counterproductive European carbon cap-and-trade systems. President Obama promised that under his carbon cap-and-trade system, "electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." Over 48% of America's electricity comes from coal-powered plants. If somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can -- it is just that "clean coal, oil, or natural gas" (ie, carbon capture and storage) implementation bankrupts utility companies.
President Obama's approach to energy makes no sense, he phased out U.S. nuclear energy. Whatever left Democratic energy plans are, those plans are grossly inadequate: “We’re going to have to cap the [carbon] emission of greenhouse gasses. That means that power plants are going to have to adjust how they generate power … but a lot of us who can afford it are going to have to pay more per unit of electricity, and that means we’re going to have to change our light bulbs, we’re going to have to shut the lights off in our houses.” --Candidate Barack Obama,
Iowa PBS interview, November 9, 2007.
Left Democrats' U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has regulated large carbon reductions. However, when laws of physics and economics are taken into account there is no possible way to meet EPA requirements.
Multiple global warming misstatements are blanketing internet and government information sites. To make it through elections the misinformation intent is to obfuscate and confuse public's reality of global warming. People want answers as to what is being done to address global warming.
With turbulent times 1974 formation of U.S. Nuclear Energy Commission (NRC) nuclear energy became politically opposed. Since after 1992, everything that could be done has been done by left Democratic leadership, and later by President Obama, to delay, increase energy costs, and disrupt nuclear energy responses necessary to curb global warming temperature increase. "Renewable energy" was to be a solution, but green energy turned out to be special interest driven. Left Democratic systems have been positioning science and engineering as villains to social-program funding while left Democrats and Communists have dismantled U.S. and global ability to respond to global warming. It is science that saves human races.
Left Democratic 1990s to present Energy Activity
Left Democratic renewable energy system has identified nuclear energy as a "non renewable" energy energy source. This is ironic because all energy sources will be around longer than current projected lifespan of human races.
U.S. electricity use in 2010 was more than 13 times greater than electricity use in 1950. Historic growth of U.S. and global electricity has been fueled by use of hydrocarbon energy (coal, oil, natural gas) with more than four decades of stops placed upon nuclear energy expansions. Politicians (and therefore their political support groups) remain active opposing nuclear energy because politicians have been bribed not to support nuclear energy (bribery is a long established part of U.S. political systems). Congress and state politicians have made illegal fortunes supporting hydrocarbon energy over nuclear energy. For that reason and over time, to eliminate competition, hydrocarbon energy politicians increased costs of nuclear energy and introduced obstructing stops to nuclear energy implementation. Finally, left Democratic leadership phased out U.S. nuclear energy with President Obama's 2009 symbolic final chapter of phasing out U.S. nuclear energy and Yucca Mountain geologic nuclear repository. President Obama further reorganized and dismantled U.S. government nuclear energy departments (ie, Obama spiked his nuclear football).
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) members remain instruments of politicians. Termination of U.S. nuclear energy began when Congress formed the NRC under Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (Act was a result of political self serving opportunities represented by anti Vietnam War protests and anti nuclear protests). Prior to political takeover of NRC, former U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) issued permits for construction of almost all U.S. nuclear facilities now in existence. NRC members have always been representatives for antinuclear and pro hydrocarbon corrupt political self interested movements. It is through NRC member activity that left Democratic political systems finally completed shutdown of global clean nuclear energy to make room for "renewable energy" waste, fraud, and corruption promotion of wind, solar, ethanol, and carbon cap-and-trade. Congress first legislated U.S. "green energy" push with Energy Policy Act (EPAct 1992) and later Acts.
By late 1990s, special interest politics took over structure of global warming technological reporting. UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports post 2001 improperly ignored methane as a important global warming gas and sliced-diced reports to add confusion and non viable options that obfuscated understanding global warming. IPCC documents now need revisions to present projected reality. There are only two case studies: greenhouse gas emissions "business as usual" and the case with changes to save human races.
By 2003, increased political promotion of waste, fraud, corruption (while promoting wind, solar, green energy, ethanol, and carbon cap-and-trade) became the global warming response of left Democratic systems. President Obama spearheaded alternatives to energy and shutdown nuclear energy because it was popular.
STOP GLOBAL WARMING
A perplexing issue with global warming is communicating the seriousness of global temperature increase. At current rate of hydrocarbon (coal, oil, natural gas) energy infrastructure buildup, Earth's 'global carbon budget' is exceeded about 2017. Critical 450 ppm carbon dioxide level is exceeded 2030-2040 (events happen very quickly after exceeding 450 ppm CO2 level).
Very large stores of Arctic Region ocean methane clathrate deposits have become unstable due to global temperature increases. Very large amounts of very powerful global warming methane is released. Climate scientists have identified that more methane clathrates in permafrost regions will be released as a result of global warming, unleashing powerful feedback forces, which cause runaway temperature increase climate change that cannot be controlled. East Siberian Arctic Shelf and other Arctic Ocean region research carried out in 2008 has shown many-many tonnes of powerful global warming methane being released with concentrations in some regions reaching up to 100 times above normal.
At 2010, greenhouse gas increased above natural pre industrial global warming concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) is increased ~39% and powerful warming methane (CH4) concentration is increased ~164%. Rise of accumulated greenhouse gas 'global warming potential' is exponential.
At historical trends of global warming greenhouse gas increase, human races termination from global warming is 2050-2099, but most likely termination is 2050-2055. Resulting from natural Arctic Region methane release and 250-years of human hydrocarbon emissions, expected remaining human races life span is zero-years to forty-years.
To save all human races, combined 'global warming potentials' of human and natural greenhouse gas emissions must peak prior to 2020. The only way to peak global warming temperatures is peak global warming greenhouse gases. The only clean energy source having capacity to decrease human greenhouse gases is nuclear energy.
Why it remains so hard to communicate this urgent life saving message to politicians and media is perplexing. Rather than accept solutions to global warming, President Obama attacks U.S. military budget and global intelligence agencies for political election reasons.
US DOD Global Warming Planning
U.S. national energy policies and global energy policies are in long-term political disarray and unable to meet needs of curbing global warming temperature increase. For now, other than U.S. military and intelligence agencies, there is no apparent leadership or organization existing, who are capable of planning what it takes to timely alter the rate of global warming. Existing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) membership is to be replaced by four senior military nuclear specialists and one presidential appointee. Revised scope of revised NRC membership is to include supervisions of U.S. 'Nuclear Fuel Cycle' and rapid expansion of U.S. nuclear energy. Global and U.S. plans for global warming reduction are to be produced by U.S. military and intelligence agencies with U.S. Department of Defense (DOD). Natural and human greenhouse gases are to peak by 2020 and decline thereafter.
Showing posts with label renewable. Show all posts
Showing posts with label renewable. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Can human races be saved from 2050-2099 CE destruction?
Existing global warming temperature increase projections identifies end of human races 2050-2099 CE, but most likely 2050-2055 CE.
The EU climate protection target - the 2 oC limit - established by the EU Governments in 1996 and reaffirmed since then by the Environment Council 2003, and European Council, 2005, 2007 CE. Since the 1990s, Europe-U.S. politicians locked-in funding “alternative fuels renewable green energy,” eliminating nuclear energy, and retaining coal economies. China-India governments are also facing hydrocarbon “infrastructure lock-in.” Key issues to curbing global warming “infrastructure lock-in” of the “carbon budget” is to reverse damage done by 260-years of using hydrocarbon energy. Carbon budget refers to the contribution of various sources of carbon dioxide on the planet. Carbon budget has nothing to do with political agendas, climate change legislation, carbon controls, carbon storage, the economy, or geopolitical carbon footprint. Carbon budget is a physical event. Infrastructure coal plants and oil extraction methods in countries of China, India, Europe, Russia, Canada, the U.S., and other nations are rapidly being constructed right now. Note that the term "carbon (C)" is inclusive of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4); methane has a much larger 20-year, 100-year, and 500-year global warming potential than that of carbon dioxide. Once we edge near carbon dioxide level of 450 ppm it becomes imposable to turn off the global warming effects of the 1750 Christian Era (CE) to date hydrocarbon energy used (coal, oil, natural gas) and natural methane/carbon dioxide release. The IEA found we are about five years away from building enough carbon-spewing infrastructures to lock-in a hydrocarbon infrastructure and make it extremely difficult — if not impossible — to avoid greatly exceeding 450-ppm carbon dioxide (CO2 at 450-ppm is the 2 oC limit). Global warming carbon “infrastructure lock-in” is around 2017 CE.
Historical Global Warming
To have any reasonable 70% chance of avoiding destruction of human races 2050-2055, global human and natural greenhouse gas emissions are to peak by 2015-2020. If not now corrected, it is almost certain human races will end around 2050-2055. What happens after 2055 end of human races is of little interest. However, some people might want to know what they are missing.
55.8 million years ago -- Caused by excessive human carbon dioxide emissions since 1750 CE and resulting methane emissions - Earth's global warming is similar to Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) event of about 55.8 million years ago (Ma), when Pangaea was splitting into separate continents. Within PETM, natural volcanic gases and natural ocean methane clathrates and volcanic carbon dioxide release dominate temperature change rates. Huge amounts of carbon and methane were released into atmosphere and from carbon cycle. PETM globe warmed 5 to 9°C (9 to 16°F). A major difference between current Modern Global Warming Era temperature increase event and PETM is that current temperature increase during beginning stages is about 15 times faster (and accelerating) than PETM event. Global temperature increase is projected to be too fast for Earth or human ecosystems to adapt.
In 2010, our fossil fuel burning released 35 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. By comparison, volcanoes now release about 0.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year. How fast carbon and methane enters atmosphere translates to how fast temperature increases after delays. Environmental and societal consequences of warming at such a speed will be devastating.
PETM temperature rose steadily with slow release of greenhouse gas. Today, fossil fuel burning releases carbon about fifteen times greater than PETM, driving global temperature up at an incredible rate. A corresponding rapid increase in powerful methane global warming occurs. Methane also has regional positive warming properties that makes methane an exceptional global warming gas.
Many of the other natural climate feedbacks that we either already observe today or expect to experience probably took place during the PETM warming, as well. Severe drought would have led to increased wildfires (such as would occur within Amazon), injecting more carbon into the atmosphere. Research shows that permafrost on a then glacier-free Antarctica thawed, which would have also released carbon dioxide and methane. Another interesting source of carbon that some scientists hypothesize is burning of peat and coal seams. Peat is decayed vegetation and has a very high carbon content that also releases methane. Peat, which is found in the soil beneath the surface, can be ignited by something like a wildfire and continue to smolder for as long as centuries. Coal seams can be ignited in a similar way, and burn for decades to centuries, releasing huge amounts of carbon into atmosphere.
252.28 million years ago -- Atmospheric gas composition, physical properties, and quantities determine rate of Earth’s global warming properties. Within End-Permian Mass Extinction Period 252.28 Ma, natural volcanic gases and natural ocean methane clathrates and carbon dioxide release dominate temperature change rates (vented from volcanic Siberian Traps). However, within Modern Global Warming, human hydrocarbon economy energy use (coal, oil, natural gas) and responding natural ocean methane clathrates and carbon dioxide release dominate temperature change rates.
A major difference between Modern Global Warming temperature increase event and End-Permian Mass Extinction 252.28 Ma is that Modern Global Warming Era temperature increase during the beginning stages is ALSO about 15 times faster than the End-Permian Period and there are more than 9 billion people involved who depend upon potable water and global environment resources.
Modern Global Warming Era is an accelerated End-Permian Mass Extinction, about which no one survives global warming temperature increase.
Interglacial Cycles -- Natural historical Earth interglacial temperature cycles result from natural carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) levels that are determined by changes of the sun’s relative position to earth orbit (described by Milankovitch Cycle orbital variations and occasional increased volcanic activity). A 1976 CE study, published in the journal Science examined deep-sea sediment cores and found that Milankovich's theory corresponded to periods of global warming and cooling.
Indeed, ice ages had occurred when the earth was going through different stages of orbital variation. Resulting from current greenhouse gas emissions, “natural” earth temperature interglacial cooling cycle will not occur again for millions of years.
Natural historical Earth interglacial cycles are ~100,000-year temperature cycles. Current Milankovitch Cycle is now driven by ~250 years of human hydrocarbon energy (coal, oil, natural gas) activity that produces human and natural greenhouse gas emissions. Today's human "climate increase" is about 100 times faster than Milankovitch Cycle "natural change."
Modern Global Warming
Since ambient 1750 CE pre industrial times, Modern Global Warming concentrations of greenhouse gases has increased significantly. Greenhouse gas increased above natural global warming concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) is increased ~39% and methane (CH4) concentration is increased ~164%. 1750 CE tropospheric concentration greenhouse concentrations levels were 280 ppm and interglacial methane peak levels 700 ppb. Carbon dioxide concentrations levels are ~390 ppm and for methane are ~1,850 ppb.
Very huge deposits of Arctic Region methane clathrate (or methane hydrates) results from millions of years of natural leaking oil and natural gas deposits and degradation of organic compound methane (CH4) (methane clathrate is about 85% natural gas). Methane is 105 times worse than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas (GHG) on a 20-year period, taking aerosol impacts into account. If methane clathrate gun triggers due to warming Arctic Ocean currents, Earth’s temperature could rapidly rises tens of degrees.
Tools for assessing the expected climate effects of actual levels of human-made and natural changes of atmospheric composition include (1) Earth's paleoclimate history, showing how climate responded in the past to changes of boundary conditions including atmospheric composition, (2) modern climate change, especially global satellite observations, coincident with rapidly changing human-made and natural climate forcings, and (3) climate models and theory, which aid interpretation of observations and are useful for projecting future climate/temperature under realistic most probable to 2099 CE human and natural temperature forcing scenarios.
Stresses of increased populations, increased hydrocarbon energy use, increased gross domestic product (GDP), increased natural methane release, and resulting increased global temperatures is evident. Most probable projections over time include uncontrolled population growth, limited technology changes, limited changes to energy use, critical political decisions not made, limited funding for effective clean nuclear energy, and several proposed impossible legislated changes to fundamental laws of physics by untoward politicians and surrogates. Not yet proposed are changes to global warming business as usual politics.
In 1970s, U.S. nuclear energy facilities were capped to assure about 80% of electrical energy supplied would be from hydrocarbon energy. By 1980s, it was well known that global warming was a growing problem. In 1990s - 2010s, politics gamed global warming responses to increase profits from "green" alternatives to nuclear energy. Congressional responses to global warming temperature increase remain sidetracked for continued political and special interest corruption, payoffs, and political control of national and global hydrocarbon energy sectors. While reviewing global warming articles, care should be taken because there are many intentional deceptively written materials and presenters.
Can human races be saved from 2050-2099 CE destruction? Not without willing politicians and a great deal of time and material spent on nuclear clean energy investments between now and 2017 CE carbon infrastructure lock in of global carbon budget. Since there is no functioning organization or system (except for U.S. military and intelligence services) that is capable of directing necessary changeover to clean nuclear energy, most likely human races end date is 2050-2055 CE.
The EU climate protection target - the 2 oC limit - established by the EU Governments in 1996 and reaffirmed since then by the Environment Council 2003, and European Council, 2005, 2007 CE. Since the 1990s, Europe-U.S. politicians locked-in funding “alternative fuels renewable green energy,” eliminating nuclear energy, and retaining coal economies. China-India governments are also facing hydrocarbon “infrastructure lock-in.” Key issues to curbing global warming “infrastructure lock-in” of the “carbon budget” is to reverse damage done by 260-years of using hydrocarbon energy. Carbon budget refers to the contribution of various sources of carbon dioxide on the planet. Carbon budget has nothing to do with political agendas, climate change legislation, carbon controls, carbon storage, the economy, or geopolitical carbon footprint. Carbon budget is a physical event. Infrastructure coal plants and oil extraction methods in countries of China, India, Europe, Russia, Canada, the U.S., and other nations are rapidly being constructed right now. Note that the term "carbon (C)" is inclusive of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4); methane has a much larger 20-year, 100-year, and 500-year global warming potential than that of carbon dioxide. Once we edge near carbon dioxide level of 450 ppm it becomes imposable to turn off the global warming effects of the 1750 Christian Era (CE) to date hydrocarbon energy used (coal, oil, natural gas) and natural methane/carbon dioxide release. The IEA found we are about five years away from building enough carbon-spewing infrastructures to lock-in a hydrocarbon infrastructure and make it extremely difficult — if not impossible — to avoid greatly exceeding 450-ppm carbon dioxide (CO2 at 450-ppm is the 2 oC limit). Global warming carbon “infrastructure lock-in” is around 2017 CE.
Historical Global Warming
To have any reasonable 70% chance of avoiding destruction of human races 2050-2055, global human and natural greenhouse gas emissions are to peak by 2015-2020. If not now corrected, it is almost certain human races will end around 2050-2055. What happens after 2055 end of human races is of little interest. However, some people might want to know what they are missing.
55.8 million years ago -- Caused by excessive human carbon dioxide emissions since 1750 CE and resulting methane emissions - Earth's global warming is similar to Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) event of about 55.8 million years ago (Ma), when Pangaea was splitting into separate continents. Within PETM, natural volcanic gases and natural ocean methane clathrates and volcanic carbon dioxide release dominate temperature change rates. Huge amounts of carbon and methane were released into atmosphere and from carbon cycle. PETM globe warmed 5 to 9°C (9 to 16°F). A major difference between current Modern Global Warming Era temperature increase event and PETM is that current temperature increase during beginning stages is about 15 times faster (and accelerating) than PETM event. Global temperature increase is projected to be too fast for Earth or human ecosystems to adapt.
In 2010, our fossil fuel burning released 35 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. By comparison, volcanoes now release about 0.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year. How fast carbon and methane enters atmosphere translates to how fast temperature increases after delays. Environmental and societal consequences of warming at such a speed will be devastating.
PETM temperature rose steadily with slow release of greenhouse gas. Today, fossil fuel burning releases carbon about fifteen times greater than PETM, driving global temperature up at an incredible rate. A corresponding rapid increase in powerful methane global warming occurs. Methane also has regional positive warming properties that makes methane an exceptional global warming gas.
Many of the other natural climate feedbacks that we either already observe today or expect to experience probably took place during the PETM warming, as well. Severe drought would have led to increased wildfires (such as would occur within Amazon), injecting more carbon into the atmosphere. Research shows that permafrost on a then glacier-free Antarctica thawed, which would have also released carbon dioxide and methane. Another interesting source of carbon that some scientists hypothesize is burning of peat and coal seams. Peat is decayed vegetation and has a very high carbon content that also releases methane. Peat, which is found in the soil beneath the surface, can be ignited by something like a wildfire and continue to smolder for as long as centuries. Coal seams can be ignited in a similar way, and burn for decades to centuries, releasing huge amounts of carbon into atmosphere.
252.28 million years ago -- Atmospheric gas composition, physical properties, and quantities determine rate of Earth’s global warming properties. Within End-Permian Mass Extinction Period 252.28 Ma, natural volcanic gases and natural ocean methane clathrates and carbon dioxide release dominate temperature change rates (vented from volcanic Siberian Traps). However, within Modern Global Warming, human hydrocarbon economy energy use (coal, oil, natural gas) and responding natural ocean methane clathrates and carbon dioxide release dominate temperature change rates.
A major difference between Modern Global Warming temperature increase event and End-Permian Mass Extinction 252.28 Ma is that Modern Global Warming Era temperature increase during the beginning stages is ALSO about 15 times faster than the End-Permian Period and there are more than 9 billion people involved who depend upon potable water and global environment resources.
Modern Global Warming Era is an accelerated End-Permian Mass Extinction, about which no one survives global warming temperature increase.
Interglacial Cycles -- Natural historical Earth interglacial temperature cycles result from natural carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) levels that are determined by changes of the sun’s relative position to earth orbit (described by Milankovitch Cycle orbital variations and occasional increased volcanic activity). A 1976 CE study, published in the journal Science examined deep-sea sediment cores and found that Milankovich's theory corresponded to periods of global warming and cooling.
Indeed, ice ages had occurred when the earth was going through different stages of orbital variation. Resulting from current greenhouse gas emissions, “natural” earth temperature interglacial cooling cycle will not occur again for millions of years.
Natural historical Earth interglacial cycles are ~100,000-year temperature cycles. Current Milankovitch Cycle is now driven by ~250 years of human hydrocarbon energy (coal, oil, natural gas) activity that produces human and natural greenhouse gas emissions. Today's human "climate increase" is about 100 times faster than Milankovitch Cycle "natural change."
Modern Global Warming
Since ambient 1750 CE pre industrial times, Modern Global Warming concentrations of greenhouse gases has increased significantly. Greenhouse gas increased above natural global warming concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) is increased ~39% and methane (CH4) concentration is increased ~164%. 1750 CE tropospheric concentration greenhouse concentrations levels were 280 ppm and interglacial methane peak levels 700 ppb. Carbon dioxide concentrations levels are ~390 ppm and for methane are ~1,850 ppb.
Very huge deposits of Arctic Region methane clathrate (or methane hydrates) results from millions of years of natural leaking oil and natural gas deposits and degradation of organic compound methane (CH4) (methane clathrate is about 85% natural gas). Methane is 105 times worse than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas (GHG) on a 20-year period, taking aerosol impacts into account. If methane clathrate gun triggers due to warming Arctic Ocean currents, Earth’s temperature could rapidly rises tens of degrees.
Tools for assessing the expected climate effects of actual levels of human-made and natural changes of atmospheric composition include (1) Earth's paleoclimate history, showing how climate responded in the past to changes of boundary conditions including atmospheric composition, (2) modern climate change, especially global satellite observations, coincident with rapidly changing human-made and natural climate forcings, and (3) climate models and theory, which aid interpretation of observations and are useful for projecting future climate/temperature under realistic most probable to 2099 CE human and natural temperature forcing scenarios.
Stresses of increased populations, increased hydrocarbon energy use, increased gross domestic product (GDP), increased natural methane release, and resulting increased global temperatures is evident. Most probable projections over time include uncontrolled population growth, limited technology changes, limited changes to energy use, critical political decisions not made, limited funding for effective clean nuclear energy, and several proposed impossible legislated changes to fundamental laws of physics by untoward politicians and surrogates. Not yet proposed are changes to global warming business as usual politics.
In 1970s, U.S. nuclear energy facilities were capped to assure about 80% of electrical energy supplied would be from hydrocarbon energy. By 1980s, it was well known that global warming was a growing problem. In 1990s - 2010s, politics gamed global warming responses to increase profits from "green" alternatives to nuclear energy. Congressional responses to global warming temperature increase remain sidetracked for continued political and special interest corruption, payoffs, and political control of national and global hydrocarbon energy sectors. While reviewing global warming articles, care should be taken because there are many intentional deceptively written materials and presenters.
Can human races be saved from 2050-2099 CE destruction? Not without willing politicians and a great deal of time and material spent on nuclear clean energy investments between now and 2017 CE carbon infrastructure lock in of global carbon budget. Since there is no functioning organization or system (except for U.S. military and intelligence services) that is capable of directing necessary changeover to clean nuclear energy, most likely human races end date is 2050-2055 CE.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Road to Global Warming Hell Paved by Politicians With Bad Intentions
For almost four decades, nothing the U.S. Congress did reduced any global warming gases. There are no public U.S. technical reviews or milestones that evaluate global warming advances and projections, "renewable" energy performance, national energy policies, global temperature increase, impacts of global warming advancements, funding, cost of Nuclear Regulatory Commission policies, etc. All the planning and costs of "renewable" energy are political special interests frauds of hundreds of billions of dollars and denial that global warming temperature increase exists.
Global warming temperature increase is a response to atmospheric accumulations of human and natural carbon dioxide and methane emission since the 1750 CE start of the industrial revolution. The most important reason the world has not responded to to global warming is the result of the U.S. political machinery suppressing for more than 30-years the expansion of nuclear energy as a replacement energy for the U.S. carbon economy.
Continued Political Support Drive Left Democrat Policies
Rather than loose election support from the political machine faithful, President Obama and left Democrat U.S. Senate are engaged in continuing to producing great economic harm to the U.S. economy. The same is true of reducing global warming temperature increase. Rather than taking steps to save the human races for 2050-2099 CE destruction; through obfuscation President Obama and left Democrat Senate have greatly reduced the probability of human survival from global warming.
Winning the November 2012 election means everything to progressive left Democrat neo communists. President Obama and Senate Democrats have held their election ground by not responding to core left Democrat systemic issues. When questioned, there are no responsible policy or performance rebuttals by Obama or Senators regarding unproductive policies. Left Democrats simply ignore all significant arguments. Democrat politicians dwell upon (or create) derisive issues rather than resolve troubling problems.
During President Clinton January 1993-2001 administration the U.S. communist movement made great strides in organizing winning regional, state, and federal elections. Since the 1990s left Democrat block captains organized progressive groups for “grassroots” election turnouts. The Vietnam War Era U.S. student communists had over time previously established small but significant controls over universities and colleges. Vietnam War Era communist body is well established and remains to this day influential in neo communist politics.
A huge amount of government funding within current federal and state government department accounts are “interdepartmental loaned” to other government departments for use by left Democrat neo-communist special interest projects (some say these “loans” are misappropriation of legislated funds). With left Democrats in power, balancing the books is more like juggling the books. There is no federal budget since 2009 because left Democrat Senate and President Obama move funds to support the communist agenda while denying non communist objectives. Without a federal budget President Obama has been given blank checks to run government. The left Democrat Congress is running the U.S. government with many trillions of dollars given to President Obama over the years by the self serving left Democrats within the U.S. Senate. At best, the political management of the lack of federal budget is fiscally disturbing and lacks accountability.
President Obama is the regulator and controller of all Federal Government funds, there is little accountability for how trillions of government funds are spent. Left Democrats live in a world of limitless energy and money, with unaccountable performance and fiscal management at the heart of left Democrat communist politics.
The drafting of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA 2009) (aka, “stimulus bill”) was done 2007-2009 CE by the left Democrat 111th Congress. The rationale for ARRA was from Keynesian macroeconomic theory which argues that, during recessions, the government should offset the decrease in private spending with an increase in public spending in order to save jobs and stop further economic deterioration.
Keynesian Theory does not produce products. An economic theory that considered increasing national economy through production of tangible goods would be a theory of materialism. President Obama and left Democrat U.S. Senate are so deep into Keynesian Economic practice that they cannot now disengage from federal deficit spending. Left Democrat President Obama and U.S. Senators are caught in an infinite loop (or Möbius strip) of increasing federal spending and debt. If they step out of the loop, there is loss of left Democrat election support. The only solution to political infinite loop spending and debt is to not elect any more left Democrats.
Left Democrats drafted ARRA 2009 in support of radical neo-communist election campaigns. Communist election campaigns are standard practice in Europe. It is just that the U.S. spends billions of dollars upon their elections, which makes the U.S. a unique demagoguery whose elected representatives buy their way into power with the aid of expensive political machinery.
President Obama is a product of a U.S. communist education and progressive “grassroots” community organizing for the Chicago left political machinery. With strong communist organization and union backing, the left Democrats wiped out the Republicans in the November 2008 elections. Since it was originally formed 1993-2001 the left Democrats’ election machines remain intact (never broken up after elections). Communist left Democrats retain a formidable election force because its system for elections is experienced, has a successful track record, has processed billions of elections dollars to buy support, rewards those who obey the commands, has no moral scruples, and has spent trillions of government dollars to promote their candidate causes. The left Democrat election machinery only cares about winning elections, nothing else matters.
History has shown that whatever the left Democrats communists are doing, it will not work in the long-run, and will end in massive failures.
Global Warming Progresses
There are only two sources of clean energy that might curb enough global warming to save the human races: nuclear reactor energy and hydroelectric energy.
In 1992, left Democrat neo communist movement started government investments in “renewable” alternative energies that are still popular with the European-US neo communists. The beginning supporting argument for promoting “renewable” energy was to address the need to reduce carbon dioxide gas and curb global warming temperature increase. What occurred was congressional politicians ignored global efforts to reduce global warming temperature increase and covertly promoted continued expansion of hydrocarbon economies (coal, oil, natural gas). Renewable energy was/is used as a public diversion topic and renewable green energy became a vehicle for political graft, corruption, and waste.
President Obama and the left Democrat neo communists are now caught up in failed European-U.S. economic programs and fundamentally failed “renewable” energy corruption so great that they cannot retreat from U.S. economic destruction and global temperature increases. The self serving neo communist politicians are welded to 1990s U.S. left Democrat congressional energy policies.
The human races are now stuck within Spaceship Earth in a political molasses-like-downward-spiral to its final destruction of human races 2050-2099 CE.
The intentions of U.S. left Democrat neo communists is to increase control over national means of production and economies by owning the “renewable” energy sector, eliminate nuclear energy, and have the government regulate carbon energy production for regional political districts’ of coal, oil, natural gas. The U.S. capability and capacity of nuclear energy to produce necessary clean energy to reduce temperature increase has been eliminated over the last four decades by untoward powerful Congress members. Clean hydroelectric expansion has been unable to expand over the last four decades.
For more than two decades, the Democrat’s political funding and management of multinational “renewable” energy has promoted greed, fraud, lies, waste, and global warming destruction. Joining of European-US neo communist leadership produced effective political control of decades of many trillions of dollars of European-US hydrocarbon energy. While U.S. politicians stopped clean energy nuclear growth for more than three-decades, the German politicians went farther and legislated all nuclear energy shutdown by 2023 CE. German and U.S. politicians alone now consume enough hydrocarbon energy to assure destruction of the human races 2050-2099 CE.
U.S. Energy Policy Act of 1992
After more than 20-years of global warming failure, the left Democrats still retain the same counter productive energy policies of EPAct 1992. Congress repeatedly passed the same alternative renewable energy topics in 1992, 2005, and 2009.
There has never been a U.S. political attempt to save the lives of 9 billion people.
The U.S. left Democrats and Republicans promoted the U.S. Energy Policy Act (EPAct 1992) to avoid (or distract from) necessary reductions of global and U.S. greenhouse gases. The politicians remain determined to keep their districts producing coal, oil, natural gas, and keep the U.S. economy dependent upon a carbon economy. EPAct 1992 formed the core “renewable energy” topics used over the last two decades to deflect the global need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Since the EPAct 1992 under President Clinton, Vice President Gore, and Democrat Congress, the U.S. left Democrats addressed energy efficiency, energy conservation and energy management (Title I), natural gas imports and exports (Title II), alternative fuels and requiring certain fleets to acquire alternative fuel vehicles, which are capable of operating on non-petroleum fuels (Title III-V), electric motor vehicles (Title VI), radioactive waste, coal power and clean coal (Title XIII), renewable energy, and other issues. It reformed the Public Utility Holding Company Act and amended parts of the Federal Power Act of 1935 (Title VII).
Title III of the EPAct 1992 addresses “alternative fuels” (ethanol, propane, and electricity, in cars and light trucks). It gave the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) administrative power to regulate the minimum number of light duty alternative fuel vehicles acquired in certain federal fleets beginning in fiscal year 1993. Major amendments to the EPAct 1992 are the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in 1989 established a new licensing process: 10 CFR Part 52. Congress affirmed and strengthened the new licensing process as part of the Energy Policy Act (EPAct 1992). To politically suppress nuclear energy and increase U.S. hydrocarbon energy production, congressional politicians unnecessary increased the costs of building new nuclear energy on the pretext of nuclear "safety" regulations imposed by the politicians and lawyers of the NRC. Nuclear politics of Congress and the NRC members have contributed greatly to increasing U.S. global warming greenhouse gas emissions.
Among many changes the EPAct 1992 effectively deregulated electric utilities, created energy mandates, and in Section 801 directed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to promulgate radiation protection standards for the DOE’s Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. In 2009, President Obama and congressional political machinery took over the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) membership and also shut down the completed Yucca Mountain geologic nuclear repository to add to preventing further nuclear development. The EPAct 1992 directed the federal government to decrease energy consumption in federal buildings when feasible, and to integrate the use of alternative fuel vehicles in federal and state fleets. Title XXII in the EPAct 1992 authorized tax incentives and marketing strategies for renewable energy technologies in an effort to encourage commercial sales and production. The untoward Congress members have held fast to the the same unproductive energy policies since 1992, for more than two decades. There have been no reductions of U.S. global warming greenhouse gases resulting from any U.S. energy act.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has not identified how much the EPAct 1992 reduced U.S. global warming gas emissions. It is the U.S. self serving congressional members for MORE THAN the last two decades who have created the downfall of human races by repeating the same failed political energy process for more than 20-years.
U.S. Energy Policy Act of 2005
The Energy Policy Act (EPAct 2005) is a bill passed by U.S. Congress Republicans and Democrats on July 29, 2005. The act, described by proponents as an attempt to combat growing (undefined) energy problems, changed U.S. energy policy by providing tax incentives and loan guarantees for energy production of various types of alternative renewable green energy, and increased required corn ethanol. The Act is Republican and is less renewable energy aggressive, but did not result in any U.S. reduction in global warming gases.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) review of the conference version of the 2005 bill estimated the EPAct 2005 would increase direct spending by $2.2 billion over the 2006-2010 periods and by $1.6 billion over the 2006-2015 periods. In addition, the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the legislation would reduce revenues by $7.9 billion over the 2005-2010 periods and by $12.3 billion over the 2005-2015 periods. Total revenue reduction and spending is $16.1 billion. The CBO noted that the bill could have additional effects on discretionary spending, but did not attempt to estimate those effects. Major amendments to EPAct 2005 are the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
The CBO has not identified how much the EPAct 2005 reduced U.S. global warming gas emissions.
U.S. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA 2009) and passed by President Obama and left Democrat House and Senate, is commonly referred to as the $850 billion “Stimulus” or “The Recovery Act” that is an economic stimulus package enacted by the United States Congress in February 2009. Drafting of the bill was done 2007-2008 CE.
Some ARRA Energy Project Background Information
There is no accounting for state level spending of ARRA (2009) monies.
The White House has said ARRA (2009) contained $90 billion in renewable alternative green energy funds. Wikipedia lists $48.7 billion of ARRA (2009) alternatives to energy; $27.2 billion energy efficiency, renewable energy research, and investments and total $21.5 billion for energy infrastructure.
U.S. neo communists funded $27.2 billion into useless green renewable energy while U.S. strategic need for scientific research only received a total of $7.6 billion. As with the trillions of dollars, there is no fiscal or performance government accountability of alternative renewable green energy. Like many of the left Democrat communist programs, a stimulus check around $850 billion was given to President Obama by the Democrat House and Senate; there has been little accountability of money spent by left Democrat neo communists. President Obama spends government funds as he wants to.
The left Democrat neo communists have disdain for sciences and engineering (sometimes scientific conclusion are directly opposite of political policies, therefor sciences are suppressed). The Democrat’s communist agenda freely uses other people’s money unhindered by facts or logic or science. Left Democrat politicians funding of school sciences and hard sciences is undesirable for neo communists because science programs draw funds away for social programs. America has no science or education future while neo-communists Senators and President remain in political offices.
The costs of the U.S. "renewable green" programs are huge. There have been no programmed reduction of global warming temperature increase.
Left Democrat neo communist energy WAST, FRAUD, and CORRUPTION of “loans,” “grants,” and “investments” into green alternative to energy are a significant part of the final American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. It takes a huge amount of taxpayer funding and debt to satisfy this neo communist political base.
As a diversion to the real problem of global warming temperature increase, President Obama and other neo communists have invested in a social program called “renewable energy.”
The Department of Energy states that President Obama’s goal is to generate 80% of our U.S. electricity from “renewable” energy by 2035. It is an impossible goal. By 2035, global warming temperature exceeds +2oC above preindustrial temperatures, atmospheric carbon exceeds 450 ppm, the global carbon budget exceeding-infrastructure was “locked-in” in 2017 CE, and with a temperature rise to exceed +5 oC; there is no hope for human races 2050-2099 CE survival.
2009 CE ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY RESEARCH AND INVESTMENT, Total: $27.2 billion
NOTE: All of the technologies below are old technologies that are in limited use or have previously proposed and rejected over the past 100 years. If there were any greater technologies here, capitalism would have already been using the energy technology and making it better. Although funding for below items have been on the books since 1992, none of the below have produced significant reductions in U.S. greenhouse gases.
● $6 billion for renewable energy and electric transmission technologies loan guarantees for solar, wind, and “smart national grid.” Smart national grid does not work.
● $5 billion for weatherizing modest-income homes
● $3.4 billion for carbon capture and low emission coal research
● $3.2 billion toward Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants
● $3.1 billion for the State Energy Program to help states invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy
● $2 billion for manufacturing of advanced car battery (traction) systems and components
● $800 million for biofuel research, development, and demonstration projects
● $602 million to support the use of energy efficient technologies in building and in industry
● $500 million for training of green-collar workers (by the Department of Labor)
● $400 million for the Geothermal Technologies Program (GTP). Cost of megawatt of Neal Hot Springs geothermal is two to three times more than natural gas electricity.
● $400 million for electric vehicle technologies
● $300 million for energy efficient appliance rebates
● $300 million for state and local governments to purchase energy efficient vehicles
● $300 million to acquire electric vehicles for the federal vehicle fleet (GSA)
● $250 million to increase energy efficiency in low-income housing
● $204 million in funding for research and testing facilities at national laboratories
● $190 million in funding for wind, hydro, and other renewable energy projects
● $115 million to develop and deploy solar power technologies. Solyndra is a bankrupt $535-million solar panel manufacturer. There will be more government failed “green energy” businesses.
● $110 million for the development of high efficiency vehicles
● $42 million in support of new deployments of fuel cell technologies
2009 CE ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE, Total: $21.5 billion
● $6 billion for the cleanup of radioactive waste (mostly nuclear weapons production sites) IF “NUCLEAR WEAPONS CLEANUP” WAS EVER NEEDED IT IS NOW NO LONGER NEEDED – THIS IS PORK BARREL FUNDING WASTE
● $4.5 billion is allotted to the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE). As outlined in the legislation, these funds are provided as “investment in a nationwide plan to modernize the electric grid, enhance security of U.S. energy infrastructure, and ensure reliable electricity delivery to meet growing demand” and build Obama’s smart national grid. The OE is a new private/government Regional Entity responsible for coordinating and promoting bulk electric system reliability in the Western Interconnection. Western Interconnection Synchrophasor Program (WISP or DOE NASPI) includes Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) and involves 18 partners. THE SYNCHROPHASOR “SMART GRID” PROGRAM APPLICATION FOR CONNECTING SOLAR AND WIND FARMS TO BASE LOAD GRID HAS NEVER WORKED LARGE SCALE. Before funding billions of dollars get the electrical systems working to specifications. If the system does not work, do provide funds to build it larger.
Expanding high voltage transmission lines is designed to expand Mid West coal electrical electrical production and transport the carbon energy via high voltage lines to the Pacific Coast.
● $3.25 billion for the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) for power transmission system upgrades is PORK BARREL FUNDING. WAPA appears to be a private/government funding administrator of federal funds for under defined political projects. Expanding high voltage transmission lines is designed to expand coal electrical electrical production and transport the carbon energy to the Pacific Coast.
● $3.25 billion for the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) for power transmission system (smart western grid) upgrades PORK BARREL FUNDING. Congress created BPA in 1937 to deliver and sell the power from Bonneville Dam, Oregon. Expanding high voltage transmission lines is designed to expand coal electrical electrical production and transport the carbon energy to the Pacific Coast.
● $4.5 billion to increase energy efficiency in federal buildings (GSA) LOW OR NO GLOBAL WARMING RETURN ON INVESTMENT
The CBO has not identified how much the ARRA (2009) reduced U.S. global warming gas emissions.
Politics to The End
For more than two decades alternative renewable green energy has been used by politicians to deflect necessary national shifts from hydrocarbon economies of coal, oil, and natural gas. For more than four decades congressional politicians have suppressed new nuclear development to increase use of hydrocarbon energy from congressional voter districts. The only economies that might permit survival of human races past 2050-2099 CE are the nuclear and hydroelectric economies.
When confronted with the review of global warming temperature, President Obama does nothing to correct the deadly results. Left Democrat U.S. Senators follow President Obama’s election lead and are also non responsive. Political greed, fraud, corruption, and untoward policies no longer matter for the Washington political machine. The politicians will delay global warming responses until people in the U.S. are frying eggs in the streets from global warming temperature increase. However, because of carbon-budget infrastructure lock-in, by 2017 CE there will be no need to respond to global warming -- energy responses will be too late to save anyone.
Total U.S. energy: nuclear electric is 8%, conventional hydroelectric power 2.7%, coal 23%, natural gas 23%, and petroleum 40%. Nuclear energy produces about 20% of U.S. electrical energy. The core global warming task is to reduce global energy share of coal, natural gas, and petroleum, to be replaced with hydrocarbon free nuclear and hydroelectric energy.
The price of correcting global warming temperature increase is high. The price of not doing so is much greater.
Unless there is change, all those who are not yet born, and those who are now children and young adults under the age of 30-years, shall die 2050-2099 CE (more like 2050-2055 CE), ending the 160 thousand year journey of mankind.
Global warming temperature increase is a response to atmospheric accumulations of human and natural carbon dioxide and methane emission since the 1750 CE start of the industrial revolution. The most important reason the world has not responded to to global warming is the result of the U.S. political machinery suppressing for more than 30-years the expansion of nuclear energy as a replacement energy for the U.S. carbon economy.
Continued Political Support Drive Left Democrat Policies
Rather than loose election support from the political machine faithful, President Obama and left Democrat U.S. Senate are engaged in continuing to producing great economic harm to the U.S. economy. The same is true of reducing global warming temperature increase. Rather than taking steps to save the human races for 2050-2099 CE destruction; through obfuscation President Obama and left Democrat Senate have greatly reduced the probability of human survival from global warming.
Winning the November 2012 election means everything to progressive left Democrat neo communists. President Obama and Senate Democrats have held their election ground by not responding to core left Democrat systemic issues. When questioned, there are no responsible policy or performance rebuttals by Obama or Senators regarding unproductive policies. Left Democrats simply ignore all significant arguments. Democrat politicians dwell upon (or create) derisive issues rather than resolve troubling problems.
During President Clinton January 1993-2001 administration the U.S. communist movement made great strides in organizing winning regional, state, and federal elections. Since the 1990s left Democrat block captains organized progressive groups for “grassroots” election turnouts. The Vietnam War Era U.S. student communists had over time previously established small but significant controls over universities and colleges. Vietnam War Era communist body is well established and remains to this day influential in neo communist politics.
A huge amount of government funding within current federal and state government department accounts are “interdepartmental loaned” to other government departments for use by left Democrat neo-communist special interest projects (some say these “loans” are misappropriation of legislated funds). With left Democrats in power, balancing the books is more like juggling the books. There is no federal budget since 2009 because left Democrat Senate and President Obama move funds to support the communist agenda while denying non communist objectives. Without a federal budget President Obama has been given blank checks to run government. The left Democrat Congress is running the U.S. government with many trillions of dollars given to President Obama over the years by the self serving left Democrats within the U.S. Senate. At best, the political management of the lack of federal budget is fiscally disturbing and lacks accountability.
President Obama is the regulator and controller of all Federal Government funds, there is little accountability for how trillions of government funds are spent. Left Democrats live in a world of limitless energy and money, with unaccountable performance and fiscal management at the heart of left Democrat communist politics.
The drafting of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA 2009) (aka, “stimulus bill”) was done 2007-2009 CE by the left Democrat 111th Congress. The rationale for ARRA was from Keynesian macroeconomic theory which argues that, during recessions, the government should offset the decrease in private spending with an increase in public spending in order to save jobs and stop further economic deterioration.
Keynesian Theory does not produce products. An economic theory that considered increasing national economy through production of tangible goods would be a theory of materialism. President Obama and left Democrat U.S. Senate are so deep into Keynesian Economic practice that they cannot now disengage from federal deficit spending. Left Democrat President Obama and U.S. Senators are caught in an infinite loop (or Möbius strip) of increasing federal spending and debt. If they step out of the loop, there is loss of left Democrat election support. The only solution to political infinite loop spending and debt is to not elect any more left Democrats.
Left Democrats drafted ARRA 2009 in support of radical neo-communist election campaigns. Communist election campaigns are standard practice in Europe. It is just that the U.S. spends billions of dollars upon their elections, which makes the U.S. a unique demagoguery whose elected representatives buy their way into power with the aid of expensive political machinery.
President Obama is a product of a U.S. communist education and progressive “grassroots” community organizing for the Chicago left political machinery. With strong communist organization and union backing, the left Democrats wiped out the Republicans in the November 2008 elections. Since it was originally formed 1993-2001 the left Democrats’ election machines remain intact (never broken up after elections). Communist left Democrats retain a formidable election force because its system for elections is experienced, has a successful track record, has processed billions of elections dollars to buy support, rewards those who obey the commands, has no moral scruples, and has spent trillions of government dollars to promote their candidate causes. The left Democrat election machinery only cares about winning elections, nothing else matters.
History has shown that whatever the left Democrats communists are doing, it will not work in the long-run, and will end in massive failures.
Global Warming Progresses
There are only two sources of clean energy that might curb enough global warming to save the human races: nuclear reactor energy and hydroelectric energy.
In 1992, left Democrat neo communist movement started government investments in “renewable” alternative energies that are still popular with the European-US neo communists. The beginning supporting argument for promoting “renewable” energy was to address the need to reduce carbon dioxide gas and curb global warming temperature increase. What occurred was congressional politicians ignored global efforts to reduce global warming temperature increase and covertly promoted continued expansion of hydrocarbon economies (coal, oil, natural gas). Renewable energy was/is used as a public diversion topic and renewable green energy became a vehicle for political graft, corruption, and waste.
President Obama and the left Democrat neo communists are now caught up in failed European-U.S. economic programs and fundamentally failed “renewable” energy corruption so great that they cannot retreat from U.S. economic destruction and global temperature increases. The self serving neo communist politicians are welded to 1990s U.S. left Democrat congressional energy policies.
The human races are now stuck within Spaceship Earth in a political molasses-like-downward-spiral to its final destruction of human races 2050-2099 CE.
The intentions of U.S. left Democrat neo communists is to increase control over national means of production and economies by owning the “renewable” energy sector, eliminate nuclear energy, and have the government regulate carbon energy production for regional political districts’ of coal, oil, natural gas. The U.S. capability and capacity of nuclear energy to produce necessary clean energy to reduce temperature increase has been eliminated over the last four decades by untoward powerful Congress members. Clean hydroelectric expansion has been unable to expand over the last four decades.
For more than two decades, the Democrat’s political funding and management of multinational “renewable” energy has promoted greed, fraud, lies, waste, and global warming destruction. Joining of European-US neo communist leadership produced effective political control of decades of many trillions of dollars of European-US hydrocarbon energy. While U.S. politicians stopped clean energy nuclear growth for more than three-decades, the German politicians went farther and legislated all nuclear energy shutdown by 2023 CE. German and U.S. politicians alone now consume enough hydrocarbon energy to assure destruction of the human races 2050-2099 CE.
U.S. Energy Policy Act of 1992
After more than 20-years of global warming failure, the left Democrats still retain the same counter productive energy policies of EPAct 1992. Congress repeatedly passed the same alternative renewable energy topics in 1992, 2005, and 2009.
There has never been a U.S. political attempt to save the lives of 9 billion people.
The U.S. left Democrats and Republicans promoted the U.S. Energy Policy Act (EPAct 1992) to avoid (or distract from) necessary reductions of global and U.S. greenhouse gases. The politicians remain determined to keep their districts producing coal, oil, natural gas, and keep the U.S. economy dependent upon a carbon economy. EPAct 1992 formed the core “renewable energy” topics used over the last two decades to deflect the global need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Since the EPAct 1992 under President Clinton, Vice President Gore, and Democrat Congress, the U.S. left Democrats addressed energy efficiency, energy conservation and energy management (Title I), natural gas imports and exports (Title II), alternative fuels and requiring certain fleets to acquire alternative fuel vehicles, which are capable of operating on non-petroleum fuels (Title III-V), electric motor vehicles (Title VI), radioactive waste, coal power and clean coal (Title XIII), renewable energy, and other issues. It reformed the Public Utility Holding Company Act and amended parts of the Federal Power Act of 1935 (Title VII).
Title III of the EPAct 1992 addresses “alternative fuels” (ethanol, propane, and electricity, in cars and light trucks). It gave the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) administrative power to regulate the minimum number of light duty alternative fuel vehicles acquired in certain federal fleets beginning in fiscal year 1993. Major amendments to the EPAct 1992 are the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in 1989 established a new licensing process: 10 CFR Part 52. Congress affirmed and strengthened the new licensing process as part of the Energy Policy Act (EPAct 1992). To politically suppress nuclear energy and increase U.S. hydrocarbon energy production, congressional politicians unnecessary increased the costs of building new nuclear energy on the pretext of nuclear "safety" regulations imposed by the politicians and lawyers of the NRC. Nuclear politics of Congress and the NRC members have contributed greatly to increasing U.S. global warming greenhouse gas emissions.
Among many changes the EPAct 1992 effectively deregulated electric utilities, created energy mandates, and in Section 801 directed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to promulgate radiation protection standards for the DOE’s Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. In 2009, President Obama and congressional political machinery took over the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) membership and also shut down the completed Yucca Mountain geologic nuclear repository to add to preventing further nuclear development. The EPAct 1992 directed the federal government to decrease energy consumption in federal buildings when feasible, and to integrate the use of alternative fuel vehicles in federal and state fleets. Title XXII in the EPAct 1992 authorized tax incentives and marketing strategies for renewable energy technologies in an effort to encourage commercial sales and production. The untoward Congress members have held fast to the the same unproductive energy policies since 1992, for more than two decades. There have been no reductions of U.S. global warming greenhouse gases resulting from any U.S. energy act.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has not identified how much the EPAct 1992 reduced U.S. global warming gas emissions. It is the U.S. self serving congressional members for MORE THAN the last two decades who have created the downfall of human races by repeating the same failed political energy process for more than 20-years.
U.S. Energy Policy Act of 2005
The Energy Policy Act (EPAct 2005) is a bill passed by U.S. Congress Republicans and Democrats on July 29, 2005. The act, described by proponents as an attempt to combat growing (undefined) energy problems, changed U.S. energy policy by providing tax incentives and loan guarantees for energy production of various types of alternative renewable green energy, and increased required corn ethanol. The Act is Republican and is less renewable energy aggressive, but did not result in any U.S. reduction in global warming gases.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) review of the conference version of the 2005 bill estimated the EPAct 2005 would increase direct spending by $2.2 billion over the 2006-2010 periods and by $1.6 billion over the 2006-2015 periods. In addition, the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the legislation would reduce revenues by $7.9 billion over the 2005-2010 periods and by $12.3 billion over the 2005-2015 periods. Total revenue reduction and spending is $16.1 billion. The CBO noted that the bill could have additional effects on discretionary spending, but did not attempt to estimate those effects. Major amendments to EPAct 2005 are the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
The CBO has not identified how much the EPAct 2005 reduced U.S. global warming gas emissions.
U.S. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA 2009) and passed by President Obama and left Democrat House and Senate, is commonly referred to as the $850 billion “Stimulus” or “The Recovery Act” that is an economic stimulus package enacted by the United States Congress in February 2009. Drafting of the bill was done 2007-2008 CE.
Some ARRA Energy Project Background Information
There is no accounting for state level spending of ARRA (2009) monies.
The White House has said ARRA (2009) contained $90 billion in renewable alternative green energy funds. Wikipedia lists $48.7 billion of ARRA (2009) alternatives to energy; $27.2 billion energy efficiency, renewable energy research, and investments and total $21.5 billion for energy infrastructure.
U.S. neo communists funded $27.2 billion into useless green renewable energy while U.S. strategic need for scientific research only received a total of $7.6 billion. As with the trillions of dollars, there is no fiscal or performance government accountability of alternative renewable green energy. Like many of the left Democrat communist programs, a stimulus check around $850 billion was given to President Obama by the Democrat House and Senate; there has been little accountability of money spent by left Democrat neo communists. President Obama spends government funds as he wants to.
The left Democrat neo communists have disdain for sciences and engineering (sometimes scientific conclusion are directly opposite of political policies, therefor sciences are suppressed). The Democrat’s communist agenda freely uses other people’s money unhindered by facts or logic or science. Left Democrat politicians funding of school sciences and hard sciences is undesirable for neo communists because science programs draw funds away for social programs. America has no science or education future while neo-communists Senators and President remain in political offices.
The costs of the U.S. "renewable green" programs are huge. There have been no programmed reduction of global warming temperature increase.
Left Democrat neo communist energy WAST, FRAUD, and CORRUPTION of “loans,” “grants,” and “investments” into green alternative to energy are a significant part of the final American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. It takes a huge amount of taxpayer funding and debt to satisfy this neo communist political base.
As a diversion to the real problem of global warming temperature increase, President Obama and other neo communists have invested in a social program called “renewable energy.”
The Department of Energy states that President Obama’s goal is to generate 80% of our U.S. electricity from “renewable” energy by 2035. It is an impossible goal. By 2035, global warming temperature exceeds +2oC above preindustrial temperatures, atmospheric carbon exceeds 450 ppm, the global carbon budget exceeding-infrastructure was “locked-in” in 2017 CE, and with a temperature rise to exceed +5 oC; there is no hope for human races 2050-2099 CE survival.
2009 CE ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY RESEARCH AND INVESTMENT, Total: $27.2 billion
NOTE: All of the technologies below are old technologies that are in limited use or have previously proposed and rejected over the past 100 years. If there were any greater technologies here, capitalism would have already been using the energy technology and making it better. Although funding for below items have been on the books since 1992, none of the below have produced significant reductions in U.S. greenhouse gases.
● $6 billion for renewable energy and electric transmission technologies loan guarantees for solar, wind, and “smart national grid.” Smart national grid does not work.
● $5 billion for weatherizing modest-income homes
● $3.4 billion for carbon capture and low emission coal research
● $3.2 billion toward Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants
● $3.1 billion for the State Energy Program to help states invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy
● $2 billion for manufacturing of advanced car battery (traction) systems and components
● $800 million for biofuel research, development, and demonstration projects
● $602 million to support the use of energy efficient technologies in building and in industry
● $500 million for training of green-collar workers (by the Department of Labor)
● $400 million for the Geothermal Technologies Program (GTP). Cost of megawatt of Neal Hot Springs geothermal is two to three times more than natural gas electricity.
● $400 million for electric vehicle technologies
● $300 million for energy efficient appliance rebates
● $300 million for state and local governments to purchase energy efficient vehicles
● $300 million to acquire electric vehicles for the federal vehicle fleet (GSA)
● $250 million to increase energy efficiency in low-income housing
● $204 million in funding for research and testing facilities at national laboratories
● $190 million in funding for wind, hydro, and other renewable energy projects
● $115 million to develop and deploy solar power technologies. Solyndra is a bankrupt $535-million solar panel manufacturer. There will be more government failed “green energy” businesses.
● $110 million for the development of high efficiency vehicles
● $42 million in support of new deployments of fuel cell technologies
2009 CE ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE, Total: $21.5 billion
● $6 billion for the cleanup of radioactive waste (mostly nuclear weapons production sites) IF “NUCLEAR WEAPONS CLEANUP” WAS EVER NEEDED IT IS NOW NO LONGER NEEDED – THIS IS PORK BARREL FUNDING WASTE
● $4.5 billion is allotted to the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE). As outlined in the legislation, these funds are provided as “investment in a nationwide plan to modernize the electric grid, enhance security of U.S. energy infrastructure, and ensure reliable electricity delivery to meet growing demand” and build Obama’s smart national grid. The OE is a new private/government Regional Entity responsible for coordinating and promoting bulk electric system reliability in the Western Interconnection. Western Interconnection Synchrophasor Program (WISP or DOE NASPI) includes Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) and involves 18 partners. THE SYNCHROPHASOR “SMART GRID” PROGRAM APPLICATION FOR CONNECTING SOLAR AND WIND FARMS TO BASE LOAD GRID HAS NEVER WORKED LARGE SCALE. Before funding billions of dollars get the electrical systems working to specifications. If the system does not work, do provide funds to build it larger.
Expanding high voltage transmission lines is designed to expand Mid West coal electrical electrical production and transport the carbon energy via high voltage lines to the Pacific Coast.
● $3.25 billion for the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) for power transmission system upgrades is PORK BARREL FUNDING. WAPA appears to be a private/government funding administrator of federal funds for under defined political projects. Expanding high voltage transmission lines is designed to expand coal electrical electrical production and transport the carbon energy to the Pacific Coast.
● $3.25 billion for the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) for power transmission system (smart western grid) upgrades PORK BARREL FUNDING. Congress created BPA in 1937 to deliver and sell the power from Bonneville Dam, Oregon. Expanding high voltage transmission lines is designed to expand coal electrical electrical production and transport the carbon energy to the Pacific Coast.
● $4.5 billion to increase energy efficiency in federal buildings (GSA) LOW OR NO GLOBAL WARMING RETURN ON INVESTMENT
The CBO has not identified how much the ARRA (2009) reduced U.S. global warming gas emissions.
Politics to The End
For more than two decades alternative renewable green energy has been used by politicians to deflect necessary national shifts from hydrocarbon economies of coal, oil, and natural gas. For more than four decades congressional politicians have suppressed new nuclear development to increase use of hydrocarbon energy from congressional voter districts. The only economies that might permit survival of human races past 2050-2099 CE are the nuclear and hydroelectric economies.
When confronted with the review of global warming temperature, President Obama does nothing to correct the deadly results. Left Democrat U.S. Senators follow President Obama’s election lead and are also non responsive. Political greed, fraud, corruption, and untoward policies no longer matter for the Washington political machine. The politicians will delay global warming responses until people in the U.S. are frying eggs in the streets from global warming temperature increase. However, because of carbon-budget infrastructure lock-in, by 2017 CE there will be no need to respond to global warming -- energy responses will be too late to save anyone.
Total U.S. energy: nuclear electric is 8%, conventional hydroelectric power 2.7%, coal 23%, natural gas 23%, and petroleum 40%. Nuclear energy produces about 20% of U.S. electrical energy. The core global warming task is to reduce global energy share of coal, natural gas, and petroleum, to be replaced with hydrocarbon free nuclear and hydroelectric energy.
The price of correcting global warming temperature increase is high. The price of not doing so is much greater.
Unless there is change, all those who are not yet born, and those who are now children and young adults under the age of 30-years, shall die 2050-2099 CE (more like 2050-2055 CE), ending the 160 thousand year journey of mankind.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Global Warming - Is A Now Under 30-years Event
Politicians and media dominate our lives. With elections more important than the lives of humans, politicians and media never identify global warming temperature increase, that which is going to kill their children.
The phrases “climate change” and “global warming” have become all but taboo on Capital Hill. These terms are stunningly absent from the political arena, and have been since 2010. As Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) SAID on October 13th, 2011, “It has become no longer politically correct in certain circles in Washington to speak about climate change or carbon pollution or how carbon pollution is causing our climate to change.” Why?
President Obama spin and reelection teams are redefining the neo communist decades of involvement in critical events. Not only is there political re-identification of global warming, the Obama team is presenting errors, omissions, distortions, and word games, by government departments and internet site/PC hacking that are rewriting history and redefining America’s future. By using many different words to describe a intentionally poorly defined global warming event, President Obama’s teams avoid public awareness of the increasingly great risks posed to all who are now under the age of 30-years.
The administration has clearly responded to increasing hostility (on one end of the political spectrum) towards the effort to address climate change, scrubbing out words like global warming, cap-and-trade, and climate change from agency communication. The media alters their articles and programing to match President Obama’s climate change in “terms and rhetoric.”
Although global warming life-terminal implications were known in the 1990s CE, U.S. political leadership decided to continue expansion of U.S. hydrocarbon (coal, oil, natural gas) economies; the global warming event was minimized by U.S. political leadership, and so it remains. U.S. and global clean nuclear energy expansion was withheld to assure that energy increases would be satisfied with national hydrocarbon expansions. Around 2005 CE, there was a push by political criminals and their special interests to promote “alternative renewable green energy.” Promotion of alternatives to energy was successful for politicians and political special interests; taxpayers payed US$ 100s of billions in alternative-renewable energy projects and paper while increases in global warming greenhouse gases continued.
The fate of global temperature increase is determined. Around 450 ppm carbon level, Earth’s atmospheric carbon results in Earth becoming a source of carbon with increased human carbon releases and increased Arctic Region methane release — sometime around 2050-2099 CE Earth temperature regulation enters Modern Global Warming Era thermo runaway; human races end shortly thereafter.
It is the now under 30-years who are sure to die from global warming.
The ratio of the administration’s usage of “climate change” versus “energy” has changed significantly since Obama’s 2008 campaign days. “Climate change” rhetoric saw its brief heyday in 2009, thanks to the popularity of the President, the streamlined message of the unified European-U.S. neo communist party government, and the hope for legislative action before the United Nations climate change negotiations in Copenhagen. The ratio of energy to climate rhetoric has steadily increased, and the phrase “climate change” is routinely omitted in favor of clean energy-related diction. President Obama at Copenhagen, Denmark, December 2009 (COP15), redirected global warming responses to neo communist schemes for global transfers of wealth. President Obama and left Democrats have set back valid global warming responses by more than a decade.
President Obama and left Democrats are avoiding their responsibility in global warming temperature increase with a coordinated attempt to nationally and internationally politically redefine the Modern Global Warming Era physical events. To confuse the public and avoid responding to global warming temperature increase, President Obama’s teams are dividing global warming solutions into many different divergent thoughts.
There is power in how language is deployed, and people setting policy agendas know this well. These political choices of word and thought are also reflected with unusually rapid changes in news coverage around the world. Now it is politicians who dominate what is said and when it will be said within the news media:
How can President Obama not know of global warming temperature increase when his administration is changing thoughts involving multinational decisions, trillions of energy dollars, and the lives of 9 billion people in 2050-2099 CE.
The president’s intentions are revealed by his weak rhetoric and avoidance of anything tainted with the terms climate change or global warming. Unfortunately, the atmosphere doesn’t understand our delicate sleights of tongue, only the gases that continue to belch from our cars and smokestacks.
Carbon budget refers to the contribution of various sources of carbon dioxide on the planet. Carbon budget has nothing to do with political agendas, climate change legislation, carbon controls, carbon storage, economic, or geopolitical carbon footprint. Carbon budget is a physical event. Infrastructure coal plants and oil extraction methods in countries of China, India, Europe, Canada, the U.S., and other nations are rapidly being constructed right now. Hydrocarbon infrastructures are going to last another 50 years plus, at least. Nations are now “locking-in the global carbon budget.” International Energy Agency’s (IEA) found we are about five years away from building enough carbon-spewing infrastructures to lock-in a hydrocarbon infrastructure and make it extremely difficult — if not impossible — to avoid greatly exceeding 450-ppm carbon dioxide. The point of global warming no-return comes around 2017 CE.
World Leaders must establish the intent to save human races 2050-2099. This identification of intent is a Modern Global Warming Era temperature reduction goal. A greenhouse gas-reduction statement must contain identified results over time, carbon dioxide and methane atmospheric levels, units of measurements, Earth temperatures, consider all global warming forces, probabilities of achieving events, stated starting levels, and goals. Modern Global Warming Era starting goal for greenhouse natural and human gas reduction is 1750 CE historic carbon dioxide peak levels (~280 ppm) and methane peak levels (~700 ppb). The political and physical goal is to achieve human survival well past 2100 CE. Tempus Fugit.
The phrases “climate change” and “global warming” have become all but taboo on Capital Hill. These terms are stunningly absent from the political arena, and have been since 2010. As Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) SAID on October 13th, 2011, “It has become no longer politically correct in certain circles in Washington to speak about climate change or carbon pollution or how carbon pollution is causing our climate to change.” Why?
President Obama spin and reelection teams are redefining the neo communist decades of involvement in critical events. Not only is there political re-identification of global warming, the Obama team is presenting errors, omissions, distortions, and word games, by government departments and internet site/PC hacking that are rewriting history and redefining America’s future. By using many different words to describe a intentionally poorly defined global warming event, President Obama’s teams avoid public awareness of the increasingly great risks posed to all who are now under the age of 30-years.
The administration has clearly responded to increasing hostility (on one end of the political spectrum) towards the effort to address climate change, scrubbing out words like global warming, cap-and-trade, and climate change from agency communication. The media alters their articles and programing to match President Obama’s climate change in “terms and rhetoric.”
Although global warming life-terminal implications were known in the 1990s CE, U.S. political leadership decided to continue expansion of U.S. hydrocarbon (coal, oil, natural gas) economies; the global warming event was minimized by U.S. political leadership, and so it remains. U.S. and global clean nuclear energy expansion was withheld to assure that energy increases would be satisfied with national hydrocarbon expansions. Around 2005 CE, there was a push by political criminals and their special interests to promote “alternative renewable green energy.” Promotion of alternatives to energy was successful for politicians and political special interests; taxpayers payed US$ 100s of billions in alternative-renewable energy projects and paper while increases in global warming greenhouse gases continued.
The fate of global temperature increase is determined. Around 450 ppm carbon level, Earth’s atmospheric carbon results in Earth becoming a source of carbon with increased human carbon releases and increased Arctic Region methane release — sometime around 2050-2099 CE Earth temperature regulation enters Modern Global Warming Era thermo runaway; human races end shortly thereafter.
It is the now under 30-years who are sure to die from global warming.
The ratio of the administration’s usage of “climate change” versus “energy” has changed significantly since Obama’s 2008 campaign days. “Climate change” rhetoric saw its brief heyday in 2009, thanks to the popularity of the President, the streamlined message of the unified European-U.S. neo communist party government, and the hope for legislative action before the United Nations climate change negotiations in Copenhagen. The ratio of energy to climate rhetoric has steadily increased, and the phrase “climate change” is routinely omitted in favor of clean energy-related diction. President Obama at Copenhagen, Denmark, December 2009 (COP15), redirected global warming responses to neo communist schemes for global transfers of wealth. President Obama and left Democrats have set back valid global warming responses by more than a decade.
President Obama and left Democrats are avoiding their responsibility in global warming temperature increase with a coordinated attempt to nationally and internationally politically redefine the Modern Global Warming Era physical events. To confuse the public and avoid responding to global warming temperature increase, President Obama’s teams are dividing global warming solutions into many different divergent thoughts.
There is power in how language is deployed, and people setting policy agendas know this well. These political choices of word and thought are also reflected with unusually rapid changes in news coverage around the world. Now it is politicians who dominate what is said and when it will be said within the news media:
"A dangerous shift in Obama’s ‘climate change’ rhetoric"
By Maxwell T. Boykoff
Published: January 27, 2012
Washington Post
What happened to “climate change” and “global warming”?
The Earth is still getting hotter, but those terms have nearly disappeared from political vocabulary. Instead, they have been replaced by less charged and more consumer-friendly expressions for the warming planet.
President Obama’s State of the Union address Tuesday was a prime example of this shift. The president said “climate change” just once — compared with zero mentions in the 2011 address and two in 2010. When he did utter the phrase, it was merely to acknowledge the polarized atmosphere in Washington, saying, “The differences in this chamber may be too deep right now to pass a comprehensive plan to fight climate change.” By contrast, Obama used the terms “energy” and “clean energy” nearly two dozen times.
That tally reflects a broader change in how the president talks about the planet. A recent Brown University study looked specifically at the Obama administration’s language and found that mentions of “climate change” have been replaced by calls for “clean energy” and “energy independence.” Graciela Kincaid, a co-author of the study, wrote: “The phrases ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’ have become all but taboo on Capitol Hill. These terms are stunningly absent from the political arena.” [Brown University research project LINK: Climate and Development Lab - RUNNING FROM CLIMATE CHANGE: THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S CHANGING RHETORIC, December 22, 2011]
In 2009, the Obama administration purposefully began to refer to greenhouse gas emissions as “carbon pollution” and “heat-trapping emissions.” This change is evident in statements from top officials such as White House science adviser John Holdren, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration head Jane Lubchenco and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson. Lubchenco told a reporter that the choice of those terms “is intended to make what’s happening more understandable and more accessible to nontechnical audiences.”
These choices are also reflected in news coverage around the world. My colleague Maria Mansfield and I monitor 50 major newspapers in 20 countries, and we documented that explicit mentions of “climate change” and “global warming” dropped by more than a third from 2010 to 2011. [CSTPR LINK: MEDIA COVERAGE OF CLIMATE CHANGE/GLOBAL WARMING - World Media Coverage; 2004-2011 World Newspaper Coverage of Climate Change of Global warming]
There is power in how language is deployed, and people setting policy agendas know this well. In 2002, Republican political strategist Frank Luntz issued a widely cited memo advising that the Bush administration should shift its rhetoric on the climate. “It’s time for us to start talking about ‘climate change’ instead of global warming. . . . ‘Climate change’ is less frightening than ‘global warming,’ ” the memo said.
Luntz was not alone in wanting to change the terminology. The nonprofit group EcoAmerica issued a report in 2009 arguing that the terms “global warming” and “climate change” both needed re-branding. In their place, the group recommended the phrase “our deteriorating atmosphere.”
But what do we lose when global warming and climate change get repackaged as clean energy? We wind up missing a thorough understanding of the breadth of the problem and the range of possible solutions.
To start, talking only about clean energy omits critical biological and physical factors that contribute to the warming climate. “Clean energy” doesn’t call to mind the ways we use the land and how the environment is changing. Where in the term is the notion of the climate pollution that results from clear-cutting Amazon rain forests? What about methane release in the Arctic, where global warming is exposing new areas of soil in the permafrost?
“Clean energy” also neatly bypasses any idea that we might need to curb our consumption. If the energy is clean, after all, why worry about how much we’re using — or how unequal the access to energy sources might be?
And terms such as “carbon pollution” ignore that climate change isn’t just a carbon issue. Some greenhouse gases, such as nitrous oxide, do not contain carbon, and not all carbon-containing emissions, such as carbon monoxide, trap heat.
When the president moves away from talking about climate change and talks more generally about energy, as he did in the State of the Union, calling for “an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy,” the impact is more than just political.
Calling climate change by another name creates limits of its own. The way we talk about the problem affects how we deal with it. And though some new wording may deflect political heat, it can’t alter the fact that, “climate change” or not, the climate is changing.
Maxwell T. Boykoff is an assistant professor in the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder and the author of “Who Speaks for the Climate? Making Sense of Media Reporting on Climate Change.”
NOTES:
1. “Climate” included the phrases Climate Change, Changing Climate, Climate Negotiations, Climate Bill, and Global Warming.
2. “Energy” included Clean Energy, Renewable Energy, Green Energy, Energy Economy, Energy Technology, Energy Independence, Energy Dependence, Energy Efficient, Energy Efficiency, Energy Security, Energy Capacity, Energy Supply, Energy-Saving, Energy Plan, Energy Policy, Energy Bill, Energy Jobs, Energy Industry, Energy Production, Energy Use, Energy Grid, Energy Future, Energy Development, Energy Revolution, Energy Prices, and Energy Needs
Fin
How can President Obama not know of global warming temperature increase when his administration is changing thoughts involving multinational decisions, trillions of energy dollars, and the lives of 9 billion people in 2050-2099 CE.
The president’s intentions are revealed by his weak rhetoric and avoidance of anything tainted with the terms climate change or global warming. Unfortunately, the atmosphere doesn’t understand our delicate sleights of tongue, only the gases that continue to belch from our cars and smokestacks.
Carbon budget refers to the contribution of various sources of carbon dioxide on the planet. Carbon budget has nothing to do with political agendas, climate change legislation, carbon controls, carbon storage, economic, or geopolitical carbon footprint. Carbon budget is a physical event. Infrastructure coal plants and oil extraction methods in countries of China, India, Europe, Canada, the U.S., and other nations are rapidly being constructed right now. Hydrocarbon infrastructures are going to last another 50 years plus, at least. Nations are now “locking-in the global carbon budget.” International Energy Agency’s (IEA) found we are about five years away from building enough carbon-spewing infrastructures to lock-in a hydrocarbon infrastructure and make it extremely difficult — if not impossible — to avoid greatly exceeding 450-ppm carbon dioxide. The point of global warming no-return comes around 2017 CE.
World Leaders must establish the intent to save human races 2050-2099. This identification of intent is a Modern Global Warming Era temperature reduction goal. A greenhouse gas-reduction statement must contain identified results over time, carbon dioxide and methane atmospheric levels, units of measurements, Earth temperatures, consider all global warming forces, probabilities of achieving events, stated starting levels, and goals. Modern Global Warming Era starting goal for greenhouse natural and human gas reduction is 1750 CE historic carbon dioxide peak levels (~280 ppm) and methane peak levels (~700 ppb). The political and physical goal is to achieve human survival well past 2100 CE. Tempus Fugit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)