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:   

"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.  

Global Warming - 2009-2010 Washington DC

The European-U.S. years of “renewable alternative green energy” drive was further enabled by withholding permitting for U.S. expansion of nuclear energy and Germany leadership shutdown of its nuclear energy facilities. U.S. politicians, insiders, special interests, and global criminals all had/have access to U.S. renewable green energy funding; specifically, renewable energy political corruption of renewable green energy funding under US$ 90 billions of the $850 billion ‘American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’ (ARRA 2009).  

Added to the problems of political promotion of renewable energy crime, corruption, and special interests is the decades of information suppressed regarding the direct 260-year impact of both human and natural carbon dioxide emissions and direct impact of natural methane emissions. Arctic Region methane and carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing since 1750 CE to the point of noticeable human induced global warming impact. The combination of natural and human greenhouse gas accumulations influences global temperature increase produces a clear “thumbprint” of human impacts on climate change. A positive temperature regenerative feedback loop was and continues to be established within Arctic Region methane. Coincidentally the global carbon budget is reaching a 2017 CE saturation point. Unless there is a quick and effective political response to combined atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide and methane, there result a global warming temperature increase that terminates human life 2050-2099 CE.     

White collar political criminal activity has a long history within the U.S. Its activity rises and falls with political supplies of legislated funding. To one degree or another politicians are aware of political corrupting of the legislation system, but turn away from correcting (or reporting) criminal activity. Because government white collar crimes are part of political systems, prostitution for internal sponsored political fraud is difficult. For politicians it is better to sleep with criminals than it is act against self interests or come out and act for the best interests of humanity.  

Renewable green energy is about US$ 90 billions within the ‘American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’ (ARRA 2009). Renewable energy legislated “Stimulus” is systemically flawed; criminal monies are non recoverable; funding is (mostly) legally legislated and processed. Political white collar crime has been around longer than U.S. criminal mafia activity, and before the 1980s rise of the U.S. illegal drug industry. U.S. illegal drug industry is backed by drug cartels and has U.S. political support. Concealment and billions of dollars in money laundering of political white collar crime uses similar procedures as used by organized crime: front companies, legal companies, international trading, bank transfers, poor/fraudulent contracting, kickbacks, over charging, collusion, redundant funding, systems of government non accountability, etc. Multinational carbon cap-and-trade markets are trading paper, which requires that the whole political European-U.S. system of renewable green energy to be investigated.      

Since the 1990s, wind, solar, geothermal, and alcohol fuels (corn ethanol) are developed as corruption schemes for politicians to channel US$ 100s of billions dollars government money to special interests while controlling political special interest US$ trillions within national hydrocarbon economies. The pretext is that renewable energy investments are a solution to global warming temperature increase. For more than three decades the pretext for not building nuclear facilities is that nuclear facilities are “unsafe.” The reality is green energy, hydrocarbon energy, and political special interests destroyed human races while nuclear energy could save human races.  

U.S. Global Warming Foundation Legislation

UN’s ‘Earth Summit’ formed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992. The UN Kyoto Protocol is an agreement of UNFCCC. Significant U.S. legislated with presumed support of the 1992 UN Earth Summit: U.S. ‘Energy Policy Act’ (1992), ‘Energy Policy Act’ (2005), and ‘American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’ (ARRA 2009).

Example of Direct and Indirect Energy Funding Impacts  

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) review of the conference version of the 2005 bill estimated the ‘Energy Policy Act’ 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.  Energy Policy Act total direct and indirect costs are many billions. The CBO noted that the bill could have “additional effects on discretionary spending,” but did not attempt to estimate those effects. That was for a Congressional relatively small budget bill compared to the mother of funding bills, the ‘American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’ (ARRA 2009).     

Some ‘American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’ (ARRA) 2009 Renewable Green Energy Examples of Concern

The act, described by proponents as an attempt to combat growing (undefined) energy problems, changed US energy policy by providing tax incentives and loan guarantees for energy production of various non standard types. 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. In the case of Keynesian-global-warming, U.S. legislation transferred wealth without producing a product that can decrease the global temperature increase.     

● $6 billion for renewable energy and electric transmission technologies loan guarantees for solar, wind, and “smart national grid.”

● $6 billion for the cleanup of radioactive waste (mostly nuclear weapons production sites). This $6 billion useless spending and is a promotion of anti nuclear corruption and payoffs to PORK BARREL political special interests.

● $4.5 billion to the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) as outlined in the legislation.

● $4.5 billion to increase energy efficiency in federal buildings (GSA)

● $3.25 billion for the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) for power transmission system “smart grid.” Political power transition is intended to expand the hydrocarbon industry.  

● $3.25 billion for the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) for power transmission system (smart SYNCHROPHASOR western grid)

● $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 funding for manufacturing of advanced car battery-traction systems and components.

● $800 million funding for biofuel research, development, and demonstration projects

● $602 million is to support the use of energy efficient technologies in buildings and within industry.

● $400 million funding for the Geothermal Technologies Program (GTP)

● $400 million for electric vehicle technologies

● $300 million for state and local governments to purchase energy efficient vehicles

● $300 million to acquire electric vehicles for the federal vehicle fleet (GSA)

● $204 million is insignificant funding for research and testing facilities at the well managed U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories and Technology Centers.

● $190 million in funding for wind, hydro, and other renewable energy projects

● $115 million is part of billions of dollars to develop and deploy solar power technologies in the solar panel industry.

● $110 million is for the development of high efficiency vehicles.

The 2009 CE left Democrat Congress legislated ARRA 2009 as a blank check to be filled in by President Obama. There is to be an in depth accounting of the more than US$ 90 billion 2009-2010 CE global warming renewable energy expenditures and performance.    

Tempus Fugit

Left Democrat administration continues to tinker with government departments’ data and the reporting of national energy and global warming. All U.S. federal government data and reporting are now considered unreliable. Much of university and college global warming R&D is controlled by left Democrats through control of state and federal government grants and funding. Colleges, universities, and government departments’ reporting is considered unreliable when it comes to left Democrat foundation topics and social history. The Internet has and is being falsified to favor the causes of left Democrats. Internet attacks are mounted against individuals whose expressed options that conflict with established political funding procedures. Media corporations are extremely politically biased, oriented to presenting the public with unrealistic biased views. A significant amount of left Democrat smoke and mirrors political misdirections has been directed at building up U.S. special interest funding for expanding “renewable alternative green energy.”  In effect, since the early 1990s, left Democrat leadership are the cause of delaying real global warming responses.        

With the exception of expanding nuclear power, all other U.S. national energy proposals and policies are NOT viable. U.S. and global energy policies simply do not reflect real clean energy needs and real energy growth demands. Life-cycle process of all human energies (except nuclear energy and hydroelectric) emit large amounts of human carbon dioxide and natural methane.  

Since first global warming awareness of the 1960s, a great deal of necessary response time has passed, but there is still hope for changes to global warming temperature increase. Politicians just have to soon find the time and funding to alter established global warming course of events.  

Global Warming Nuclear - Decades Late and US$ Millions Short

Rev 25 Jan 2012

Over the past three to four decades Left Democrats have ridden hard to stardom with their forceful and manipulative denunciation of domestic and global nuclear energy. Resulting is human races demise 2050-2099 CE.

The only tool that is quickly available to reduce U.S. and global human greenhouse emissions is to quickly expand nuclear energy, building new nuclear reactors and replace old hydrocarbon energy units. Reform is necessary of left Democrats Nuclear Energy Commission (NRC). The NRC members are no more than appointed politicians and lawyers whose paid job is to continue blocking U.S. nuclear energy advancement. “Renewable energy drive” was further enabled by withholding permitting for U.S. expansion of nuclear energy; which allowed left Democrats’ European-U.S. neo communists to promote 2011 ₡ 96 billion euros (US$ 122.63 billion) corruption carbon-cap-and-trace renewable energy funding and US$ 90 billions 2009 “Stimulus” renewable energy corruption funding.   

With the exception of expanding nuclear power, all other U.S. national energy proposals and policies are NOT viable. U.S. energy policies simply do not reflect real clean energy needs and real energy growth demands. Life-cycle process of all human energies (except nuclear energy and hydroelectric) emit large amounts of carbon dioxide. Clean inexpensive nuclear energy CAN provide new jobs if political nuclear construction and operating costs are reduced for new nuclear energy expansion and the nuclear replacement of existing dirty hydrocarbon energy sources. Added benefits of nuclear energy are it reduces greenhouse gas emissions and therefore reduces global warming temperature increase. Unlike renewable energy, inexpensive nuclear energy is a tangible long-term economic stimulus. Inexpensive nuclear energy provides improved economies and increase employment while helping human races survival.  

As a result of their systemic deficiencies, alternative renewable green power sources require massive government subsidies in the form of tax breaks and requirements that utilities and public buy inefficient power. Furthermore, while not reducing fossil fuel use, poorly run European “cap and trade” programs will effectively ration our primary hydrocarbon and nuclear energy sources, resulting in energy demands exceeding supplies. Alternative energy policies result in direct and indirect increased cost to the world economy, while producing very little energy and no net reduction of greenhouse gases. Congress and individual U.S. states make long-term energy rules that unnecessarily increase costs to industry rate payers.    

To have any reasonable 70% chance of avoiding greater dangerous climate change, global emissions will need to peak carbon emissions by 2015-2020 CE.  Nuclear energy and reprocessing of uranium will be of utmost importance in the task of stabilizing Earth’s temperature increase. Left Democrats’ have made the U.S. global warming reductions tasks much more difficult, if not imposable. President Obama and left Democrat leadership are suppressing U.S. paths to nuclear energy advancement and have given away essential nuclear technology to China.    

The U.S. nuclear energy sector is a global asset too valuable to be run by politicians. No longer can human races survival depend upon the whims of politically appointed U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) politicians. The politically controlled untoward NRC and US DOE are under complete control of CONGRESSIONAL left Democrat leadership. If human global greenhouse gases are to peak by 2020 and than be reduced, then the NRC members are to be fired now and replaced by by Presidential appointment  three senior military nuclear representatives and one representative appointed by the President (confirmed by Congress).

Over the years the military has handled many successful nuclear programs. In 1951 December 20, Arco, Idaho, Experimental Breeder Reactor I produces the first electric power from nuclear energy, lighting four light bulbs. Later, 1952 June 14, the Keel for the Navy's first nuclear submarine, Nautilus, is laid at Groton, Connecticut. The U.S. military is very knowledgeable and experienced as to how to develop and manage large complex nuclear programs. Military nuclear program management organizational knowledge is necessary for the restructuring of the NRC and the restart of U.S. nuclear energy programs.       

No one size or type nuclear reactor meets current or future needs. There are many current and advanced designed nuclear reactors that meet the needs to reduce global warming greenhouse gas emissions. Small modular reactors (SMRs), approximately one-third the size of current nuclear plants, have compact designs that are expected to offer a host of safety, siting, construction, electrical capacity, and economic benefits.

Small and medium sized reactors (SMRs), i.e., reactors with the equivalent electric power of less than 700 MW. SMRs may provide an attractive and affordable nuclear power option for many developing countries with small electrical grids, insufficient infrastructure and limited investment capability. Multi-module power plants with SMRs may offer energy production flexibility that energy market deregulation might call for in the future in many countries. SMRs are also of particular interest for co-generation and many advanced future process heat applications. Some SMR designs may reduce obligations of the user for spent fuel and waste management and offer possibly greater non-proliferation assurances to the international community.

There are specific U.S. applications for SMRs; however, on the whole there are few cost effective advantages within the U.S. for SMRs.  As with left Democrats’ massive promotion of “alternative renewable green energy,” the U.S. DOE sending out SMR statements is much ado about nothing.   

"Energy Department Takes First Step to Spur U.S. Manufacturing of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors"

January 20, 2012 - 10:48am

News Media, Energy.Gov

Washington, D.C. – The U.S. Department of Energy today announced the first step toward manufacturing small and medium reactors (SMRs) in the United States, demonstrating the Administration’s commitment to advancing U.S. manufacturing leadership in low-carbon, next generation energy technologies and restarting the nation’s nuclear industry.  Through the draft Funding Opportunity Announcement announced today, the Department will establish cost-shared agreements with private industry to support the design and licensing of SMRs.

“America’s choice is clear - we can either develop the next generation of clean energy technologies, which will help create thousands of new jobs and export opportunities here in America, or we can wait for other countries to take the lead,” said Energy Secretary Steven Chu. “The funding opportunity announced today is a significant step forward in designing, manufacturing, and exporting U.S. small modular reactors, advancing our competitive edge in the global clean energy race.”

Small and medium reactors (SMRs) modular reactors, approximately one-third or less of the size of current nuclear plants, have compact designs that are expected to offer a host of safety, siting, construction and economic benefits. Specifically, they could be made in factories and transported to sites where they would be ready to “plug and play” upon arrival, reducing both capital costs and construction times. The small size also makes SMRs ideal for small electric grids and for locations that cannot support large reactors, providing utilities with the flexibility to scale production as demand changes.

The draft Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) announced today solicits input from industry in advance of a full FOA, which will support first-of-a-kind engineering, design certification and licensing through a cost-shared partnership. The full FOA will fund up to two SMR designs with the goal of deploying these reactors by 2022.

Today’s announcement comes on the heels of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s certification of Westinghouse Electric Generation III+ AP1000 nuclear reactor design, which was supported through a cost-shared agreement with the Energy Department. The Department’s efforts, in coordination with the NRC and private industry, have helped American companies lead the way in obtaining certification and licensing approvals for new reactor designs, which will further streamline these processes for future investments in the U.S. nuclear industry.  

[NOTE: By the time of the 1994 shutdown, the U.S. Argonne National Laboratory had essentially demonstrated mastery of the necessary Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) technology components for reprocessing nuclear fuel. President Obama gave the IFR nuclear fuel-reprocessing technology to China's No. 404 Factory. China now has a closed fuel cycle capability. Around 2009, President Obama gave more than 50,000 AP1000 detail manufacture and construction drawings to China. China is quickly and cheaply building US DOE-Westinghouse AP 1000 reactors. Westinghouse AP 1000 is a major reactor advancement for China's move to Generation III+ nuclear technology, and involves a major U.S. to China technology transfer agreement. By so doing, President Obama gave away critical U.S. nuclear technology to a significant economic adversary to the U.S. Chinese designers are developing a variation of the AP 1000 technologies, trumpeted as the "hone-grown" CAP 1000, as well as an updated CAP 1400 nuclear reactors. U.S. Argonne Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) program significantly advances China’s nuclear fuel cycle along with Generation III+ CAP 1000 and CAP 1400 nuclear reactors; thus providing China significant reduced construction time and costs and reduced lifetime economic costs over U.S. nuclear providers, within the growing global clean nuclear energy markets. --DGE]      

For more information on SMRs, please visit the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy website.

Fin

Critics can only present information. It is up to politicians to save human races from global warming temperature increase 2050-2099 CE destruction.

Global Warming - Northern Alberta oil sand carbon budget lock-in

Rev 23 Jan 2012

Paris based International Energy Agency’s (IEA) new “World Energy Outlook 2011” (WEO 2011) report states key issues to curbing global warming “infrastructure lock-in” of the “carbon budget.” 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, economies, or jobs. Carbon budget is a physical geophysical event. Exceeding the carbon budget means Earth’s systems of temperature regulation are in thermal runaway; Earth shall exceed habitable temperatures 2050-2099 Christan Era (CE).

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. Carbon infrastructures last more than 50 years resulting in nation’s hydrocarbon economies locking-in the global carbon budget. An important part of carbon budget infrastructure lock-in is Canada’s proposed oil-sand extraction methods for the proposed north-south Keystone XL pipeline. Oil-sand extraction greenhouse gases emitted add significantly to the global warming carbon budget.       

A large time lag to rebuild a clean energy infrastructure results in a delayed Earth temperature responses to emitted now greenhouse gases. Once we edge near carbon dioxide level of 450 ppm it becomes imposable to turn off the global warming effects of the 1750 CE to date human hydrocarbon energy used (coal, oil, natural gas) with 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. Natural Arctic Region methane emissions effects the temperature increase and is a greenhouse gas variable that needs close consideration.

Global warming locking-in of the global carbon budget point of no-return comes around 2017 CE.  

Canadian crude oil extraction methods adds to the global carbon budget. Crude oil extrication from bitumen results in a measurable factor of global warming temperature increase over the near term and far term.   

Keystone XL Pipeline

Canada has over 170 billion barrels of oil recoverable with today's technology, making it second only to Saudi Arabia as an oil resource country.

The U.S. $13 billion Keystone pipeline system was/is to play an important role in linking a secure and growing supply of Canadian crude oil with the largest refining markets in the United States, significantly improving North American security energy supply. Proposed ‘Keystone Gulf Coast Expansion Project’ would begin at Alberta Canada and extend southeast through Saskatchewan, Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska. Keystone Pipeline (Phase II) is through Nebraska and Kansas to serve markets at Cushing, Oklahoma before continuing through Oklahoma to a delivery point near existing terminals in Nederland, Texas to serve the Port Arthur, Texas marketplace.  

Keystone XL is one of TWO PROJECTS that oil sands producers have been counting on to boost returns. Canada now exports about 2 million barrels of oil a day, almost all to the United States. Government and industry officials say a major delay in PROJECT #1 north to south Keystone XL decision would prompt increased efforts to push forward PROJECT #2 east to west Enbridge Inc's C$ 5.5 billion (US$ 5.5 billion) Northern Gateway pipeline across British Columbia to the West Coast, where more than half a million barrels of crude a day could be loaded onto tankers and shipped to Asia.   

If Alberta's oil sands, the world’s third largest oil reserve were combined with U.S. oil reserves they would be more than adequate for American oil independence from outside North America oil importation.

Oil Sand Bitumen Emissions

Synthetic crude is an intermediate product produced when an extra-heavy or unconventional oil source is upgraded into a transportable form. Synthetic crude is then shipped to oil refineries where it is further upgraded into finished products. Alberta crude oil production is expected to grow strongly, but could be limited by the “global greenhouse gas emissions budget.” Oil sand extraction uses hydrocarbon heat (oil/natural gas) extraction, which emits much greenhouse gases. Global warming gases are vented when synthetic oil is extracted from bitumen and also from standing open pit mining.

⇛ bitumen - A black viscous mixture of hydrocarbons obtained naturally or as a residue from petroleum distillation

⇛ oil sands - Sand, clay or other minerals saturated with bitumen

⇛ synthetic crude oil - Similar to natural crude oil, created by upgrading bitumen from oil sands.

⇛ greenhouse gas - Any of the atmospheric gases that contribute to the greenhouse effect by absorbing infrared radiation produced by solar warming of the Earth's surface. They include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (NO2), and water vapor. Although greenhouse gases occur naturally in the atmosphere, the elevated levels especially of carbon dioxide and methane that have been observed in recent decades are directly related, at least in part, to human activities such as the burning of hydrocarbon (fossil) fuels and the deforestation of tropical forests.

Some synthetic oil adverse greenhouse gas emissions can be mitigated by using nuclear energy to heat bitumen and incorporation of a capture process for vented bitumen greenhouse gases.  

Oil sands synthetic oil extraction incorporates both mining ("conventional" methods) and in-situ (“non-conventional”) production methods. Mining excavation of the bitumen-rich sand uses open pit mining methods which is the most efficient method of extraction (ie, least costly) when there are large deposits of bitumen with little overburden. In-situ methods involve processing the oil sand deposit so that the bitumen is removed while the sand remains in place. Oil heat extraction from bitumen can be used for both mining and in-situ. In-situ methods are used for oil sands that are too deep to support surface mining operations to an economical degree. 80% of the resource in Northern Alberta oil sands lies deep below surface overburden.  

Open pit strip mining remains is least costly main extraction method, but two in situ techniques are likely to be used more in the future: cyclic steam stimulation and steam-assisted gravity drainage. Injected steam into the formation heats bitumen, allowing it to flow and be pumped to the surface or extracted from Canadian Athabasca Oil Sands. Oil sand processing can produce significant (massive) amounts of global warming gases.   

Nuclear power could make steam and electricity for extracting sand oil. A proposal suggests that a single Candu 6 reactor configured to produce 75% steam and 25% electricity would replace 6 million cubic metres (220  terajoule (TJ)) per day of natural gas and support production of 175-200,000 barrels per day of oil. Nuclear heating would save the emission of 3.3 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. (European Union CO2 emissions in 2008 was 4.2 million metric tonnes, U.S. emission 7.1 million metric tonnes.) Canadian oil output from tar sands is forecast to reach three million barrels per day.

Given the limitations of supplying steam over more than 25 km (15.5 miles), small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) with capacities of some around 100 MWe could be more suitable for individual oil extraction and heating projects. U.S. experience of small light water reactors (LWRs) has been of very small military power plants, such as the reactor which operated at McMurdo Sound in Antarctica 1962-72, generating a total of 78 million kWh. There was also an Army program for small reactor development, and some successful small reactors from the main national program commenced in the 1950s. One was the Big Rock Point operated for 35 years to 1997. Anti nuclear politics has for decades increased costs of nuclear power and has opposed U.S. nuclear energy development and small light water reactor development.    

Problem with any proposal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the bitumen steam extraction process is that the process increases the oil cost per barrel. Decades of selling “alternative renewable energy” was left Democrats’ stated U.S. national energy policy. U.S. left Democrats, President Obama, anti-nuclear groups, and “environmentalist” opposed both completing the Keystone XL pipeline and also opposed developing clean nuclear energy as part of U.S. energy planning. It will take at least two years of planning, R&D, and development to devise an effective alternative to decades of alternative-energy promotion; that leaves only three years of clean infrastructure implementation to correct for global 2017 CE carbon-budget lock-in. An increasing relevant problem is that all government department data and reporting on global warming is suspect of containing significant errors and omissions. Internet hacking is an increasing problem to public and private information integrity. Until information errors and omissions are corrected, there can be no reliable global warming energy planning. Due to decades of delays and abuses, correcting global warming temperature increase is going to be very expensive.    

With left Democrat neo communists locked into conflicting unreasonable energy policies and are anti science oreniated, there will be no timely U.S. political responses to U.S. need for energy self sufficiency or to curbing global warming temperature increase. U.S. energy prices and global warming greenhouse gas emissions are to continue to increase. There is to be a 2017 CE lock-in of the global carbon budget with continued global temperature increase past 2050-2099 CE.  

Global Warming - US Energy Accounting

Rev: 23 Jan 2012

Access to affordable energy is a key to any developed nation’s existence. Only increasing nuclear energy by 2020 CE can help human races survive the global warming temperature increase 2050-2099 CE.  

President Obama proposed a Clean Energy Standard (CES) (March 21, 2011) to require that 80% of the nation’s electricity come from clean energy technologies by 2035. The U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources (ENR) Committee faced general policy identification threshold questions for electric base load and renewable energy sectors, and whether a CES would most effectively achieve them. President Obama’s CES standards would become part of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA’s) long-term regulations.

President Obama did not create current left Democrat energy policies, those policies were there long before he came into office.  

Clean Energy Standard (CES) (March 21, 2011) review request contains fraudulent data reporting. If that CES request was recorded in a U.S. stock market exchange, instead of within the left Democrat U.S. Senate, by omissions and misrepresentations the co conspirator authors would now be serving time in jail.     

Misrepresentation Reporting of U.S. Energy Sector

Electrical energy flow consumed in 2002 U.S. used about: 54.4% coal, 21.2% nuclear, 3.5% natural gas, 8.5% renewable (renewable is identified as 6.5% hydroelectric, 2% biomass/other).  

The CES data reported to be from the U.S. Energy Information Administration information identifies 2010 U.S. “domestic electricity generation was comprised of:” 45% coal, 25% natural gas, 20% nuclear, 10% renewable (renewable identified as hydroelectric power, wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass).

CES 2010 energy usage information is not correct: coal, natural gas, nuclear and renewable statements are improper.  The left Democrat political movement is lying about energy usage and consider lies to continue Congressional opposition to global warming reform. Nuclear energy overstatement (8% vs 20%) identifies left Democrat’s reluctance to permit nuclear industry growth. Politicians misrepresenting U.S. energy data has several significant negative domestic and international repercussions, which leads to human life terminations.   

When 2002 hydroelectric power 6.5% is excluded from overall 8.5% renewable energy, what is left is 2% portion of renewable energy. In spite of being very expensive, left Democrat promoted renewable energies do not produce any significant amounts of energy or reduction in global warming greenhouse gases.

Since the 1990s, wind, solar, geothermal, and alcohol fuels (corn ethanol) are developed as corruption schemes for politicians to channel US$ 100s of billions dollars government money to special interests while controlling political special interest US$ trillions within national hydrocarbon economies. The pretext is that renewable energy investments are a solution to global warming temperature increase. For more than three decades the pretext for not building nuclear facilities is that nuclear facilities are “unsafe.” The reality is green energy, hydrocarbon energy, and political special interests destroyed human races while nuclear energy could save human races.        

2003 U.S. Energy Consumption by Major Sources (all energy sectors)

Petroleum 40%

Coal 23%

Natural Gas 23%

NUCLEAR 8% (Recently there have been misreporting of U.S. nuclear energy share. U.S. nuclear is less than 20% of total U.S. electrical output; it is more like 8%.)

*Renewable as Share of Total Energy 6%  

*Conventional Hydroelectric ~45% of Renewable 6% share (hydroelectric is largely dependent upon annual water supplies)

*Wood 34%

*Waste 9% (started in 1980s - municipal solid waste, landfill methane gas, sludge, tires, agricultural byproducts, and other biomass)

*Geothermal 5%

*Alcohol Fuels 5% (Corn ethanol funding started 1992)

*Wind 2%

*Solar 1%

Left Democrat administration continues to tinker with government departments’ data and the reporting of national energy and global warming. All U.S. federal government data and reporting are now considered unreliable. Much of university and college global warming R&D is controlled by left Democrats through control of state and federal government grants and funding. Colleges, universities, and government departments’ reporting is considered unreliable when it comes to left Democrat foundation topics and social history. The Internet has and is being falsified to favor the causes of left Democrats. Media corporations are extremely politically biased, oriented to presenting the public with unrealistic biased views. A significant amount of left Democrat smoke and mirrors political misdirections has been directed at building up U.S. special interest funding for expanding “renewable alternative green energy.”  In effect, since the early 1990s, left Democrat leadership are the cause of delaying real global warming responses.        

With the exception of expanding nuclear power, all other U.S. national energy proposals and policies are NOT viable. U.S. energy policies simply do not reflect real clean energy needs and real energy growth demands. Life-cycle process of all human energies (except nuclear energy and hydroelectric) emit large amounts of carbon dioxide.  For example, electric cars may require more coal plants. Proposals for alternative energy may also, like hydrogen, require more (coal) energy to produce than alternatives provide.  Renewable energy does not provide net new jobs—replacing efficient energy with inefficient sources will no more advance the economy than replacing trucks with horses. Clean inexpensive nuclear energy CAN provide new jobs if political nuclear construction and operating costs are reduced for nuclear energy expansion and the replacement of existing dirty hydrocarbon energy sources. Added benefits of nuclear energy are it reduces greenhouse gas emissions and therefore reduces global warming temperature increase.    

Unlike renewable energy, inexpensive nuclear energy is a tangible long-term economic stimulus. Inexpensive nuclear energy provides economies and increase employment while helping human races survival.    

Expense of Renewable Energy Corruption

Since the 1990s, “renewable” has been promoted, costly, produced insignificant energy, increased global warming, and has been a vehicle for European-U.S. special interest political corruption. Politics and government associated with the global energy sector involving trillions of dollars annually is the makings of a global disaster.  

As a result of their systemic deficiencies, alternative renewable green power sources require massive government subsidies in the form of tax breaks and requirements that utilities and public buy inefficient power.

Furthermore, while not reducing fossil fuel use, poorly run European “cap and trade” programs will effectively ration our primary hydrocarbon and nuclear energy sources, resulting in energy demands exceeding supplies. Alternative energy policies result in direct and indirect increased cost to the world economy, while producing very little energy and no net reduction of greenhouse gases. Congress and individual U.S. states make long-term energy rules that unnecessarily increase costs to industry rate payers.  

Infrastructure coal plants and hydrocarbon extraction methods in countries of China, India, Europe, Canada, Russia, Japan and the U.S., and other nations are rapidly being constructed right now with the hydrocarbon infrastructure lasting at least another 50 years. Many nations are locking-in the global carbon budget. Infrastructure “carbon budget” lock, expected 2017, results in 2050-2099 human races termination.

World leaders are to rapidly reduce human carbon dioxide emissions prior to 2020 CE or human races terminate 2050-2099 CE.

Limited Renewable Energy

Renewable energy is “alternatives” to primary energy of petroleum, coal, natural gas, nuclear, and conventional hydroelectric. Renewable alternative green energies are costly and counter-productive to survival of human races. Nuclear energy is expandable with existing technology and resources nationally and globally. How much nuclear and how quickly nuclear energy is expanded defines how long humans survive.  

In response to the global warming challenges, UN’s 1992 ‘Earth Summit’ formed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that has helped create “alternative renewable energy” and political special interests. Green alternative has been promoted with U.S. Congressional legislation: U.S. ‘Energy Policy Act’ (1992), ‘Energy Policy Act’ (2005), and ‘American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’ (ARRA 2009). ARRA contains US$ 90 billion in alternative renewable green energy funding. In 2011, carbon cap-and-trade markets involving alternative renewable green energy across the world were valued at ₡ 96 billion euros (US$ 122.63 billion), up 4 percent on 2010. Shutdown of Yucca Mountain geologic nuclear repository identifies congressional left Democrat opposition to the U.S. nuclear industry. 1990s global political greed and corruption over took the 1960s concern about global warming.

Carbon cap-and-trade markets are trading paper to justify corruption of receiving taxpayer money for constructing hydrocarbon facilities with a promise of future reduced greenhouse gases. None of the cap-and-trade markets result in reduction of greenhouse gases. Carbon cap-and-trade markets are part of global political corruption involving multinational government supporters, the U.N., and US$ 100s billions in global warming funding going to special interest energy frauds. A large portion of ARRA (2009) US$ 90 billion alternative renewable green energy funding promotes global carbon cap-and-trade.  Necessary expansion of nuclear energy has for decades been politically suppressed to continue political special interest frauds while expanding national hydrocarbon economies.

U.S. renewable Wood (2.1%), Waste (0.6%), Geothermal (0.3%), Alcohol Fuels (corn ethanol) (0.2%), Wind (0.1%), Solar (0.1%) provided a very small (total 3.4%) amount of energy to the 2003 energy consumed. Taxpayer and user costs for renewable energy are very large.     

Biomass - Wood, waste, corn ethanol exceeding 2.7% of provided national energy is very unlikely. There are five basic categories of biomass material.   

⇛ Wood - Virgin wood, from forestry, arbour cultural activities or from wood processing

⇛ Waste - Agricultural residues: residues from agriculture harvesting or processing

⇛ Waste - Food waste, from food and drink manufacture, preparation and processing, and post-consumer waste

⇛ Waste - Industrial waste and co-products from manufacturing and industrial processes

⇛ Ethanol - Energy crops: high yield crops grown specifically for energy applications

Ethanol - Corn requires 29% more fossil energy to produce corn ethanol than the corn-ethanol fuel returns. Switch grass-ethanol requires 45% more fossil energy and wood-biomass ethanol requires 57% more than the fuel returnes. In all cases of biomass energy, Earth’s carbon sinks quickly transfer carbon into the atmosphere and warms Earth.  Ethanol energy yield per-volume is very low.

We are feeding cars corn that should be feeding people and reducing the cost of U.S. food stock. The grain required to fill an SUV tank with ethanol one time equals what a person eats in a year. About 40% of U.S. harvested corn feeds cars. It takes a great deal of groundwater irrigation water to make corn-ethanol. Groundwater reserves are generally being depleted from irrigation groundwater over drafting. Groundwater is being transferred to oceans via the hydrological cycle.  

The government spends more than $3 billion a year to subsidize ethanol production while ethanol does not provide a net energy balance or gain, is not a renewable energy source, and is not an economical fuel. Ethanol production and use contribute to air, water, and soil pollution and global warming. The vast majority of the subsidies do not go to farmers but to large ethanol-producing corporations.

Ethanol fuel is widely used in Brazil and in the United States. Together both countries were responsible for 88 percent of the world's ethanol fuel production in 2010; U.S. with 13.2 billion U.S. liquid gallons (bg) (50 billion liters) and Brazil 6.92 bg (26.2 billion liters). 7 billion gallons of ethanol consumes 20% of 2007 corn production. U.S. corn ethanol in 2022 is legislated to burn about 43 billion gallons pre year, requiring about 123% of the U.S. farmland to produce.       

The removal of large tracts of land from food production to make ethanol has dramatically raised world food prices by reducing supplies. There have been food riots, with millions of people exposed to hunger. Corn-ethanol is a “crime against humanity.” Ethanol from corn requires fertilizers that increase nitrous oxide emissions that are themselves greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, only more powerful. More frequent Gulf of Mexico huge hypoxia events are caused by increased corn-ethanol fertilization leaching into tributaries, Mississippi, and on to the Gulf. Riparian hypoxia is an increasing problem within all countries, coastlines, and oceans.   

U.S. Congress is to eliminate ethanol requirements and reinstate gasoline additives MMT (methyl cyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl) and MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether).      

Hydrogen - Hydrogen as a energy source is not freely available, but must be extracted from molecules such as water. To do so requires more energy than hydrogen product returns. Hydrogen is also flammable, hard to contain, and hard to transport.

Wind and Solar Energy - Thousands of wind turbines are required to provide the power of a standard fossil fuel or nuclear plant. Turbines must be spaced widely apart to prevent the air flow of one from interfering with that of the next, meaning that wind farms must consume hundreds of times the land that standard energy plants require. Wind farm siting must consider migratory bird flights. Solar and wind electrical power must be transported from energy farms to cities. Because wind and solar are highly variable source of energy, wind and solar energy must be backed by traditional base-load electrical sources.

Solar-panel energy farms work best in warm climates and with long hours of direct sunlight. Due to panel designs, manufacture, and installation, solar efficiencies can vary greatly with rapid reliability reductions of solar panel electrical output. Interestingly, environmentalists themselves have recently opposed these installations due to environmental damage and land requirements. Accumulations of installed solar and wind energy have significant unsolvable electrical synchronization issues with the nation’s standard base-load electrical generation.  

Wind and solar are limited in capacity, reliability, locations, expandability, and connection to national base load generators.    

Hydro power - River dams offer a modest contribution to national clean energy needs (about 2.8% at 2003 level), but the most productive sites are already used up, and dams radically alter the environment. Canada may offer additional hydrological sites along the north-south Rocky Mountain Range. However, hydroelectric water storage capacity can be quickly affected by climate changes.   

Nuclear Energy - I see no alternatives to fossil fuels greenhouse gas emissions other than expanding nuclear energy. Because nuclear alone utilizes the energy in the nucleus of the atom, nuclear energy-yield exceeds fossil fuel yields by a factor of billions. Nuclear is about 8% of U.S. energy flow.   

Nuclear plants are safer than coal plants and produce less radiation.  Furthermore, they can directly produce electricity and power our cars by providing electricity for batteries, making a hydrogen infrastructure unnecessary. Nuclear energy is the only energy source suitable for large capacity desalination plants.

1, 2, 3 Steps to Rescue

Saving human races from 2050-2099 Christin Era (CE) global warming temperature increase involves three steps:

Step 1 - Acknowledge global warming temperature increase as a critical problem.  

Step 2 - Identify causes. Propose solutions.   

Step 3 - Implement in enough solutions a timely manor to prevent human races destruction.  

Step 1 - Acknowledge global warming temperature increase as a critical problem.

Increasing rate of natural and human greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane releases results in increased global average temperature that exceeds a life terminating temperature increase. Resulting is human races termination 2050-2099 CE with death of all who are now under the age of 30 years. Termination of all human life is a critical problem that might be resolved only by world leaders’ coordinated rapid responses.  

Step 2 - Identify causes. Propose solutions.

Earth’s human survival is as a spaceship flying through space. Spaceship Earth life support system is a closed system with finite capacity to sustain a finite amount of human life over a decreasing lifespan, "We travel together, passengers on a little space ship, dependent on its vulnerable reserves of air and soil" -Adlai Stevenson (D), U.N. Ambassador, 1965  

Causes - The predominant scientific opinion on global warming is that Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, caused by humans’ use of fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) and also deforestation, which increase human and natural atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.    

1750 CE Industrial Age start was the start of massive amounts of human global warming gas carbon dioxide emissions. By 1866 CE, global warming accumulations of human gases produced a clear “thumbprint” of human impacts on “climate change.” Earth’s normal biosphere cycle of carbon dioxide had been exceeded. The population and gross domestic product (GDP) growth directly increased hydrocarbon (coal, oil, natural gas) energy consumed. The Arctic Region responded with natural global warming gas release of methane. Earth’s global warming temperature increased and has not stopped increasing. Current dip in human greenhouse gas emissions is the result of the global recession GDP drop.   

Although it is not easy to know with precision how long it takes greenhouse gases to decrease their global warming properties by carbon cycle exchange, there are estimates. More than half of the carbon dioxide emitted is currently removed from the atmosphere within a century (giving carbon dioxide lifetime estimated in the order of 30–95 years) with some fraction (about 20%) of emitted carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for many thousands of years. Molecule-for-molecule basis, the direct radiative effects of methane is about 72 times stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide over a 20 years. Reducing greenhouse gases over time to 1750 CE pre industrial levels will never be achieved as long as humans remain on Earth.  

The global “carbon budget” is the balance of the exchanges (incomes and losses) of carbon between the carbon reservoirs or between one specific loop (e.g., atmosphere ↔ biosphere) of the carbon cycle. With accumulations of human/natural carbon dioxide, temperature increase, and deforestation; Earth is moving from a carbon-cycle sink to carbon source, which results in greater and more rapid global temperature increase.

Infrastructure coal, oil, and natural gas plants and hydrocarbon extraction methods in countries of China, India, Europe, Canada, Russia, Japan and the U.S., and other nations are rapidly being constructed right now. Nations are locking-in the global carbon budget. Nations’ economic hydrocarbon infrastructures are going to last more than 50 years; possibly longer than human races’ survive. Global carbon budget’s lock-in is expected around 2017 CE, which would result in human races termination 2050-2099 CE.

To avoid 2017 CE locking-in the global carbon budget, rapid and large expansion of nuclear energy replacing proposed and existing hydrocarbon facilities is required. Following is 2009 CE listing of annual carbon dioxide emissions estimates (in thousands of CO2 metric tonnes): China 7,037,864, United States 5,290,006, European Union 3,623,402, India 1,629,959, Russia 1,528,568, Japan 1,092,878, and Germany 755,140. Quickly reducing hydrocarbon economies emissions of global warming greenhouse gas is a very large political task.    

Solution - Solution to global warming temperature increase is to reduce global warming by reducing human and natural greenhouse gas emissions.       

Step 3 - Implement in a timely manor enough solutions to prevent human races destruction.

Prior to 2020 CE, world leaders are to rapidly reduce human carbon dioxide emissions, or human races terminate 2050-2099 CE. Since solutions for shifting away from national hydrocarbon economies was delayed more than three decades, implementing rapid solutions to save human races will cost many trillions U.S. dollars over many years.

The Accounting

The U.S. nuclear energy sector is a global asset too valuable to be run by politicians. No longer can human races survival depend upon the whims of appointed U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) politicians. The politically controlled untoward NRC are under complete control of CONGRESSIONAL left Democrat leadership. If human global greenhouse gases are to peak by 2020 and than be reduced, NRC members are to be fired now and replaced by three senior military nuclear representatives, one nuclear industry representative, and one representative appointed by the President.     

There is no acceptable rational for government investments in alternative renewable green energy. Unfortunately, there are irrational biases against nuclear power by environmentalists, anti nukes, left and right politicians, and special interests widely opposed to nuclear energy, though some environmentalists are taking a second look. President Obama’s team is misrepresenting data to enhance left Democrat election chances, support special interest, and expand special interest political corruption.

Left Democrat’s 2009-2010 U.S. Congress achieved its legislated goals for advancing European-U.S. neo communism and global warming response. Holding onto left Democrat political gains, the 2011-2012 Congress was maneuvered by left Democrats into being a ‘do nothing Congress;’ certainly Washington DC is a dysfunctional left Democrat Obama administration and dysfunctional left Democrat Senate. To a large extent, Congressional global warming responses in 2012 determines who is elected November 2012.

All left Democrat politicians avoid responses that might shift the U.S. from its political special interests or from the U.S. hydrocarbon economy. Republicans are split on the global warming issues. Mr. Gingrich co-sponsored a 1989 bill stating that “climate change” was "resulting from human activities."

Human races terminate 2050-2099 CE, or world leaders reduce human carbon dioxide emissions prior to 2020 CE. Since the nuclear energy solutions necessary to shift away from national hydrocarbon economies was delayed for more than three decades; implementing rapid solutions to save human races will now cost trillions U.S. dollars for many years. Global warming temperature increase is a socially equal problem, there is no other choice but to accept a political priority for timely reduction of human greenhouse gas emissions.