Biden administration has proposed carbon-related taxes. At 3% discount rate, the tax rates would be:
1. CO2 tax, $51/ton, going to $85/ton by 2050.
2. CH4 (methane) tax, $1,500/ton, going to $3,100/ton by 2050.
3. N2O (nitrous oxide) tax, $18,000/ton, going to $33,000/ton by 2050.
$51 / ton: Biden Restores the Obama “Social Cost of
Eric Worrall, January 31, 2021
Biden hikes cost of carbon, easing path for new climate rules
By LORRAINE WOELLERT and ZACK COLMAN
02/26/2021 04:57 PM EST
Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive Order 13990
February 2021 (48 pages)
1. Social benefit of carbon (SBC), more CO2 more plant growth, more trees regenerating and expanding on their own. Biden and team, UN, etc do not consider it. See this,
NASA Vegetation Index: Globe Continues Rapid Greening Trend, Sahara Alone Shrinks 700,000 Sq Km!
By P Gosselin on 24. February 2021
2. Natural gas (that emits CH4) is the main energy source of the US. For electricity, heating, cooking.
3. Nitrate fertilizer (that emits N2O) is used by farmers to expand human food production (corn, wheat, soybeans,...) and animal feeds (for poultry, swine, beef,...)
Raising fertilizer cost (to save the planet) would mean less fertilizer use by farmers, less food production, courting global hunger. Then they will blame "man-made" CC and Gorebal warming for reduced food production.
See other stories:
China turns the screws on ‘unreliables’
Bloomberg, 3 March 2021
A 600% rise in carbon prices needed to meet Paris Agreement
Bloomberg, 4 March 2021
At our UPSEAA Viber group, one discussion topic last week was about RE and CC. A fellow school alumnus, young and recent school graduate, Rafael Mirafuente, joined the discussion. Posting this with his permission.
March 6, 2021
RM: renewable energy does have an environmental impact. if you only measure emissions, then sure these sources seem better, but they have other costs that we don't take into consideration. let me share an example. solar panels are made from high-grade silicon, which is mined from quartz (environmental impact from mining). it's not from sand that you can get from the desert. you also need to melt this stuff at extremely high temperatures, consuming coal in the process. and because the lifespan of solar cells are 20-30 years, it's not like this is a 1-time cost but rather a continuous process. we're still consuming fossil fuels just the same, only we've added extra steps. it's hardly a sustainable source of renewable energy. not to mention, solar farms have a local ecological impact because of the land that needs to be cleared to set them up.
True. When solar lobby and propagandists say that "solar is green" energy, they are dishonest. Solar is the most anti-green of all energy sources. Solar hates shade -- from clouds, rains, and tall trees. So in ALL solar farms, ALL trees nearby are murdered and when they naturally regenerate, they are murdered again. See this solar farm by Solar Philippines (owned by Leandro Leviste, son of greenie legislator Loren Legarda) in Batangas.
Solar to "save the planet" -- all about lies and propaganda. And big money.
Another fiction peddled by climate alarmism is that "Wind power is green." See this Nabas wind farm in Aklan by Petrowind. If you are flying to Caticlan, or already in Boracay, you can see these wind towers from a distance. To build these huge wind towers, developer flattened mountain tops and ridges, huge bulldozers and backhoes used. ALL trees along the way are murdered. If they regenerate and regrow, they are murdered again. Roads should be wide so that long 18-wheeler trucks could climb up those mountains to deliver long wind blades, many long steel bars, thousands cement bags, etc.
Wind power to "save the planet" -- also lies and propaganda. And big money.
CO2 is a useful gas -- the gas that we humans and animals exhale, the gas that plants and trees use to produce their own food via photosynthesis. We should have more fossil fuel energy. Coal, gas, oil for peaking plants. Nuke power is also good.
Big hydro also good. we need many huge dams to store lots of flood water yearly. In the tropics, our main problem yearly is not lack of water but too much water, too much flood, yearly. Water storage via many dams, then use the water to generate electricity, is nice.
"RE to save the planet" is fiction, a lie. More wide solar-wind farms would mean killing more trees, displacing crops in land use. More CO2 actually leads to more greening of the planet, NASA data 30 years.
NASA Vegetation Index: Globe Continues Rapid Greening
Trend, Sahara Alone Shrinks 700,000 Sq Km!
By P Gosselin on 24. February 2021
Fortunate Global Greening
Posted by Zoe Phin February 16, 2021
Energy 138, China coal and Europe near blackout, February 01, 2021
Energy 139, Immediate impact of Biden policies vs fracking, killing Keystone pipeline, February 09, 2021
Energy 140, Texas blackouts, wind turbines frozen, February 21, 2021.
Post a Comment