https://www.vox.com/climate/2024/2/...-change-hurricanes-coral-reefs-bleaching

I started getting concerned when they shut down the crab fisheries because the entire population of bering sea snow crab died off.

Now this is getting a bit scary. Ocean plankton produce 50% of the planet's oxygen. If they die, we die.

Drill baby drill… smh.

Eve, if waking up when it’s too late deserves kudos, kudos to you. Now, there are only 70 million more to convince that global warming is real. Welcome to the right side of a history that will probably never be written. I’m lucky enough to be older and in bad health, so I won’t be around to watch the O2 levels dissipate until the O2 compressors have no O2 to compress. It’s at a point now that it would take ASI (Artificial Super Intelligence) to save our collective butts. So maybe it’s not too late, maybe it is.

Where did you get the 70 million number?

He's saying all the Maga fascist Nazis that voted for Trump are the ones that will cause the planet to implode.

It has nothing to do with the other 8,014,468,523 people on the planet.

While OCD's posts are sometimes over the top, factually speaking it seems you too are in denial of certain facts....

Trump’s climate denial shapes House GOP backbench

https://www.eenews.net/articles/trumps-climate-denial-shapes-house-gop-backbench/


Climate Deniers in the 117th Congress

There are 139 elected officials in the 117th Congress who still deny the scientific consensus of human-caused climate change.

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/climate-deniers-117th-congress/

And your "It has nothing to do with the other 8,014,468,523 people on the planet" is no less BS than what you accuse OCD of since there are already several nations around the globe combating climate change and taking even stronger measures to fight it than our own country...............

The 10 Countries Leading the Way in Climate Policy

Some countries are ahead of others when it comes to creating comprehensive programs addressing climate change, according to a report.

No. 10: China

Climate Policy Score: 15.68

Despite a lower overall performance rating, China has put forth detailed plans to combat climate change and other environmental issues, such as air quality, that have plagued its cities. President Xi Jinping has pledged to significantly increase the use of solar and wind energy by 2030.

No. 9: Sweden

Climate Policy Score: 15.72

Sweden has led the charge for serious climate change policy on an international scale over the last few years. The country is a major source of funding for the Green Climate Fund, the world’s largest climate fund and an integral component of the Paris Climate Accords.

No. 8: Finland

Climate Policy Score: 15.98

As the first country to put a carbon tax in place, Finland has historically been a leader in climate change policy. Leaders recently strengthened the country’s commitment to green living by shifting to wood-based materials for its construction and even textile needs.

No. 7: France

Climate Policy Score: 16.06

In the last year alone, France passed a climate change bill meant to take a broad approach to environmentally unfriendly practices in the country. The proposed legislation included eliminating short domestic flights and limiting use of plastic packaging.

No. 6: Portugal

Climate Policy Score: 16.27

Due to its geography, Portugal is particularly vulnerable to droughts and floods. In an effort to combat climate change and the extreme weather associated with it, the country has made strides on renewables – such as solar and wind plants – which now account for 54% of energy generated.

No. 5: Lithuania

Climate Policy Score: 16.48

Much like its fellow European Union member states, Lithuania has implemented a 10-year National Energy and Climate Plan, which launched last year. The plan emphasizes transportation electrification – for personal vehicle use as well as the railway – and reducing fuel consumption by 24%.

No. 4: Netherlands

Climate Policy Score: 16.53

Beyond reducing carbon dioxide emissions in line with EU standards, the Netherlands has worked to become an overwhelmingly bike and pedestrian-friendly nation. As sea levels rise, the country has also devised climate-adaptive schemes, such as intentional flooding, to save its cities.

No. 3: Morocco

Climate Policy Score: 17.23

Morocco, a coastal country, is particularly threatened by rising sea levels and other climate-related changes. They have begun to shift from standard energy sources to renewables in the last few years, targeting 52% renewable energy use countrywide by 2030.

No. 2: Denmark

Climate Policy Score: 17.87

In 2019, Denmark announced a 10-year plan to reduce its carbon emissions to 70% below 1990 levels – one of the more ambitious programs in Europe. By 2050, the country aims to be carbon neutral, meaning that its emissions and absorption of carbon dioxide would be zero.

No. 1: Luxembourg

Climate Policy Score: 18.11

Luxembourg’s COVID-19 recovery and resilience plan – its most recent major piece of climate change legislation – apportions 30.5 million euros toward increasing the amount of charging stations in the country to support and ease the transition to electric vehicles.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-co...es-are-leading-the-way-in-climate-policy

You may wish to adjust your number.

Adjust what number?

You have got to get your numbers checked, by a professional.

I hate how people weaponize changes in the climate.

We are coming out of the last ice age now.

Somehow, people forget we have had five major ice ages and we have had several period of time where it was extremely warm.

If you lack the ability to comprehend what I posted it's obvious it's you that needs to have a cognitive test. But then I'm pretty sure you can still remember ‘person, woman, man, camera, TV.’ It's a pretty low bar.

You're the perfect example of what I was speaking of. Thanks for that!

You can do better than that. Explain how the ice ages happened? Did the dinosaurs burn fossil fuels?

And people do weaponize every weather event, even non-related events. Trudeau blamed his forest fires on climate change. Funny how you can blame something contributing to climate change on climate change itself. And you all toe the line. Who needs Netflix when we have extreme-green lefties!

The earth is how many millions, or maybe billions, old?

And we're basing climate change on humans, based on the last 100 or 150 years?

Now, I know some (un) useful people will attempt to put words in my mouth about how I don't understand pollution, or I don't care, etc. That's untrue, though.

And where did the 70 million number come from again?

The current quickly rising planet temperature should explain this to people that still have their heads buried in the sand. First you claimed that there were over over 8 billion people in the world that were also responsible for helping fight climate change. When you were shown that there are already billions who are doing more than America to combat climate change you have quickly changed course.

The case you are making is "Let's do nothing and wait until it's too late to try and correct the problem." That sounds like a real winner.

More fake b.s.

I'm just stating that there are over 8B people on the planet and all are responsible. You cosigned that it's only Trump voters that are responsible. Following the sad, tired narrative from the town dunce.

Who said let's do nothing? Show me the post.

Or are you just lying again??

Nobody ever answers these questions, they just label those that ask them as a "climate denier".

Then the big wigs fly their jets all over the planet for secret meanings where they generally discuss how to shut people up rather than how to fix anything. They literally have meeting after meeting, presentation after presentation, on the dangers of people asking questions and stating opinions.

The 70 million is Trump voters, climate change is also Trump's fault.

US Republicans oppose climate funding as millions suffer in extreme weather

Nearly 90 million Americans are facing heat alerts this week, yet GOP members are wrangling over spending to reduce emissions

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jul/13/us-republicans-climate-funds-extreme-heat

Fight brewing over Biden climate funds that help farmers in Republican-leaning states

https://www.reuters.com/sustainabil...p-farmers-republican-leaning-2024-01-25/

The fact you are in denial is no fault of my own.

Yes! Perfect example -- always frame "climate change" around the temperatures from the previous week!

Approve them all or you're a #denier! All 58 billion dollars. I mean, what else would we do with it anyway? Pay for wars??


We need more international climate slush funds and vaguely defined environmental justice programs. That will make that sun climb right back behind the clouds!

Yes, that's what it is. From the previous week.....

2023 was the world’s warmest year on record, by far

Antarctic sea ice coverage hit record low

It’s official: 2023 was the planet’s warmest year on record, according to an analysis by scientists from NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI).

Along with the historic heat, Antarctic sea ice coverage dropped to a record low in 2023.

“After seeing the 2023 climate analysis, I have to pause and say that the findings are astounding,” said NOAA Chief Scientist Dr. Sarah Kapnick. “Not only was 2023 the warmest year in NOAA’s 174-year climate record — it was the warmest by far. A warming planet means we need to be prepared for the impacts of climate change that are happening here and now, like extreme weather events that become both more frequent and severe.

"We will continue to see records broken and extreme events grow until emissions go to zero,” Kapnick said. “Government policy can address both emissions, but also actions to reduce climate impacts by building resilience."

Climate by the numbers

Earth’s average land and ocean surface temperature in 2023 was 2.12 degrees F (1.18 degrees C) above the 20th century — the highest global temperature among all years in NOAA’s 1850-2023 climate record. It also beats the next warmest year, 2016, by a record-setting margin of 0.27 of a degree F (0.15 of a degree C).

The 10 warmest years since 1850 have all occurred in the past decade. In fact, the average global temperature for 2023 exceeded the pre-industrial (1850–1900) average by 2.43 degrees F (1.35 degrees C).

Looking ahead, there is a one-in-three chance that 2024 will be warmer than 2023, and a 99% chance that 2024 will rank among the top five warmest years.

2023 as ranked by other scientific organizations

Other scientific organizations, including NASA, the Copernicus Climate Change Service offsite link and the UK Met Office have conducted separate but similar analyses that also rank 2023 as the warmest year on record.

Other notable climate findings and events

Global ocean heat content set a new record high: The 2023 upper ocean heat content, which addresses the amount of heat stored in the upper 2,000 meters of the ocean, was the highest on record. Ocean heat content is a key climate indicator because the ocean stores 90% of the excess heat in the Earth system. The indicator has been tracked globally since 1958, and there has been a steady upward trend since approximately 1970. The five highest values have all occurred in the last five years.

Polar sea ice was scant: The 2023 annual Antarctic sea ice extent (coverage) averaged 3.79 million square miles in 2023, the lowest on record. The maximum extent in September was 6.55 million square miles, which was the lowest by a record margin. The minimum extent in February was 690,000 square miles, which set a record low for the second consecutive year. Arctic sea ice coverage averaged 4.05 million square miles in 2023, ranking among the 10 lowest years on record. The maximum extent in March was 5.64 million square miles, which ranked fifth lowest, while the minimum extent in September was 1.63 million square miles, which ranked sixth lowest.

December 2023 set records: Global surface temperature in December 2023 was 2.57 degrees F (1.43 degrees C) above the 20th-century average — the warmest December on record. For the ninth consecutive month, the global ocean surface temperature was also record warm. Looking regionally, North America and South America both had their warmest December on record.

https://www.noaa.gov/news/2023-was-worlds-warmest-year-on-record-by-far

I do understand however that someone would have to be paying attention and give a damn about it order to know these things. That helps explain a lot.

I don't doubt most of that.

Some of it doesn't make sense, but I guess if it's in your article it must all be true.

Stuff like this is just fluff that would raise the eyebrow of the average kindergartener whether it's true or not: Along with the historic heat, Antarctic sea ice coverage dropped to a record low in 2023.

Isn't it a record low every year?? I mean, the average surface temperature is 59 degrees, seems like the ice is going to melt. What am I missing here? Are we trying to spend our way into lowering the temp to 31? Everybody always talking about ice melting is weird. Help me out here?


So, the ten hottest years since 1850 have all been in the last decade. That's scary as hell... as in we're probably doomed.

I tend to think this is more of an ebb and flow type situation. But if this is true...


Carbon (CO2) Emissions




Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions




Fossil Fuel Consumption




Coal Consumption




Renewable Energy



AND we've just experienced the ten hottest years?

I'm not sure what the hell we're going to "legislate" that will change this.


This is going to sound smart-assed (surprise, surprise) but if we all hide in a cave for the next year, do you think that will make the numbers lower for that year? 10 years?


Just, look at these numbers that have been going straight down (or up, in the case of renewables) for 25 - 50 years. And the result is the ten hottest years in the history of the planet?

FUBAR.

Republicans are the only college educated humans that deny anthropogenic climate change. It is rather sad, below the treatment of African Americans.

I don't know if you're just making a general statement, but not a single person has denied climate change in this thread.

As for the whatever that is about African Americans, I have no idea what that is supposed to mean or how it has anything to do with climate?

I’m not sure I understand the African American remark either, but I think the key part of his initial assertion isn’t just the climate change part, but the anthropogenic part, tying it to mankind.

On that front, it does make sense to me, that there was a whole crapton of carbon buried inside the earth and we have all of a sudden put it into the atmosphere over the last several decades. Seems plausible that is causing the “insulation” of heat beyond what is natural or cyclical.

But to your point, I don’t know what the solution is to stave off the path unless we can legitimately suck some of that stuff back out of the atmosphere.

It seems doing nothing about it is their answer. Because you know, charts. For some reason they think a problem that took decades to create can be fixed in a few years and if it's not, that has some deep meaning. That's what's FUBAR.

And then one must wonder where the hell their charts came from.......

The researchers estimate that the world's emissions of carbon dioxide will exceed 40 billion tons in 2023, including nearly 37 billion tons from fossil fuels. Overall emissions are up 1.1% compared to 2022 levels and 1.5% compared to pre-pandemic levels, continuing a 10-year plateau.Dec 5, 2023

https://sustainability.stanford.edu...ns-fossil-fuels-reached-record-high-2023

With the decrease in the use of coal U.S. carbon emissions are down slightly. But then we are second only to China in carbon emissions so there is a lot of work to be done.

hunh?

Climate change is real - it has happened quite often in the history of the earth. The true underlying issue is because of an increase in oxygen levels.

A lot to unpack here,

Glacial periods happen because of obliquity, precession, etc. These are natural variations of earth going around the sun.

To answer the question of what can be done, my quickest solution is fusion energy. It diminishes CO emissions, while also combating the crisis with access to potable water. Developing nations will use fossil fuels to get theirs, and we can’t blame them, we did the same thing. I hope fusion energy becomes practical around 2030. That’s above my pay grade, and Ive been told that is wishful thinking, but that is my solution.

I don’t mean to sound defeatist, but when you factor in population growth, and deforestation, we are in damage control.

Sadly, I'm almost resigned to the same conclusion.

The question becomes, is any of this mess reversible?

Not according to your charts.

I just found out that during the last global warming cycle, when all the ice had melted, people still survived. Of course we’re putting 10,000 X the total airborne carbons per year, that the warming period had airborne at its height. And we are also talking 1000’s of years in near tropical climate worldwide. Life is changing no matter your beliefs or views. One side sees it as a future where air/O2 will be commoditized, and our adversaries see it as everyone getting resort property. The average daily temps will be in the high 80s to low 90s during the colder months… Predictions for 2050.

I don't doubt that things are getting warmer.

I don't doubt things we do today might be accelerating that warming to some degree.

I don't think we have done much to contribute to that nor think we can stop or reverse the warming.

The earth has gone on fairly regular warming and cooling cycles long before humans were a "thing". I think it fairly naive to think we caused this, or can stop this.

The last ice age is about to end and we will be void of ice capped poles for many thousands of years. The earth has a life cycle, and we have very little to do with that.

Mother Nature gets her way no matter that we think or do, just like Father time doesn't stop for anybody or anything.

Are you suggesting we do nothing to try and help prevent it?

Why do I bring up the African American? Because we failed them. After WW 2, we were supposed to be a superpower, a beacon of hope, a trendsetter, we are failing the global community.

Quicker solution is investing in solar, wind and tidal energy. Coal and oil are literally killing planet earth, we have to be better. Some things have to mean more than the gdp.

How do you feel about nuclear energy?

I don’t like the refuse. Half life of spent fuel is like 5-10k years, we have to protect watersheds.

If we have to fire up all of the nuclear power plants, to accelerate fusion energy, I will allow. The global community needs to band together with a common goal, a plan.

I would love to have fusion. It seems like it increasingly gets slow rolled.

On a global scale, which is #1 and #2 ?

Is it biodiversity loss, or access to potable water for underdeveloped nations that are the most pressing issues under anthropogenic climate change. ? You are poisoning your people.

Economy is #1 for a lot.

Republicans are the greatest threat to planet earth. They are only college educated humans that will tell you “it’s a natural cycle, no correlation between co2 and temperature.”

These are the same people that said “hey boy, get your food around back”.

There is a reason much of world hates tUSA, you guys won’t be able to hide behind your hate much longer.

Your hypocrisy is beyond laughable.

Damn cows must be farting in the ocean now.

There is a treason, i mean, reason American students are at best #14 and #17, when it comes to math and verbal.

Be better.

Since 1951, the earliest year on this chart with full stats, the world population (and # of people per square km) has more than tripled from 2.5 billion to over 8 billion (2011-2023). That happened within the last 73 years.....a short blip of time in the history of humanity. To put this into perspective, it took 123 years to go from 1billion to 2 billion (1804-1927) and 12yrs to go from 7 billion to 8 billion. Though the growth has slowed over the past few years, we're still adding 70 million more people per year....all of whom need food, water, natural resources and living space.

(It was impossible to get the columns to line up, the last 3 are: Yearly Change, Net Change, Density (P/Km²))

World Population by Year
Year Population

2023 8,045,311,447 0.88 % 70,206,291 54
2022 7,975,105,156 0.83 % 65,810,005 54
2021 7,909,295,151 0.87 % 68,342,271 53
2020 7,840,952,880 0.98 % 76,001,848 53
2019 7,764,951,032 1.06 % 81,161,204 52
2018 7,683,789,828 1.10 % 83,967,424 52
2017 7,599,822,404 1.15 % 86,348,166 51
2016 7,513,474,238 1.17 % 86,876,701 50
2015 7,426,597,537 1.19 % 87,584,118 50
2014 7,339,013,419 1.22 % 88,420,049 49
2013 7,250,593,370 1.24 % 88,895,449 49
2012 7,161,697,921 1.25 % 88,572,496 48
2011 7,073,125,425 1.25 % 87,522,320 47
2010 6,985,603,105 1.27 % 87,297,197 47
2009 6,898,305,908 1.27 % 86,708,636 46
2008 6,811,597,272 1.27 % 85,648,728 46
2007 6,725,948,544 1.27 % 84,532,326 45
2006 6,641,416,218 1.27 % 83,240,099 45
2005 6,558,176,119 1.27 % 82,424,641 44
2004 6,475,751,478 1.28 % 81,853,113 43
2003 6,393,898,365 1.29 % 81,491,005 43
2002 6,312,407,360 1.31 % 81,660,378 42
2001 6,230,746,982 1.33 % 81,848,007 42
2000 6,148,898,975 1.34 % 81,140,517 41
1999 6,067,758,458 1.34 % 80,445,978 41
1998 5,987,312,480 1.37 % 80,831,219 40
1997 5,906,481,261 1.40 % 81,335,963 40
1996 5,825,145,298 1.43 % 81,925,844 39
1995 5,743,219,454 1.46 % 82,491,461 39
1994 5,660,727,993 1.49 % 83,294,470 38
1993 5,577,433,523 1.54 % 84,747,430 37
1992 5,492,686,093 1.60 % 86,440,226 37
1991 5,406,245,867 1.69 % 90,070,005 36
1990 5,316,175,862 1.77 % 92,471,554 36
1989 5,223,704,308 1.78 % 91,410,334 35
1988 5,132,293,974 1.81 % 91,309,479 34
1987 5,040,984,495 1.84 % 90,921,156 34
1986 4,950,063,339 1.82 % 88,332,726 33
1985 4,861,730,613 1.80 % 85,894,539 33
1984 4,775,836,074 1.79 % 83,951,836 32
1983 4,691,884,238 1.82 % 83,899,367 32
1982 4,607,984,871 1.84 % 83,357,213 31
1981 4,524,627,658 1.81 % 80,619,952 30
1980 4,444,007,706 1.80 % 78,424,835 30
1979 4,365,582,871 1.77 % 75,925,163 29
1978 4,289,657,708 1.75 % 73,885,218 29
1977 4,215,772,490 1.77 % 73,266,608 28
1976 4,142,505,882 1.80 % 73,068,651 28
1975 4,069,437,231 1.85 % 73,920,154 27
1974 3,995,517,077 1.92 % 75,265,573 27
1973 3,920,251,504 1.96 % 75,450,619 26
1972 3,844,800,885 1.98 % 74,637,793 26
1971 3,770,163,092 2.02 % 74,772,756 25
1970 3,695,390,336 2.06 % 74,735,061 25
1969 3,620,655,275 2.08 % 73,844,467 24
1968 3,546,810,808 2.05 % 71,362,642 24
1967 3,475,448,166 2.03 % 69,031,130 23
1966 3,406,417,036 2.08 % 69,305,053 23
1965 3,337,111,983 2.14 % 69,899,645 22
1964 3,267,212,338 2.24 % 71,433,091 22
1963 3,195,779,247 2.21 % 69,092,504 21
1962 3,126,686,743 1.90 % 58,316,134 21
1961 3,068,370,609 1.63 % 49,137,175 21
1960 3,019,233,434 1.65 % 48,941,246 20
1959 2,970,292,188 1.86 % 54,184,091 20
1958 2,916,108,097 2.04 % 58,241,240 20
1957 2,857,866,857 2.03 % 56,864,226 19
1956 2,801,002,631 2.00 % 54,930,490 19
1955 2,746,072,141 2.01 % 54,092,802 18
1954 2,691,979,339 1.96 % 51,700,542 18
1953 2,640,278,797 1.93 % 50,007,898 18
1952 2,590,270,899 1.85 % 47,140,519 17
1951 2,543,130,380 1.75 % 43,808,223 17
1927 2,000,000,000
1900 1,600,000,000
1850 1,200,000,000
1804 1,000,000,000

Too many kids relieving themselves in the "pool."

Or is it too many Russian submarines using ocean water to cool their reactors?

Too much toxic dumping? Heat from decay of things killed by dumping?

Changes in currents from ongoing seismic/geo-volcanic activity and continental drift?

Changes in wind patterns from urban heat islands/other changes in landscape (i.e, deforestation)?

Do modern intensive agriculture practices contribute? (Think Dust Bowl)

How big an impact does "blacktop" (roads/parking lots) make?

Unfortunately, global warming is not a result of any one thing. It's due to a combination of a multitude of things.

That's not to say that we should do nothing. Yet, the focus on certain things while ignoring others is problematic.

Personally, I think a big part of our society's problem is that many people seem to believe they just have to tell people what to think instead of teaching them how to think. Too many people think that if they believe something and they can find numbers somewhere to support it, it must be true. Any numbers that don't support it must be false.

Unfortunately, numbers don't always mean what people think they mean. The numbers are the numbers, but they don't actually tell reasons and implications by themselves. They don't tell the whole story.

I think a big part of our educational systems' problem is that we don't teach enough logic. People don't really understand what "numbers" do and don't actually say.

Come on guys, this is obviously fake news.

Global warming and climate change are all liberal hoaxes, remember?

You left out all the hot air being blown around by our politicians.

And all the gears grinding inside people's heads. Gotta be a lot of friction happening there.

I guess they could instead leave those gears idle and to rust.

Hoaxes? No.


Poorly explained and addressed? Yes.

That would explain the friction.

The choice is either try and address some of it or ignore all of it. The friction comes due to people claiming we shouldn't address any of it by using the excuse that some of it isn't all of it.

Those aren't the only choices. Perhaps it can seem that way to those with rusty gears who are used to letting other people do their thinking for them and seemingly believe that everything is binary.

The very fact that I established that CO2 emissions wasn't the only issue in and of itself shows I do not think it's binary. One of the problems is I don't see the other side coming up with any better or more inclusive plans. You're trying to present a point that I already said wasn't all inclusive. Yet it seems you avoided the actual point I made all together.

You presented a binary choice: "The choice is either try and address some of it or ignore all of it."

That's what I replied to. Your presentation of 2 options. The very definition of binary comes down to an either/or proposition.

If you don't think it's binary, why did you present the choices as such?

I didn't avoid the actual point you made. Rather, I couldn't find it. What point did you allegedly make and where did you make it?

It might have been in one of the posts I didn't click to expand. (I doubt it.) All your posts start out collapsed for me. Too bad for me, I have a hard time resisting curiosity. Maybe I am a little insane, I'm not sure why I keep hoping for a different result.

(Think I'm going to call it a day here. After dealing with VA healthcare the past few days, I don't think I'm in the right frame of mind for dealing with any more shenanigans.)

It was so obvious anyone could see it. If 5000 children are starving it doesn't mean you shouldn't feed any of them just because you can't feed all of them.

That's a completely different argument.

Now if you said if 5000 children are starving and someone came up with a plan to magically feed all the children ambrosia of the gods and said there would be world peace and an end to hunger it would be a closer parallel.

And I'd say you need to do a bunch of different food related initiatives to solve hunger issues instead of hoping and praying that your one magic bullet is going to fix everything.

There is no magic bullet. Even you don't have one. Measures that will help aren't a bad thing.

That's my point. There is no magic bullet. Saying something will fix the problem doesn't actually fix the problem. Unfortunately, people propose vague ideas rather than coherent plans. Reducing CO2 sounds good. Not all the ideas to do so actually work and/or are cost effective and/or come free of unintended consequences.

Let's create giant monstrosity CO2 concentrating plants. Let's put that CO2 in bottled water. Where does that CO2 go next? Is it really reducing it or just moving it around? In theory, it sounds good. In practice, it's a corporation developing a never ending revenue stream bilking people that think they are helping the environment. They're charging people for CO2. They're charging more for their "eco-friendly" CO2. They're getting people to donate directly to their profits. They're burning energy to move that CO2 around. Where is that energy coming from? The CO2 is not actually going away. They're probably recollecting the same CO2 and selling it again. It's a great business plan. Selling an up-priced product made from "free" raw materials by claiming it's fighting climate change. Oh, and they are helping contribute to more plastic waste and by products while they are at it.

Now that I'm thinking of plastics, does anyone know if water filled with micro plastics responds the same as water without micro plastics? Studies are showing that micro plastics are pretty much everywhere now. Could the increased presence of plastic contribute to ocean temperature increases?

Dear God man. Sometimes I don't think you hear yourself.

You're right. I don't have an internal monologue. My brain works more visually.

Sometimes I think that all you hear is yourself. Sadly, it becomes ever more apparent that some people either can't or just don't want to understand things that they don't believe they agree with.

I feel it's simply a matter that most people don't see everything as some huge corporate conspiracy theory. What I've actually been saying seems to be something you actually agree with. Or better yet I think we mainly agree all together. There is more to climate change than strictly CO2. Lessening CO2 emissions alone is only a part of the bigger picture. But reducing CO2 emissions helps.

It seems where we disagree, which often seems is the case, is that I believe you can actually start with something that helps and work your way up from there. You seem to indicate of you can't fix everything all at once the answer is to do nothing. And you seem to come up with every excuse in the book to do nothing.

I think wasting money on things that allegedly help the problem, but in reality add to it are counterproductive.

I don't think we should do nothing. I think we should do a lot of different things, but we should probably make sure they actually work before investing heavily and blindly adopting them.

You don't have to do it all at once. What you do do should have more evidence than a financially incentivised corporation saying we think... (I.e, we think we can get the costs down.)

It's hard to tell how well something works until you try it to see how well it works. Scientific studies are not corporations. It's not as if corporations simply made these ideas up out of thin air. The question becomes how do you know whether they can get the costs down if they don't have the opportunity to get the cost down? What I think it's safe to say we both now is that when something new has to go through the R&D process it's always more expensive and those costs have to be recouped early on. Once you move beyond that point the price most always comes down to some point. How much it comes down is certainly debatable. I remember when both the PC and flat screen TV's came out. As with most technology the cost has been greatly reduced over time.

A difference is that it was easy to see what PCs and flat screens did. They were consumer products and not really touted as solutions to societal problems while asking for donations. The type of CO2 removal shown in the video linked by Spiral isn't a very efficient method. This article details why and elaborates on some pros and cons.

CNET article on CO2 removal technology

The solidifying and burying method sounds better than compressing gas and selling it, but I still have concerns, and it's probably more expensive.

I'm with you that the solidifying and burying method sounds the best based on the information I have seen. I still think you are discounting the fact that technology of all types recoups it's R&D funding immediately and usually goes down after that. Once again you seem to insist on using the word "solution" when a far more accurate description would be simply a single tool in a toolbox to help find a solution. There isn't one single thing in and of itself that creates a solution. Not only do we need to remove CO2 from the air we also have to cut down on the CO2 we're releasing into the air. And even those two things alone aren't a total solution.

And there it is the party of no. .”It’s too expensive. Just throwing money at this won’t fix anything or even help. No no no.” The mantra of the GOOOPers.

The mantra of the gaslighter. I can't argue with what they said, so let me pretend they argued something completely different. Let's call them names while we're at it.

It appears this is going to be your word for the day........ gaslighter

I wish it weren't, but gotta be honest and call things what they are.

As you see it doesn't mean that's what they are.

You’re the one that has concerns, and with the cost, but never explain exactly why. Just bing bing bong. Lol “it won’t work, costs too much.” Bla bla excuses.

Trying to induce doubt is another gaslighter tactic.

Your opinions are not facts. Surely you understand that concept rather than try to cast doubt on the person who made an obvious, accurate observation Mr. Gaslighter.

A system that instead of removing CO2 permanently, but rather moves the CO2 somewhere else where it will shortly later be rereleased into the atmosphere didn't seem a particularly effective solution. Just logically, moving CO2 around without changing it somehow to keep it out of the atmosphere seemed a weird way to go about fixing the problem.

I thought I explained that. It appears I need to better account for my (apparently "hostile"/"adversarial") audience.

Okay, let's look at this a different way. What did your vote actually do?

Ahhhh. Calling the process “weird” explains it all. Not a hostile audience. But the comedy of ignorance is overwhelming right now.

I live in Tennessee. My vote never does anything. The hardliners always get elected here. Nobody I will vote for will be elected. There has only actually been one exception since I moved here. Gov. Bill Haslam when he was running for governor. There was no doubt a Republican would win and he was a very moderate, common sense Republican. Given the alternatives I supported him and he was the governor. Things have gone downhill since.

Back to our regularly scheduled program.....

‘Artificial sun’ sets record for time at 100 million degrees in latest advance for nuclear fusion

Scientists in South Korea have announced a new world record for the length of time they sustained temperatures of 100 million degrees Celsius — seven times hotter than the sun’s core — during a nuclear fusion experiment, in what they say is an important step forward for this futuristic energy technology.

Nuclear fusion seeks to replicate the reaction that makes the sun and other stars shine, by fusing together two atoms to unleash huge amounts of energy. Often referred to as the holy grail of climate solutions clean energy, fusion has the potential to provide limitless energy without planet-warming carbon pollution. But mastering the process on Earth is extremely challenging.

The most common way of achieving fusion energy involves a donut shaped reactor called a tokamak in which hydrogen variants are heated to extraordinarily high temperatures to create a plasma.

High temperature and high density plasmas, in which reactions can occur for long durations, are vital for the future of nuclear fusion reactors, said Si-Woo Yoon, director of the KSTAR Research Center at the Korean Institute of Fusion Energy (KFE), which achieved the new record.

Sustaining these high temperatures “has not been easy to demonstrate due to the unstable nature of the high temperature plasma,” he told CNN, which is why this recent record is so significant.

KSTAR, KFE’s fusion research device which it refers to as an “artificial sun,” managed to sustain plasma with temperatures of 100 million degrees for 48 seconds during tests between December 2023 and February 2024, beating the previous record of 30 seconds set in 2021.

The KFE scientists said they managed to extend the time by tweaking the process, including using tungsten instead of carbon in the “diverters,” which extract heat and impurities produced by the fusion reaction.

The ultimate aim is for KSTAR to be able to sustain plasma temperatures of 100 million degrees for 300 seconds by 2026, a “a critical point” to be able to scale up fusion operations, Si-Woo Yoon said.

What the scientists are doing in South Korea will feed into the development of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor in southern France, known as ITER, the world’s biggest tokamak which aims to prove the feasibility of fusion.

KSTAR’s work “will be of great help to secure the predicted performance in ITER operation in time and to advance the commercialization of fusion energy,” Si-Woo Yoon said.

This announcement adds to a number of other nuclear fusion breakthroughs.

In 2022, scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s National Ignition Facility in the United States, made history by successfully completing a nuclear fusion reaction which produced more energy than used to power the experiment.

This February, scientists near the English city of Oxford announced they had set a record for producing more energy than ever before in a fusion reaction. They produced 69 megajoules of fusion energy for five seconds, roughly enough to power 12,000 homes for the same amount of time.

But commercializing nuclear fusion still remains a long way off as scientists work to solve fiendish engineering and scientific difficulties.

Nuclear fusion “is not ready yet and therefore it can’t help us with the climate crisis now,” said Aneeqa Khan, research fellow in nuclear fusion at the University of Manchester in the UK.

However, she added, if progress continues, fusion “has the potential to be part of a green energy mix in the latter half of the century.”

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/01/climate/nuclear-fusion-record-korea-climate-intl/index.html

This is an honest question. Is it fair to say republicans and trump, have the lead the greatest revolt against science, since mid evil times? May have to lean on my history majors for this one.

As a Homo Sapien walking on this earth I feel no greater obligation to future generations than to leave the earth a better place than when I lived.

Forget the lines we have drawn on the ground as a species and call countries over history. We have grown from small groups of hunter gatherers to a population of 8 billion all over the planet.

As you walk through your local grocery store and go up and down the isles look at how much of what we consume is held in plastic.

Take a moment and think of what humans produce that will not biodegrade. Remember that a river has caught fire and all the smog warnings all over the planet.

Go to a remote island somewhere in any ocean and see what washes up on the beach. Think about the chemical toxins that are produced all over the world.

Remember the oil spills and the results.

Humans on earth pollute. I don't care where they live. We have caused the extinction of species. We have polluted the oceans and poisoned the water we drink and fouled the air we breathe.

It is not about republicans and democrats or countries.

It is about us the Homo sapiens who walk this earth.

Nah. Dr Anthony Fauci would be poisoned by Hemlock or given life imprisonment like Socrates or Galileo.

One can only hope that it eventually turns out that way before it's too late.

Hopefully globally some day we will manage all resources on this planet properly.

All other forms of life on this planet live, die, and return to the earth. It is only humans that have polluted what was once a paradise.

Everything we needed was here from food to medicine. Resources so no human would go hungry. All the energy we could need without pollution if we can learn to harness it.

We have created wonders but have been irresponsible in doing so because of greed.

You know, when the white man came to America he called the natives savages. If only they could have learned how to treat the earth from those they called savages.

It is easy for me to get philosophical about the evolution of man. It was my major in college and even now I keep up.

I believe in science and what man is capable of. However, we have a dark side and it is driven by our pursuit of power and material wealth. We are a complex species capable of wonders, beauty, and compassion. But we are also capable of extreme brutality directed at each other.

When I have gone to places where no human has tread like Alaska. I am blown away by the raw beauty of what is on this planet. At the same time I am aware of mining companies (Pebble Mine) willing and able to destroy the land and water that is crucial for the survival of the people who live there. Kill off salmon runs that are at the top of the food chain that all life in the area depend upon permanently.

I have signed petitions and donated time and money to stop it from being reality for over twenty years.

https://www.nrdc.org/bio/joel-reynolds/president-biden-celebrates-pebble-veto-mine-will-not-be-built

I am filled with gratitude, relief, and joy that the people fought and won. Thankful that president Biden got this accomplished.

‘Like wildfires underwater’: Worst summer on record for Great Barrier Reef as coral die-off sweeps planet.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/04/aust...ildfires-climate-intl-hnk-dst/index.html

trump climate change is a hoax. drill baby drill

There. Now climate change is Biden's fault. That was easy.

Biden isn’t advertising America’s record oil boom

It's wet too.

You folks really need to make up your minds. Is he preventing America from drilling for oil or isn't he? It seems the message changes like the wind. You know, on any given day.

This is easy also:

Tongass National Forest
Further information: Tongass National Forest

Misty Fjords Waterfall
In August 2019, Trump had instructed Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue to exempt Alaska's Tongass National Forest from logging restrictions established nearly 20 years ago during the Clinton administration. The move opens it to potential logging and energy and mining projects. Tongass is the world's largest intact temperate rainforest, containing old-growth cedar, hemlock and spruce, fjords and rivers with salmon runs. It serves as an enormous natural carbon sink, holding an estimated 8% of all carbon stored in U.S. national forests. Unlike most other national forests, most of the forest is in a natural condition. The Forest Service had finalized a plan to phase out old-growth logging in 2016 and Congress had designated more than 5.7 million acres of the forest as wilderness, not to be developed under any circumstances. Should Trump's plan be successful, it could affect 9.5 million acres.[141] On September 25, 2020, the Trump administration submitted a revised environmental impact study which recommended a "full exemption" for the Tongass, opening the forest to more development and logging. Responding, Andy Moderow of the Alaska Wilderness League said that Tongass plays an important role in helping to combat climate change noting that it "stores more than 400 million metric tons of CO2 and sequesters an additional 3 million metric tons annually, equivalent to taking nearly 650,000 cars off the road each year."[142]

In November 2021, the Biden administration announced they would start to reinstate the Roadless Rule, protecting about 9 million acres of Tongass National Forest. In a statement Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said, "'Restoring the Tongas'’ roadless protections supports the advancement of economic, ecologic and cultural sustainability in Southeast Alaska in a manner that is guided by local voces".[143]

Proposed Alaska gold and copper mine
In July 2020, Trump reversed the Obama administration's decision against a proposed Alaska gold and copper mining operation, Pebble Mine in Bristol Bay. The Obama administration had found that a mine would permanently harm the region's sockeye salmon fisheries. The Trump administration's reversal was, according to The Washington Post, typical of the administration's "whiplash" decisions which have "methodically dismantled many of his predecessor's actions on climate change, conservation and pollution." The Army Corps of Engineers denied the Pebble Mine permit on November 25, 2020.[144] The proposal had been opposed by 80 percent of Bristol Bay residents.[145]

Here how about this. dump's plan to destroy the EPA (The Environmental Protection Agency).


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/09/trump-epa-plan-environment

Like most millionaires, Trump doesn’t care about what he leaves behind. Only what he has now.

Only trump is a baby boomer.

I'm convinced now -- global warming is Trump's fault.

That is a BS response.

No he is not. It is a global issue but he is not helping.

His environmental policies for the people of this country and the environment we all share are disastrous.

I'm just wondering if you actually expected a serious response that would address the issue from him?

I am an independent. Israel has a right to retaliate against Hamas. They do not have the right to punish the entire Palestinian population.

However, although I do not agree with all democratic policies the alternative with trump is catastrophic on all levels.

He is a wannabe dictator who wants full control and he has made that clear. He wants to retaliate against any political opponent.
He wants to fill all government positions with loyalists.

He would roll back any environmental democratic policies for spite. All politicians are temporary. The earth we leave behind us is permanent.

Globally what we do now affects future generations. Our responsibility is to pass on a legacy to protect the planet we all share.

Those who want to reduce this to democrats versus republicans are narrow minded.

I can't say I disagree with you. But as we can see some people don't wish to carry on an actual conversation on the topic and I think you should learn to expect that. No matter how serious the topic is, no matter the future consequences are, they just brush it off, ignore it and make fun of it.

Lol. You want me to respond to that?? ^ Trump's a dictator and would ruin the environment out of spite? You two are hopeless.

I should "have an actual conversation" about Trump ruining the planet.

What if... you guys discussed anything, and I mean ANYTHING, without blaming Trump? You know you are the sector of America that will be responsible for his re-election, right?

His record speaks for itself. You don't need to add a thing.

https://earthjustice.org/press/2020/trump-worst-president-for-environment-in-history

The worst record on the environment and public health in our history. Speaks volumes.

It is sad that trump is made of glass and you cannot see through him.

His record and his actions are crystal clear. His environmental policies are public record and still you refuse to look.

No the morons that won’t listen to reason and truth will be the ones responsible to his re-election.

If you do not look how do you expect to see?

All the evidence in the world will not convince stupidity.

Where did I blame trump? He, like many others have helped add to the problem. But the problem was here before trump. And as much as Biden has tried to help it will still be here after he's gone. The issue is why is there an actual fight about it? Why is it political and why aren't we as humans which are all dependent on this planet to survive not all on the same page about it?

No, you just instigate with smart ass comments, because I won't agree with someone calling people stupid because they don't believe Trump is responsible for a warming ocean. CANNOT make it up lol.

This place runs a lot better when you guys sit around like monkeys patting each other on the back. I'm pretty much done. No matter the subject or how reasonable the argument, it's playground b.s.

You've all successfully made Trump a martyr, and I'm too blind to see.

I do think this issue, like Anti-Semitism, shouldn't come down to politics, or left vs right or who did what. I know that I'm as "far left as they come" - whatever that means - but I do miss the days when politics didn't touch everything. Now it's seeped its way into beer, books, sports, education, amusement parks, etc. I think we've reached the point collectively where the house is on fire and we're trying to figure out who is responsible for it more than trying to put out the fire.

Thanks for addressing the threat to humanity as we know it exactly as I thought you would. With a big nothing burger attack on liberals. Well done.

Wrong again. You should know more than anyone that Its his ass wipe supporters that perpetrate the lies about the causes of global warming trying to make it a myth and all.

I do not think his public record is at all humorous.

I do not believe anyone said he is responsible for global warming or oceans being abnormally warm.

All you need to do is look at his public record, policies, and stated plans.

You're not allowed to do that. Everyone knows that naming a former oil executive to head the EPA has nothing to do with the environment and such influences have nothing to do with environmental policies.

No it’s not. That blame falls on ALL GOPers. Get your facts straight.

Posted by FATE…


For the likes of you. BTW, When did he die?

More and faster: Electricity from clean sources reaches 30% of global total

Billions of people are using different kinds of energy each day and 2023 was a record-breaking year for renewable energy sources — ones that don’t emit planet-warming pollutants like carbon dioxide and methane — according to a report published Wednesday by Ember, a think tank based in London.

For the first time, 30% of electricity produced worldwide was from clean energy sources as the number of solar and wind farms continued to grow fast.

Of the types of clean energy generated last year, hydroelectric dams produced the most. That’s the same as in most years. Yet droughts in India, China, North America and Mexico meant hydropower hit a five-year low. Research shows climate change is causing droughts to develop more quickly and be more severe.

People used more electricity than ever last year, about 2% more, an increase of about as much as Canada uses in a year. Some of this new demand was for heat pumps, which are an efficient way to both heat and cool buildings, and for electric vehicles. It was also for electrolyzers, special machines used to get hydrogen out of water, for energy. These are all technologies that provide solutions to climate change.

Other increased demand was for electricity to feed new data centers and for air conditioning as places around the world become hotter.

Solar made up the biggest share of new clean energy last year. More than twice as much solar power was added as coal power. It was the 19th year in a row that solar was the fastest-growing source of electricity generation. A surge in solar installations happened at the end of the year and the report predicts 2024 will see an even larger jump.

China added far more clean power than other countries in 2023

China accounted for 51% of new solar power and 60% of new wind power globally

China added more renewable energy than any other country last year — 51% of the new solar power and 60% of the new wind power globally. China, the European Union, the United States and Brazil together accounted for 81% of new solar generation in 2023.

Yet China was also responsible for 55% of coal generation globally and 60% of China’s electricity generation came from coal. The International Energy Agency says coal is the most carbon-intensive of the fossil fuels.

Scientists say emissions from burning fuels like coal must ramp steeply down to protect Earth’s climate, yet there was an increase in electricity made from burning fossil fuels. China, India, Vietnam and Mexico were responsible for nearly all of the rise.

The report said some countries burned coal to make up for the loss of hydroelectric power they experienced when drought caused their reservoirs to dry up. This is an example of a vicious cycle — when climate change prompts the use of more of the substances that cause climate change in the first place.

Despite all the growth in clean energy, fossil fuels still made up the majority of global electricity generated last year, causing a 1% rise in global power sector emissions. Scientists say even if we slashed all greenhouse gas emissions today, the planet would continue to warm for years because of the amount of pollutants already added to the atmosphere.

2024 projection: clean fuels up, fossil fuels down

Analysts expect the world to use even more electricity in 2024. But renewable energy generation is forecast to grow even faster. That could mean a 2% drop (333 terawatt-hours) in energy generated from fossil fuels.

https://apnews.com/article/renewabl...l-fuels-2718fce0ed37232dc25dbf46fff87955

Trump Reportedly Asks Fossil Fuel CEOs For $1 Billion
Igor Bobic, Chris D'Angelo
Thu, May 9, 2024 at 12:07 PM EDT·4 min read
504


Former President Donald Trump is more than happy to fulfill the oil and gas industry’s wish list if he’s reelected — but he has an asking price.

Trump reportedly solicited top oil and gas executives to give $1 billion for his campaign to return to the White House, vowing in return to undo many of President Joe Biden’s green energy policies if he is elected in November.

Trump hosted the country’s top fossil fuel CEOs at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida last month when he “stunned” executives with the ask, according to The Washington Post. The $1 billion sum would ultimately be a “deal” for the fossil fuel industry, Trump reportedly told the executives, because of the money they would save with him in office. An anonymous industry source told the Post that Trump is likely to get some funds.

The oil and fossil fuel industry has long made its alliances with the Republican Party, which generally supports and promotes fossil fuels. Ahead of the 2024 election, the industry has been drawing up “ready-to-sign” executive orders for Trump if he wins the presidency, aimed at expanding natural gas exports and increasing offshore oil leases, Politico reported this week.

A second Trump term would mean a sharp departure from Biden’s agenda of clean energy, electric vehicles and historic efforts to fight climate change. The former president has falsely called global warming a “hoax” and has vowed to unravel Biden’s landmark climate programs included in the Inflation Reduction Act.

Republicans have spent the entirety of Biden’s term condemning what they describe as the administration’s “war” on energy, even though U.S. oil production and exports of natural gas have never been higher. They accuse Biden of being beholden to “radical environmentalists” — an ironic talking point given Trump and the GOP’s unflinching loyalty to the fossil fuel industry.

In Congress, Republicans have tried to undo many of the Biden administration’s recent environmental rules, including those regulating tailpipe emissions and heavy-duty trucks. Last week, House Republicans passed a package of bills that, among other things, would reverse Biden’s actions to limit drilling across millions of acres in Alaska and to better protect public lands by putting conservation and ecosystem restoration on equal footing with drilling, mining and other extractive uses.

The Biden administration is racing to finalize as many regulations as possible before Republicans would have an opportunity under Trump to roll them back via the Congressional Review Act, which gives Congress a few months’ time to rescind new rules implemented by the White House. If Trump becomes president, however, he could still undo them unilaterally.

Trump appears to be laying the groundwork to quickly implement many of the policy priorities of Project 2025, the sweeping blueprint that right-wing organizations have compiled to guide Trump if he is reelected in November. Certain sections of that pro-Trump memorandum are little more than an oil industry wish list. As HuffPost previously reported, the energy section of the chapter for the Interior Department was authored by Kathleen Sgamma, the president of the Western Energy Alliance, a prominent oil and gas trade association.

Trump’s quid pro quo with the industry comes as the world’s coral reefs are in the midst of a global bleaching event — only the fourth such event on record. Hundreds of climate scientists told The Guardian this week that global temperatures are on track to soar well beyond 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels, the aspirational goal of the landmark Paris climate accords.

For years, scientists have warned about the disastrous consequences of failing to keep temperatures under the 1.5-degree mark, from rising seas and increasingly extreme weather to famines and severe social and economic disruptions. The fossil fuel industry is most responsible for the crisis and has spent decades denying and downplaying the threat, with the help of industry-allied Republicans.

Democrats criticized Trump for cozying up to fossil fuel executives, warning that it would further erode American democracy.

“Big Oil CEOs will happily use the billions they’ve made selling dirty expensive energy to further warp American democracy, if it means they can keep wrecking the planet for free,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) wrote in a post on X, formerly Twitter, on Thursday.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-reportedly-asks-fossil-fuel-160715735.html

US Republican attorneys general sue to stop EPA's carbon rule
Clark Mindock
Updated Thu, May 9, 2024 at 2:29 PM EDT·3 min read
4

FILE PHOTO: The Robert W Scherer Power Plant, operated by Georgia Power in Juliette
FILE PHOTO: Signage is seen at the headquarters of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Washington, D.C.
1 / 2
US Republican attorneys general sue to stop EPA's carbon rule
FILE PHOTO: The Robert W Scherer Power Plant, operated by Georgia Power in Juliette
By Clark Mindock

(Reuters) - Republican attorneys general from 27 U.S. states and an electric utility trade group sued the Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday, seeking to block a landmark rule requiring sweeping reductions in carbon emissions from existing coal-fired power plants and new natural gas plants.

The rule, finalized by President Joe Biden's administration last month as part of an effort to combat climate change, was challenged in three lawsuits filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, including one by 25 states spearheaded by West Virginia and Indiana, another by Ohio and Kansas and a third by the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association.

The rule mandates that many new gas and existing coal plants reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2032. The requirements are expected to force the U.S. power industry to install billions of dollars' worth of emissions control technologies or shut down the dirtiest facilities running on coal.

The regulations are part of Biden’s broader climate agenda and target a sector that is responsible for nearly a quarter of the country's greenhouse gas pollution.

The EPA declined to comment.

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey said in a statement that the regulations are based on emissions reduction technologies that have not been meaningfully deployed in the real world, exceed the EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act, and would radically transform the nation’s energy grid without explicit congressional permission to do so.

He said the rule "is setting up the plants to fail and therefore shutter, altering the nation’s already stretched grid."

National Rural Electric Cooperative Association CEO Jim Matheson, whose organization represents nearly 900 local electric cooperatives, said in a statement that the rule "is unlawful, unreasonable and unachievable."

The lawsuit came a day after 23 Republican attorneys general from states including West Virginia, North Dakota and Texas challenged a different EPA rule that limits the amount of mercury and other hazardous pollutants that can be emitted from power plants.

Legal experts say the EPA's assertion that the emissions reductions are feasible if power plants install carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technologies - which capture emissions before they are released into the atmosphere - is likely to be a major issue in the litigation.

The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set standards that are attainable using technologies that are “adequately demonstrated.” But while the EPA said it believes CCS is viable and cost-effective, opponents say the technology is not ready to be deployed at power plants across the country.

CCS has been installed at dozens of facilities that process various fuels, but just four coal-fired power globally have CCS installed, according to the Global CCS Institute.

“They’ve taken a pretty aggressive view of what it means to have something be adequately demonstrated, and I just think the Supreme Court will look at this and say EPA is out over its skis,” said Jeff Holmstead, a lawyer at the law firm Bracewell and a former EPA official during the administration of Republican former President George W. Bush.

But supporters say billions of dollars in funding in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act will make CCS cost effective, and the Clean Air Act is designed to force technological advances.

“The law was developed to make sure these newer and yet-to-be-deployed technologies are deployed,” said Jay Duffy, a lawyer at the Center for Applied Environmental Law and Policy.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/republican-attorneys-general-sue-stop-125105752.html

Hmmmm.... Payola from oil companies. Well you know what they say.... Grifters gonna grift.