Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change

What measurements?

I have no friggin' idea what your blathering about.

Yaaaawwwnnnnn. Of course they do - they get paid to support that theory.

 

Nope. There's no other way to read: "100 percent carbon pollution-free electricity (CFE) by 2030."

 

My neighbor's grandson threw a no-hitter in minor level Little League yesterday - think he'll sign with the Yankees by saturday?

what?

I LOOKED AT IOWA HOURS AGO. BFD.

 

The reserve baseload capacity is not just in Iowa.

 

The measurements of the Hays claim that with wind power, people have to pay more for fossil fuel backup.

And, science doesn't work that way.

 

And, the 50% that you failed to mention?

Where did THAT come from?

 

LOL!!

Iowa is a perfectly good model microcosm.

And, it does not support your claim.

 

It does, because it cannot be otherwise.

 

I never said people have to pay more. I said the true cost was not presented.

 

Just a local special subset: "at least half of which will be locally supplied clean energy"

 

Have you ever been to Iowa? It's hardly a "good model microcosm".

P.S. I'm still trying to find your post on Iowa. Could you give me the link. Thks.

 

So, who IS paying if it isn't the people using the power?

 

Expense to keep fossil fuel capacity running is laid off on other customers until Iowa needs to call on it.

 

You left out MAJOR parts of this memo, thus misleading posters concerning what is being ordered!!

This directive is TO THE GOVERNMENT, not to the population in general.

The 100% clean energy aspect means that the government will move to clean energy.

The zero emissions vehicle objective is to have the government use zero emissions vehicles.

Etc.


It does NOT say that the USA will be 100% clean energy. In fact, it identifies that government objective as being "carbon free" - which could potentially be approached by technology to remove carbon.

Plus, there is the line in that document that allows buying up to half their need at night from sources that are not clean energy sources.

The government is a consumer of electricity. They can buy the electricity they want.

I don't see any indication that this government action would cause the "base load" issue you bring up.

 

This MOU supports the Biden-Harris administration's goal of a carbon pollution-free power sector by 2035, as well as Congress' direction in the Energy Act of 2020 to permit 25 gigawatts of solar, wind and geothermal production on public lands no later than 2025.Jan 12, 2022

Biden-Harris Administration to Accelerate Reviews of Clean ...

 

And remember, that was before WV v. EPA rendered climate change moot.

 

That memo concerns public lands. Plus, a "sector" is obviously less than the USA as a whole.

You need to be clearer about why you posted this memorandum.

 

Doesn't matter what it "concerns." It mentions the Biden administration's goal. "This MOU supports the Biden-Harris administration’s goal of a carbon pollution-free power sector by 2035 . . . "
And the reference to "a carbon pollution-free power sector" refers to eliminating all fossil fuel power generation in the US.

 

IPCC has been wrong since the beginning. When those Himalyan glaciers are gone (IPCC predicted they would be gone in 2035, that was so far off they had to apologize for that fake prediction), when the polar bears and snow leopards are gone, when their grossly exaggerated avg global temperature predictions come true, when there is no snow in the UK (prediction made in 2000 (and repeated in 2001, 2004) that winter snow would be a rare event in the UK by 2020), when the earth roation rate increases (its actually slowing), maybe I'll believe the IPCC.

But I doubt I will ever believe the IPCC. They have been so wrong so many times they are worthless.

 

Birthed in manipulation. Excellent book.
Searching for the Catastrophe Signal: The Origins of The ...
https://www.amazon.com › Searching-Catastrophe-Sign...

Bernie Lewin takes us back to the start and traces the beginnings - through the original cooling and warming scares - and details the extraordinary paths which ...

 

I remember in the early 1970's being taught in science about the coming global freeze. People were going to have to migrate towards the equator, there would not be enough land for farming and there would be famine. People would create underground cities to escape the cold.

It bothered me quite a bit. I remember thinking it would be better if the earth warmed. I didn't learn it was all BS and a scam until much later in life.

 

There have been major increases in human understanding of how this universe, including Earth, works in the last 50 years.

Today, our understanding has to match the gigantic body of evidence we have gained.

 

And despite that 50 years of “education” they are wrong on every prediction. Miami isn’t under water, there is still plenty of snow in the UK, polar bears are fine, Himalayas still covered in glaciers, earth rotation not speeding up, global temp not increasing anywhere near predictions and on and on. These so-called experts are always wrong.

 

Is it possible that the predictions haven't come true yet is because it isn't time yet? Most predictions are about 2050 or so.

 

The goal line keeps moving as the predictions don't come true. 25 years ago we were supposed to be dead by now. But Obama's 2 swanky beach houses are no closer to being underwater.