Is the world hurtling irreversibly toward incinerating, extinction-causing, fossil-fuel induced destruction while we’re doing nothing about it? Maybe not, if you consider overlooked and ignored sources of information.
We You will always have Paris
Despite bailing out of the Paris Climate Accord, the United States led the world in reducing CO2 emissions in 2019.
Reports on the inevitable death of the fossil fuel industry are overdone (assuming it isn’t kidnapped in the middle of the night by the next administration and murdered by litigation, regulation and executive fiat). One reason is the advance of technology to remove CO2 and methane from oil and gas activities. Some examples:
Researchers at MIT have devised a system to remove CO2 from the atmosphere efficiently. The process, called “Fordaic electro-swing reactive adsorption for CO2 capture”, should help curtail greenhouse gas emissions.
Continue Reading
It depends on which “debate” you’re talking about. What if there were an honest debate about all aspects of climate change? It wouldn’t be a faux debate about whether the world will end before the next Mardi Gras or during Lent, … or before the next most-important election in history! The discussion could include the causes, the extent, the effects, and the solutions. We could have a panel! The participants would be people who actually know something about the science and the economics (Some do say the world’s standard of living counts. Perhaps the average UN bureaucrat’s can take a hit but there are others who aren’t so fortunate.)
Continue Reading
In January I commented on the partnership that wasn’t and the lawyer whose actions give the rest of us a bad name. That was Stephens et al. v. Three Finger Black Shale Partnership et al. The court of appeal has substituted its original 66-pages with a 67 page opus. Save yourself the trouble of reading
Just because anthropogenic climate change is a legitimate concern doesn’t mean that the most radical pronouncements from the idealogues aren’t fair game for criticism.
Not an idealogue, Bjorn Lomborg, thinks we should worry about it … a little bit. That caution has earned him derision as a skeptic or worse, a denier merely because he believes the “threat” is overstated and the proposed cures are needless and far more expensive than the disease.
Now for the vote-trolling presidential aspirants.
How many trillions for the Green Nude Eel?
Uncle Joe Biden opens with an unmuscular $1.7 Trillion and, in honor of his past, is accused of stealing ideas from the GND. He sweetens the pot by refusing to take money from fossil fuel interests.
Continue Reading
Speedier than Jesse Owens in the ‘36 Olympics, Democrats railroaded the Colorado legislature passed, by party-line vote, Senate Bill 181, a new law that will have a profound effect on oil and gas operations in that state. It replaces Proposition 112, which was rejected by 57 percent of the voters just five months ago.
Among other effects, the new law mandates the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission to redirect its priorities from oil and gas production to protection of public health, safety and welfare, and gives local governments more control over drilling and production. Rather than hear it from me, here are reports from those who were closer to the action:
Continue Reading
The Green New Deal (read it for yourself; its not long), floating around Congress on a cloud of cow farts, is quite a grand and far-reaching manifesto. Here are differing views from the media, think tanks, and other interested parties. They describe it better than I.
Even though the GND is “impossible”, reliably left Slate opines that‘s why some people like it. Impossible plans are good for thinking and thinking leads to dreaming, and dreaming is the only way that change occurs.
But the journey from dreams to reality is perilous. According to Big Think, the GND is a “catalyst to radically restructure the US economy and social structure”. Speaking of peril, among the goals the sponsors want to achieve through government action are:
Co-author Niloufar HafiziThe Colorado oil and gas industry breathed a collective sigh of relief when the state Supreme Court announced its unanimous decision in Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission v. Martinez. The court sided with the Commission in rejecting a proposed rule by a group of teenage plaintiffs that would have precluded the
Co-author Nikki Niloufar HafiziFrom the state of Washington to the streets of Paris, proposed taxes on carbon have been making headlines. Why a carbon tax, and what are the arguments for and against it?
Pricing carbon
A progressive carbon tax is a climate-change mitigation policy preferred by many economists. Their reasoning goes like this: Carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions contribute to collective problems such as air pollution and climate change, but the entities emitting the GHGs don’t pay for the damage to the “atmospheric commons”. The price of GHG-emitting activities is lower than its theoretical market price should be, and humans consume more than they otherwise would of these GHG-intensive products and services (think gasoline). A tax on carbon content would correct this market failure and incentivize market participants (consumers and producers … such as yourself?) to emit less carbon by changing their behavior and using different technologies.
Continue Reading
Any semblance of objectivity on the subject of the day is expressly disclaimed. This post contains distressing words, such as “oil and gas”, “fracking” and “jobs” that could cause severe emotional reactions in sensitive readers. If this post is contrary to your firmly held beliefs, proceed promptly to your downward facing dog.
As a thoughtful reader you might ask, Why should I vote against Proposition 112? Here are a few reasons:
Continue Reading