Modern Debacle Of Wasted Trillions. Consensus: Efforts To Prevent Climate Change “Will Almost Surely Fail”!

solar arrayScientific Consensus: “Efforts to curtail world temps will almost surely fail”

By Kenneth Richard

Already this year there are 6 peer-reviewed papers examining efforts to curtail CO2 emissions through the use renewable energies. They all conclude that the effort won’t be successful. Given the trillions already committed and at risk of being totally wasted, one has to seriously question the wisdom of the effort.

In fact, some think the renewable energy effort could make things even worse.

What follows are 6 scientific publications from this year alone that tell us the climate protection efforts are not working.

1. Jones and Warner, 2016

“Here we quantify the changes in the global energy mix necessary to address population and climate change under two energy-use scenarios, finding that renewable energy production (9% in 2014) must comprise 87–94% of global energy consumption by 2100. Our study suggests >50% renewable energy needs to occur by 2028 in a <2 °C warming scenario

Press release here.

“Efforts to curtail world temps will almost surely fail”

The Texas A&M researchers modelled the projected growth in global population and per capita energy consumption, as well as the size of known reserves of oil, coal and natural gas, and greenhouse gas emissions to determine just how difficult it will be to achieve the less-than-2 degree Celsius warming goal.  “It would require rates of change in our energy infrastructure and energy mix that have never happened in world history and that are extremely unlikely to be achieved,” explains Jones.   “Just considering wind power, we found that it would take an annual installation of 485,000 5-megawatt wind turbines by 2028. The equivalent of about 13,000 were installed in 2015. That’s a 37-fold increase in the annual installation rate in only 13 years to achieve just the wind power goal,” adds Jones.  Similar expansion rates are needed for other renewable energy sources.  “To even come close to achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement, 50 percent of our energy will need to come from renewable sources by 2028, and today it is only 9 percent, including hydropower. For a world that wants to fight climate change, the numbers just don’t add up to do it.”

Read rest…

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (5)

  • Avatar

    Miner49er

    |

    Carbon dioxide from fossil fuels use does not affect climate whatsoever. Maybe climate is warming. It is supposed to be warming, because earth is in an interglacial period. Which begs the question why some scientists and government agencies try to pad the record by “adjusting” prior-period temperature data.

    Its very simple. Nature sequesters CO2 as limestone (calcite). The higher the atmospheric CO2 partial pressure, the faster it becomes limestone.

    Climate change results from a combination of (non-CO2) causes, such as sunspots, solar orbital variations, cosmic rays’ effect on clouds, and plate tectonics (well documented elsewhere). But it cannot be caused by CO2 arising from fossil fuels use, because nature efficiently recycles CO2 as carbonate minerals (limestone) through numerous calcification processes.

    Only 3% of CO2 emissions come from fossil fuels use. Most of the rest arises from rotting vegetation in swamps and jungles. Carbon dioxide emissions and fossil fuels use are beneficial, and climate change is a false premise for regulating them. See http://www.thegwpf.com/28155/.

    There is no empirical evidence that CO2 from fossil fuels affects climate. Human activities cause only about 3% of all carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to the atmosphere. The rest arise from rotting vegetation. Changes in temperature cause changes in CO2 emissions from these sources, and are not caused by them.

    CO2 is in equilibrium. Mineral carbonates are the ultimate repository of atmospheric CO2. Anyone who passed 10th grade chemistry can know this using public information. Limestone and marble are familiar forms of mineral carbonate. CO2 is an essential component of mineral carbonate (CaCO3, for calcium). See the paper http://bit.ly/1NziTF4 by Norwegian researcher Tom Segalstad.

    Carbonates form in seawater and soils through biological and chemical calcification processes. The simplified formula is CO2 + CaO => CaCO3. Anyone can make calcite quickly in a kitchen by mixing carbonated water with quicklime.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Why spend $$Billions of borrowed dollars in a vain attempt to alter temperature by less than 1/2 degree … especially considering the 1/2 degree would provide more benefits than drawbacks .
    What scientific body has said and proven global cooling is better than global warming ?

    The scary global warming industry has promoted fear about a warming world
    that is unfounded . Nobody complained when the world started coming out of the most recent ice age long be for Hollywood jetsetters where running around the world model boinking and grant seeking “renewable ” companies held their beaks open for tax payer cash .

    Global warming is like vegetables . They are good for us and so is a warming world . Enjoy it while it lasts .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Miner49er

    |

    The theory of human-caused climate change is based on a false premise. Humans fossil fuels use causes only 3% of all carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere.

    Nature promptly sequesters ambient CO2 in air as calcite (limestone) and other carbonate minerals. CO2 + CaO => CaCO3. You can make calcite in your kitchen by mixing carbonated water and quicklime.

    So all the cost and hysteria of the global warming movement is a colossal waste. Tens of trillions of dollars wasted on foolish superstition.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Wasted trillions.
    Keep listening to the alarmists.
    Keep listening to the leftists.

    They’ll lead you to their goal

    ECONOMIC RUIN

    It has never been about ecology, humanitarianism, or any other exalted ideal.

    It is always about the ruling elite controlling ( enslaving ) the myriad masses.

    And the word ” masses ” should be closely examined for it is the exact word used to refer to the general populace by not only Karl Marx but Adolf Hitler as well.

    But of course, the propagandist left including the MSM will always tell you that Marx and the other commies were left wing while Adolf Hitler was supposedly right wing.

    There is no distinction between the various appellations of totalitarian government. They are all one and the same.

    Any form of totalitarianism is leftist extremism.

    Right wing extremism is the diametric opposite : Anarchy.

    So the next time some politician of msm jerk says:

    RIGHT WING EXTREMISM

    I invite you to ask them identify the anarchists.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    JayPee addresses the human toll of leftist totalitarianism enslaving the “masses”. In addition, there has been another push recently to embrace leftist (socialist, communist, Marxist) economic systems.

    Here’s something that modern history seems to have conveniently forgoten: All leftist economic systems eventually fail abysmally, devastating the very “masses” they claim to support. Advocates of “European style socialism” are quick to argue that several European countries do “just fine” with [i]that[/i] kind of socialism.

    Here’s the rub. Socialism as an economic system simply doesn’t work. It does to some extent succeed in confiscating wealth and redistributing [i]some[/i] of it to people who have less, but that also acts as a significant negative drag on otherwise healthy economies. Socialism is always at best a costly compromise that at best should only be a path of last resort. To the extent that any country embraces socialism, they are accepting significant losses on prosperity. European countries who have accepted socialist programs often rely on countries like the United States to fill in the missing gaps such as national defense, technology R&D, etc. (Another form of international socialism ironically…)

    Socialism is not the foundation of any sound economy. Socialism is always an anchor holding back prosperity. If not for the tool of propaganda this blight would be exposed for its real record and dismal history.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Loading Disqus Comments ...

No Trackbacks.