Britain's new prime minister, Liz Truss, is set to ease "green" controls on energy production in order to revive the nation's energy industry and curtail reliance on Russian fuel supplies. This means lifting the moratoriums on fracking and North Sea oil pumping, among other measures.
Though these measures shouldn't substantially alter the United Kingdom's carbon footprint, that point is liable to get lost in consternation over the rollback of "green" limitations.
Germany, which has also been guzzling a large portion of Russia's natural gas, is now being forced to return to coal-fired power plants in order to keep homes warm and businesses humming. The coal plants however do not have to pollute the atmosphere, as they doubtless will be equipped with modern scrubbers and filters that prevent harmful sulfur and other chemicals from going up the smokestacks.
But is the carbon situation as bad as the media and green politicians tell us? If not, Europe may find that its energy problem is solvable. No need to depend on Russia or on renewables, either. Why? Because atmospheric carbon is far more helpful than harmful, according to two highly accredited Princeton physicists, a thought that -- if not smothered by news media -- is likely to resonate with Americans frustrated over high gasoline prices and, in some locales, exorbitant utility bills.
William Happer and Freeman Dyson, the physicists, have scorned "climate change hysteria" and argued that
https://dof.princeton.edu/about/clerk-faculty/emeritus/william-happer
The late Freeman Dyson
https://www.ias.edu/sns/dyson
Dyson interview
Happer interview
Though these measures shouldn't substantially alter the United Kingdom's carbon footprint, that point is liable to get lost in consternation over the rollback of "green" limitations.
Germany, which has also been guzzling a large portion of Russia's natural gas, is now being forced to return to coal-fired power plants in order to keep homes warm and businesses humming. The coal plants however do not have to pollute the atmosphere, as they doubtless will be equipped with modern scrubbers and filters that prevent harmful sulfur and other chemicals from going up the smokestacks.
But is the carbon situation as bad as the media and green politicians tell us? If not, Europe may find that its energy problem is solvable. No need to depend on Russia or on renewables, either. Why? Because atmospheric carbon is far more helpful than harmful, according to two highly accredited Princeton physicists, a thought that -- if not smothered by news media -- is likely to resonate with Americans frustrated over high gasoline prices and, in some locales, exorbitant utility bills.
William Happer and Freeman Dyson, the physicists, have scorned "climate change hysteria" and argued that
✓ More atmospheric carbon tends to boost crops, which benefits humanityWilliam Happer
✓ The effect on climate change is real but does not seem to be perilous
✓ The more CO2 we pump into the atmosphere, the less effect it has on warming
✓ Diminishing returns: the CO2 impact decelerates logarithmically
✓ Computer models are way off base and not useful for prediction
✓ Though atmospheric carbon has risen 40% since the pre-industrial era, the Earth's atmosphere shows only a slight increase in temperature -- and most of that increase came before the 1940s, despite worldwide fossil-fuel use having surged greatly since then
https://dof.princeton.edu/about/clerk-faculty/emeritus/william-happer
The late Freeman Dyson
https://www.ias.edu/sns/dyson
Dyson interview
Happer interview
No comments:
Post a Comment