Spending billions to reduce global warming worthless ideas by politicians
To the editor:
The March 21 staff editorial, “Make better use of fossil fuels” stated that U.S. Reps. David McKinley, R-W.Va., and Collin Peterson, D-Minn: “have introduced a bill, HR 1796, to make use of carbon (CO2) capture technology more attractive to industries, including electric utilities.” And that “nearly $2 billion worth of the tax incentives have not been used.”
About 95 percent of the greenhouse gas (GHG) effect comes from water vapor. Only 0.117 percent of the GHG effect is due to man-made atmospheric carbon dioxide(CO2).
About 45% of man-made CO2 is coming from “coal” fired power plants world-wide, that brings the CO2 figure down to 0.0526% of the total GHG effect worldwide for “coal.”
America burned about 9% of the total coal being burned worldwide in 2016, which brings the U.S.A. contribution to GHG gas “effect” down to 0.0047 percent.
The natural variability of the ocean and land CO2 absorption/emission cycle rates renders the tiny man-made CO2 figure meaningless; especially when you consider that they hold about 2400 times more CO2 than man-made atmospheric CO2 and act as a giant heat-sink storage reservoir, releasing and absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere depending on temperature differentials at the air-sea-land interface, microbe activity, etc. Sea temperatures can go up or down depending on cloud cover, airborne particulates and what the 40,000 mile long mid-ocean “volcanic” mountain chain (“Tank Heater”) is doing. The Tank Heater injects heat and CO2 into the water 24/7/365.
As you can see, the politicians idea of spending billions to reduce global warming, by pumping microscopic amounts of CO2 from the coal-fired power plants into the ground or some other containment is essentially worthless for reducing global warming. Same goes for Minnesota’s proposed H.F.700 S.F.850 legislation to reduce CO2 emissions.
The only benefit I see for this legislation would be for those who want to impose “carbon taxes” onto industrial sectors that generate CO2. And, for those who sell the “carbon capture” systems.
Phil Drietz,
Delhi
COMMENTS