If 30 million acres of corn for gas is good, using diesel to cut, bale, transport and dump the leftovers in the ocean has to be environmentally better.
Forget the lost capital (please)... taking carbon, vital nutrients, and microbes out of the soil in the name of the environment is bat$*** insane. That's the engine of the ecosystem. That's how you feed people. They don't compost it, they drive it to the ocean and dump it in?? 🫠 Just positioning themselves to soak up carbon credit business. So disgusting.
This madness of "carbon offsets" is no different in kind than kings and priests across the world and centuries sacrificing children, goats, gold, anything of value in hopes of propitiating vengeful gods and fates. The madness in addition of removing a valuable source of nutrients and soil building in a world of people needing food is, like, extra-stupid. OF COURSE ethanol is one of the Original Green Boondoggles and should be abolished immediately. Carbon sinking former corn farmland is just the tip of the Benefits Iceberg.
......"If 30 million acres of corn for gas is good, using diesel to cut, bale, transport and dump the leftovers in the ocean ...."
This might sound silly but as there's no mention of compacting the stuff, and knowing bales of straw have multiple air pockets, the thought occurred that these things would float rather than sink, unless they weighted them down with rocks, - as in the mafia with dead bodies. I probably don't understand the technical side of this plan...
I've often suggested to people who feel we should 'get rid of co2" that they should.aet an example.with an easy experiment. Just take a plastic bag, put it over their head and tie it off. That will restrict all co2... if it works out well, they can get back to me and I might join them. 😉
I often wonder if any of these co2 zealots understand that many commercial greenhouses actually buy machines to produce MORE co2. Our current levels of 400ppm +/- are barely enough for them. They need levels of 1200-1500 ppm for optimum growth. As said above we will probably never reach dangerously high levels BUT we CAN reach dangerously low levels at around 350ppm from what I've read.
I usually refer those who vilify carbon to the above graphic and suggest they firstly remove their own carbon from their lives. Blobs of water don't give much arguments.:-)
OMG! Just when you think you've heard the absolute dumbest example of "planet saving", along comes another more egregious example. My hypothesis about how these fur brain ideas get hatched includes these kids being raised on psychoactive drugs, rather than Gilbert Chemistry Sets.
Throwing agricultural waste into deep oceans is a ridiculous idea. My new startup MuskNHusks proposes instead to use SpaceX Starships to put it into permanent earth orbit.
This has a cost of $20,000 per ton, but I’m sure some woke corporations will pay this to meet their ESG goals.
Dude, totally solid plan. Let's shoot stover into the sun, man, that'll like recycle it back to earth in form of solar energy. Love it, man, brilliant.
No, it would be a waste to burn it all by dumping it into Old Sol; that may accidentally create a black corn hole. I didn’t mention the second part of my plan, which is to unleash the bales as they are in orbit, creating a Saturn-like ring of green matter which would partially block solar radiation and deal a one-two punch to our unceasing and ever scarier foe, which I understand is now called “global boiling”.
If you can turn that stuff into a solid rocket fuel that meets the right parameters for $20,000/ton, we confidently predict Elon will buy MuskNHusks for a tidy sum of money.
I am very pleased you included the referenced paper by Strand and Benford in this post. I would have had a hard time believing anyone could be so stupid. Just proves you can't make this stuff up!
Thanks, Barry. If you're a rabbit hole type, Carboniferous' website cites several papers in this space. S&B was actually a reference in one of those. It has a table that breaks down their sequestration calculations.
I hope someone sends this article to Carboniferous so they can see that WE see what constitutes a loser company. 100% agree the 30 million acres should be returned to prairie. The world NEEDS C02 so all this green grifting is a ridiculous waste of taxpayer money wasted on ‘subsidies’ for everything stupid from this example to solar panels, wind turbines, EV’s and more.
Now you got me started 😆. Yes! And the lithium batteries when they hit the future massive landfills to hold all the solar/wind detritus, can combust and burn, catching the others in there with them on fire and leak lots of really bad junk into the air. The ‘thought leaders’ behind this climate scam are NOT thinking ahead to the massive environmental disaster they will cause.
After 50 years in the power business I was convinced I had seen every whack job “game changer” goofy idea possible. Carbon Sequestration opens a whole new level of nuttiness, supported and encouraged by cash raining out of Washington.
We think it's possible we're nearing bottom when we start burning diesel and bunker fuel to sink bales of corn stover in the world's oceans. (sorry, we're not great at puns....but we tried...)
However, if there were a Ragnar Danneskjold on planet earth who could stop the world's green motor, he'd save the crews and sink the ships and their loads until that plan (and others) were reversed.
To answer your question, there is no evidence CO2 levels can ever reach a dangerous level, but we do know that recent increases have been entirely beneficial.
While I can find some humor in your article, I very much doubt it will do any more than scratch an itch on the green monster's back.
Today we're all actors in a play, a play being performed in the "theatre of the absurd." In a perverse way I have to, 'doff my cap' to the script writers at "Carboniferous." The green monster thrives on absurdity and it would not surprise me to see millions of deluded investors part with their money in order to cash in on a windfall.
The recycling craze shows how easily we are to program into insanity. As the journalist, the late Margaret Wente said, "We're happily sifting coffee grounds to look for dental floss." The populous is generally happy to send their kids to the green propaganda factories to have young minds filled with drivel. Sadly, I even see a shade of green pollution in your writing with the sentence, "Wide-scale adoption of nuclear power is the best route to the deepest cuts in CO2 emissions from the electricity sector in advanced nations."
While the audience applauded when the actors in an earlier scene of this play mouthed the words, "carbon is evil" the thundering cacophony drowned out the protesting voices saying "carbon is the source of life." Our affluence is due to some 600 products derived from refined hydrocarbons ... and many of us Expend a great deal of effort trying to eliminate the multiplier of human effort.
Consider well the fact that human intelligence, applied to molecule found in nature, build the machines that let us do the impossible. Machines let us lift gigantic loads, carry them over thousands of miles while traveling a eye-watering speeds. Yet this is what a multitude of people fight to destroy.
The theater of the absurd has been running the same play for years. It's time we stopped feeding the green monster.
Thanks. The comment relates to physics and the reality of current technology. Not necessarily our views.
If one wanted to reduce CO2 emissions from the electricity sector as deeply as possible (without wrecking living standards or the ability of the developing world to reach ours), we see no other technology at present or around the corner to do so.
"If" and "without wrecking living standards...." being the operational words here.
Please don't misunderstand my critique. It is not a disagreement with any of the ideas you are promoting. I fully support any and all people that fight for sanity in the use of energy. It's that any consolatory tone to the absurdities we are all fighting disturbs me as the criticism of stupidity need to be a 'wake-up' call. I harken back to my days of reading the late, abrasive Petr Beckmann, writer and editor of "Access to Energy." He pulled no punches when evaluating ignorance. Any attempt to placate those who promote mythical energy solutions is doomed to failure. One cannot change a mind that has forsaken reason.
As well this, from Ayn Rand says it all about why we are where we are today.
“The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other - until one day when they are suddenly declared to be the country's official ideology.”
We were hoping to promote exchanges like this with our Substack.
We've spent a lot of years in the applied environmental field, having to stand up to critique for our work in the real world (commonly in high-stakes situations). We've all gotten better for it. So (to all), don't hesitate in the least!
We'll see your Ayn Rand and raise you one. We actually edited the following out of this very post:
"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."
Yes, undoubtedly the words upon which reason hangs. The foundation tenant of critical thinking.
And about the right answer to an intellectual challenge :-)
“When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit.”
And my greatest desire is to see you and the other fighters for a return to reason, particularly in the energy field, the power that drives human affluence, fully succeed.
Our greatest desire, too. The 5+ billion counting on that energy/power are what drives us.
Under the banner: "The planet is going to be fine. Worry about the people".
From our introductory piece, Dec. 10th:
"These are complex, multi-layered issues, with potential second, third and fourth order unintended consequences to civilization, many of which we believe are the forks in the road between prosperity and privation."
Good one! Thanks, Environmental. Few know and fewer care that the anaerobic zone of the oceans is not a dead zone. What amazes me more than the grift and money is how ideology perverts science and this one - environmentalism - more than most.
I donno why you blame environmentalists for ethanol--that's an agriculture subsidy thing, congressional midwest pork. I've never heard an environmentalist be like "oh we won ethanol we're so great."
Then you paid no attention to how the ethanol boondoggle began. Lots of folks are happily on the ethanol gravy train, but a core reason it started was - insanely enough - to reduce carbon emissions.
I feel skeptical of this. It was a stated justification of course. But if reducing carbon emissions was actually a real policy goal that moved legislation, the world would look very different. That's not a real reason that anything happens in this country.
We've tried to be pretty clear that gas booze is a bipartisan failure. In the last post, we wrote:
"We remind readers that both parties supported the Energy Bill of 2007 which created the Renewable Fuel Standard that birthed the ethanol madness. It is a truly bipartisan environmental failure."
In "Crying Fowl", we wrote:
"Corn ethanol. Brought to you by Charlaticians™ in both parties." In that post, we also referred to gas booze as "Bipartisan Cornflakes".
The legislative history shows that it was a boondoogle trade of sorts from the early stages. From our vantage point at the time, it was a bipartisan failure from its early legislative days. With 15 years hindsight, and neither party changing course, we greatly appreciate your perspective. But ours in on the record.
Absolutely right, the praised as ‘kind’ farmer shown running Old Glory through the corn fields is the main reason (through their Congress members) that the renewable fuel standard exists to waste good foodstuffs to be burnt up in gasoline engines. I know everyone likes to add lovable family farmers as a proponent for their side, but this argument stands without throwing in that trope.
Where used, we were specifically noting our experience (kindness, environmental stewardship) and that they weren't going to give away marketable stover due to green altruism.
Bipartisan failure. Who will stop it? Or, will it become like other federal programs (once the genie is out of the bottle...)?
Everything is profitable/green when you draw the accounting box tight enough and pass the buck to someone else.
Worked for Enron, for a while
Forget the lost capital (please)... taking carbon, vital nutrients, and microbes out of the soil in the name of the environment is bat$*** insane. That's the engine of the ecosystem. That's how you feed people. They don't compost it, they drive it to the ocean and dump it in?? 🫠 Just positioning themselves to soak up carbon credit business. So disgusting.
This madness of "carbon offsets" is no different in kind than kings and priests across the world and centuries sacrificing children, goats, gold, anything of value in hopes of propitiating vengeful gods and fates. The madness in addition of removing a valuable source of nutrients and soil building in a world of people needing food is, like, extra-stupid. OF COURSE ethanol is one of the Original Green Boondoggles and should be abolished immediately. Carbon sinking former corn farmland is just the tip of the Benefits Iceberg.
......"If 30 million acres of corn for gas is good, using diesel to cut, bale, transport and dump the leftovers in the ocean ...."
This might sound silly but as there's no mention of compacting the stuff, and knowing bales of straw have multiple air pockets, the thought occurred that these things would float rather than sink, unless they weighted them down with rocks, - as in the mafia with dead bodies. I probably don't understand the technical side of this plan...
I've often suggested to people who feel we should 'get rid of co2" that they should.aet an example.with an easy experiment. Just take a plastic bag, put it over their head and tie it off. That will restrict all co2... if it works out well, they can get back to me and I might join them. 😉
I often wonder if any of these co2 zealots understand that many commercial greenhouses actually buy machines to produce MORE co2. Our current levels of 400ppm +/- are barely enough for them. They need levels of 1200-1500 ppm for optimum growth. As said above we will probably never reach dangerously high levels BUT we CAN reach dangerously low levels at around 350ppm from what I've read.
And 350 ppm or lower seems to be the target, interestingly enough.
💯💯💯
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-elemental-composition-of-the-human-body/
I usually refer those who vilify carbon to the above graphic and suggest they firstly remove their own carbon from their lives. Blobs of water don't give much arguments.:-)
OMG! Just when you think you've heard the absolute dumbest example of "planet saving", along comes another more egregious example. My hypothesis about how these fur brain ideas get hatched includes these kids being raised on psychoactive drugs, rather than Gilbert Chemistry Sets.
https://www.acghs.org/?page_id=4310
They are raised on idiocy spewed by their parents and teachers who for some reason listen to colossal asshats like Klaus Schwab and Bill Gates.
One member of our team shares your hypothesis.
Throwing agricultural waste into deep oceans is a ridiculous idea. My new startup MuskNHusks proposes instead to use SpaceX Starships to put it into permanent earth orbit.
This has a cost of $20,000 per ton, but I’m sure some woke corporations will pay this to meet their ESG goals.
Dude, totally solid plan. Let's shoot stover into the sun, man, that'll like recycle it back to earth in form of solar energy. Love it, man, brilliant.
No, it would be a waste to burn it all by dumping it into Old Sol; that may accidentally create a black corn hole. I didn’t mention the second part of my plan, which is to unleash the bales as they are in orbit, creating a Saturn-like ring of green matter which would partially block solar radiation and deal a one-two punch to our unceasing and ever scarier foe, which I understand is now called “global boiling”.
Sorry Buzen but this idea will fail.
It’s missing the Hyperloop. 😂
🤣🤣🤣
If you can turn that stuff into a solid rocket fuel that meets the right parameters for $20,000/ton, we confidently predict Elon will buy MuskNHusks for a tidy sum of money.
Good luck.
I am very pleased you included the referenced paper by Strand and Benford in this post. I would have had a hard time believing anyone could be so stupid. Just proves you can't make this stuff up!
Thank you very much for a delightful post.
Thanks, Barry. If you're a rabbit hole type, Carboniferous' website cites several papers in this space. S&B was actually a reference in one of those. It has a table that breaks down their sequestration calculations.
Thanks. I dive into that hole this weekend. No point in cramming all the laughter into a couple of days...
I hope someone sends this article to Carboniferous so they can see that WE see what constitutes a loser company. 100% agree the 30 million acres should be returned to prairie. The world NEEDS C02 so all this green grifting is a ridiculous waste of taxpayer money wasted on ‘subsidies’ for everything stupid from this example to solar panels, wind turbines, EV’s and more.
Utility scale battery storage. Put that in the "and more" category.
You left that one out. (We're here to help).
;) Thx!
Now you got me started 😆. Yes! And the lithium batteries when they hit the future massive landfills to hold all the solar/wind detritus, can combust and burn, catching the others in there with them on fire and leak lots of really bad junk into the air. The ‘thought leaders’ behind this climate scam are NOT thinking ahead to the massive environmental disaster they will cause.
Every government subsidy and legislation is nothing more than a UCP (Unintended Consequence Program).
After 50 years in the power business I was convinced I had seen every whack job “game changer” goofy idea possible. Carbon Sequestration opens a whole new level of nuttiness, supported and encouraged by cash raining out of Washington.
For more fun, here's a tidbit from the Washington DC non-approach to actually helping their supposed "energy transition" not happen: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2023/07/25/biden-officials-may-be-blowing-americas-shot-at-rare-earth-independence/?sh=1592cb9866c6
You are doing God’s work.
Thanks for the recognition.
Thanks, Lee.
Take heart.....
We think it's possible we're nearing bottom when we start burning diesel and bunker fuel to sink bales of corn stover in the world's oceans. (sorry, we're not great at puns....but we tried...)
Isn’t the new plan to use autonomous wooden sailing ships as transport, then sink the ships?
We hadn't heard that plan.
However, if there were a Ragnar Danneskjold on planet earth who could stop the world's green motor, he'd save the crews and sink the ships and their loads until that plan (and others) were reversed.
🤞
Now imagine if they added “AI” to their slide deck. Probably good for a 5x bump in valuation.
I'm about to rebrand my mine's mineral output by saying we produce transgender rare earths. That should get us loads of funding!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2023/07/25/biden-officials-may-be-blowing-americas-shot-at-rare-earth-independence/?sh=1592cb9866c6
In our experience, for the PE firms to go for that, you gotta have a bunch of "goodwill" to write up to nosebleed levels first.
A lot of bales would have to go sleep with the hydrothermal vent worms and fishes before that's likely.
I learned a new term "green grift" I think I will start using it. Thanks.
Secondly.... are we for sure that rising CO2 levels are actually a bad thing????
Many people used that term for years before we ever started environMENTAL!
As to your question, the "Social Cost of Carbon" attempts to answer that question. (it's easy to be unconvinced by it, and similar analyses...)
To answer your question, there is no evidence CO2 levels can ever reach a dangerous level, but we do know that recent increases have been entirely beneficial.
Yes, but the loony Left never let pesky things like details get in the way of their attempts at Complete Government Control.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2023/07/25/biden-officials-may-be-blowing-americas-shot-at-rare-earth-independence/?sh=1592cb9866c6
While I can find some humor in your article, I very much doubt it will do any more than scratch an itch on the green monster's back.
Today we're all actors in a play, a play being performed in the "theatre of the absurd." In a perverse way I have to, 'doff my cap' to the script writers at "Carboniferous." The green monster thrives on absurdity and it would not surprise me to see millions of deluded investors part with their money in order to cash in on a windfall.
The recycling craze shows how easily we are to program into insanity. As the journalist, the late Margaret Wente said, "We're happily sifting coffee grounds to look for dental floss." The populous is generally happy to send their kids to the green propaganda factories to have young minds filled with drivel. Sadly, I even see a shade of green pollution in your writing with the sentence, "Wide-scale adoption of nuclear power is the best route to the deepest cuts in CO2 emissions from the electricity sector in advanced nations."
While the audience applauded when the actors in an earlier scene of this play mouthed the words, "carbon is evil" the thundering cacophony drowned out the protesting voices saying "carbon is the source of life." Our affluence is due to some 600 products derived from refined hydrocarbons ... and many of us Expend a great deal of effort trying to eliminate the multiplier of human effort.
Consider well the fact that human intelligence, applied to molecule found in nature, build the machines that let us do the impossible. Machines let us lift gigantic loads, carry them over thousands of miles while traveling a eye-watering speeds. Yet this is what a multitude of people fight to destroy.
The theater of the absurd has been running the same play for years. It's time we stopped feeding the green monster.
Thanks. The comment relates to physics and the reality of current technology. Not necessarily our views.
If one wanted to reduce CO2 emissions from the electricity sector as deeply as possible (without wrecking living standards or the ability of the developing world to reach ours), we see no other technology at present or around the corner to do so.
"If" and "without wrecking living standards...." being the operational words here.
.
Please don't misunderstand my critique. It is not a disagreement with any of the ideas you are promoting. I fully support any and all people that fight for sanity in the use of energy. It's that any consolatory tone to the absurdities we are all fighting disturbs me as the criticism of stupidity need to be a 'wake-up' call. I harken back to my days of reading the late, abrasive Petr Beckmann, writer and editor of "Access to Energy." He pulled no punches when evaluating ignorance. Any attempt to placate those who promote mythical energy solutions is doomed to failure. One cannot change a mind that has forsaken reason.
As well this, from Ayn Rand says it all about why we are where we are today.
“The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other - until one day when they are suddenly declared to be the country's official ideology.”
We were hoping to promote exchanges like this with our Substack.
We've spent a lot of years in the applied environmental field, having to stand up to critique for our work in the real world (commonly in high-stakes situations). We've all gotten better for it. So (to all), don't hesitate in the least!
We'll see your Ayn Rand and raise you one. We actually edited the following out of this very post:
"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."
Thanks for your support!
Yes, undoubtedly the words upon which reason hangs. The foundation tenant of critical thinking.
And about the right answer to an intellectual challenge :-)
“When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit.”
And my greatest desire is to see you and the other fighters for a return to reason, particularly in the energy field, the power that drives human affluence, fully succeed.
Our greatest desire, too. The 5+ billion counting on that energy/power are what drives us.
Under the banner: "The planet is going to be fine. Worry about the people".
From our introductory piece, Dec. 10th:
"These are complex, multi-layered issues, with potential second, third and fourth order unintended consequences to civilization, many of which we believe are the forks in the road between prosperity and privation."
Good one! Thanks, Environmental. Few know and fewer care that the anaerobic zone of the oceans is not a dead zone. What amazes me more than the grift and money is how ideology perverts science and this one - environmentalism - more than most.
Thanks!
I donno why you blame environmentalists for ethanol--that's an agriculture subsidy thing, congressional midwest pork. I've never heard an environmentalist be like "oh we won ethanol we're so great."
Then you paid no attention to how the ethanol boondoggle began. Lots of folks are happily on the ethanol gravy train, but a core reason it started was - insanely enough - to reduce carbon emissions.
I feel skeptical of this. It was a stated justification of course. But if reducing carbon emissions was actually a real policy goal that moved legislation, the world would look very different. That's not a real reason that anything happens in this country.
The real reason for everything is money and power. Everything else is a smokescreen for the power-grabbers' actions.
We've tried to be pretty clear that gas booze is a bipartisan failure. In the last post, we wrote:
"We remind readers that both parties supported the Energy Bill of 2007 which created the Renewable Fuel Standard that birthed the ethanol madness. It is a truly bipartisan environmental failure."
In "Crying Fowl", we wrote:
"Corn ethanol. Brought to you by Charlaticians™ in both parties." In that post, we also referred to gas booze as "Bipartisan Cornflakes".
The legislative history shows that it was a boondoogle trade of sorts from the early stages. From our vantage point at the time, it was a bipartisan failure from its early legislative days. With 15 years hindsight, and neither party changing course, we greatly appreciate your perspective. But ours in on the record.
Absolutely right, the praised as ‘kind’ farmer shown running Old Glory through the corn fields is the main reason (through their Congress members) that the renewable fuel standard exists to waste good foodstuffs to be burnt up in gasoline engines. I know everyone likes to add lovable family farmers as a proponent for their side, but this argument stands without throwing in that trope.
Fair point.
Where used, we were specifically noting our experience (kindness, environmental stewardship) and that they weren't going to give away marketable stover due to green altruism.
Bipartisan failure. Who will stop it? Or, will it become like other federal programs (once the genie is out of the bottle...)?
My garden loves straw, and bales of rotting vegetation. Whose doesn't? Oh right... vertical farms owned by Amazon.
Very perceptive comment. Here is some fun for you about the government's failure to implement even things they champion: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2023/07/25/biden-officials-may-be-blowing-americas-shot-at-rare-earth-independence/?sh=1592cb9866c6
Why is it not a surprise that Microsoft, Stripe, etc are finding this latest sickening boondoggle?
Hedging?
"Sustainabilchemy" (optics)...... future carbon markets (might they have stakes in these firms)?