JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

Carbon Capture fails again: Chevron spends $600 a ton to bury fertilizer under the NW Shelf

Stuffing a useful gas into holes under the ocean is harder than they thought

Chevron spent $3 billion to put just 5 million tons of carbon dioxide under the ocean floor. The project was plagued with delays and problems with sand clogging the machinery.  They captured about one fiftyth of the Chevron emissions in a five year period.

CCS is a modern industrial talisman:

Chevron concedes CCS failures at Gorgon, seeks deal with WA regulators

Reneweconomy

Chevron is understood to have spent more than $3 billion building the carbon capture facility, but it took several years after the start of gas production for the Gorgon CCS project even to begin operation due to delays and technical difficulties. The first CO2 was injected into an undersea deposit in 2019.

It is understood regulators may ask Chevron to offset the emissions it failed to store by purchasing offsets from either local or international carbon markets. If Chevron is made to buy Australian Carbon Credit Units, which currently trade at above $20 per tonne, the cost to the company could easily exceed $200 million.

So they could have done it all 30 times cheaper. (Or, if they had used it to grow plants and make beer they might have broke even and made something useful.)

How many cyclones will the Chevron CCS stop? Is that 0.0 or 0.00?

The Australian taxpayers put in $60m which could have been used, say, to add one medical MRI in every capital city.

CCS is a fantasia wand for weak leaders who don’t want to brave up and just say “Carbon is useful”.  Greens know it doesn’t work, and so do skeptics.

h/t RicDre

9.9 out of 10 based on 89 ratings

194 comments to Carbon Capture fails again: Chevron spends $600 a ton to bury fertilizer under the NW Shelf

  • #
    John F Hultquist

    I know it is a cliché, but you couldn’t make this schist up.

    360

    • #
      clarence.t

      Its real and its alive… and totally bizarre !

      140

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        It is, without doubt, The Ultimate Expression of Evil when this offshoot of the UNIPCCCs concepts is given such serious endorsement.

        There was almost certainly a time in the past when anybody who had:

        – enrolled our nation in a programme to build out of date steam powered submarines.
        – designed a money hungry, inefficient electricity generation system based on wishful thinking and named it after an earlier highly successful, nation building, water storage project.
        – allocated $400 million of our taxes for essentially private use,

        Would be held to account.

        This nation has ignored these insults and so demonstrated that we are a nation without backbone.

        490

    • #
      cohenite

      It’s entirely made up. My good mate, the late John Harbornne wrote about the lie of carbon capture 12 years ago. Basically CC uses well established methods and as a method only has 2 problems: firstly the energy required is more then energy produced by the burning of the coal. Secondly, the waste disposal involves more area then the mined coal. Fossils are using this BS as a distraction hoping it will keep the greenies off their backs:

      https://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8408

      It’s a money grift though. Newcastle uni received a $30 million grant to develop CC technology:

      https://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2014/03/clean-coal-and-gassy-money-and-wasted.html

      260

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        Yes. I worked with John, he was a lovely guy.

        70

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        From the linked article;

        “Professor Behdad Moghtaderi, said “greenhouse gases still needed to be reduced.”

        If a “Professor” said that, it’s obvious that he is a politician and not an industrial chemist.

        There’s absolutely no human origin CO2 contribution to Global Warming as there is No mechanism by which “photons” can be fired back to Earth from the heavens.

        The whole concept of CO2 induced global warming is based on a deceptive assumption that somehow thermal energy is trapped by the CO2 molecules and defies the laws of physics and thermodynamics and remains in the atmosphere.

        It is deception of the highest order and deserves investigation by the courts.

        320

        • #
          Sceptical Sam

          ….deserves investigation by the courts

          Which court would that be exactly?

          30

          • #
            Kalm Keith

            Once again; Thank you for your continued support and understanding.
            Much appreciated.
            🙂

            60

          • #
            Kalm Keith

            “….deserves investigation by the courts”.

            And as to your question, yes it was a joke.

            There are no courts.

            60

          • #
            Sceptical Sam

            You have my support KK. No problems.

            Accuracy, however, ensures no misunderstanding.

            31

    • #
      Ted1

      Somebody can make this up, and does, and sends us the bill.

      10

  • #
    Bill Burrows

    Why get our knickers in a twist over CCS? The following comment is repeated from yesterday’s post on “What climate disaster? The GBR …….etc”. Yet it seems very relevant to the impending discussion here. It challenges the very need for Australia to have to do anything to store GHG’s, as we are more than pulling our weight already! I hope this comment is allowed a re-run. We need to stop pussyfooting around this wider issue. Quite frankly IMHO our politicians and bureaucrats have got out of their depth:-

    Australia has already achieved net zero CO2 emissions (in terms of current FCCC, IPCC and Australian NGGI guidelines) – and well before 2050! Consider:
    It was recently announced that we will be accounting for all net CO2 emissions from all lands in the LULUC&F sector (cf. only c.1% of the land mass included in our Kyoto Protocol accounts) [Link: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Environment_and_Energy/ClimateBills2020/Submissions #588, p.13 ].

    The only practical way to fully sample all net emissions at a continental scale (769 M ha) is via inversions, based on satellite retrievals of the column averaged dry air mole fraction of CO2 (XCO2) measured from the top of the Earth’s atmosphere to its surface. The OCO-2 satellite provides c. 65,000 worldwide observations per day that pass quality screening (https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-549-2017) – making it possible to estimate the distribution and magnitude of CO2 in regions that have sparse in situ surface atmospheric monitoring [e.g. Australia] (https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6663-2021).

    Detmers et al. (2015) (https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL065161) and Chevallier et al. (2019) (https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-14233-2019) have used these techniques and respectively revealed a natural (‘managed land’) flux in Australia of 770 ± 110 M t CO2/yr (net sink c.366 Mt CO2 after subtracting fossil fuel emissions in 2011) and a natural flux of c.697 Mt CO2/yr (net sink c.282 Mt CO2 after subtracting fossil fuel emissions in 2017) [See: https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/australia for fossil fuel emissions]. [The inferred natural flux for 2017 is scaled from the OCO-2 inversion in Chevallier et al. (2019) Fig. 3].

    The proximity in value of these net sinks for Australia is rather surprising – given 2010-11 experienced a strong La Niña and 2015-16 was a strong El Niño period. It is posited that the former led to massive regeneration of perennial vegetation with surviving recruits entering the steeper slope of sigmoid growth by 2017.

    Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere (CO2 concentration at Cape Grim increased by 3.6% from Jan 2011 to Jan 2017) also improve the water use efficiency of vegetation. Furthermore, northern wet season (October–April) rainfall deciles for the 20 years (1998–99 to 2017–18) show wet season rainfall was very much above average for the 20 year period 1998-99 to 2017-18. [See: https://www.csiro.au/en/research/environmental-impacts/climate-change/state-of-the-climate/previous/state-of-the-climate-2018/australias-changing-climate ]. Most woody vegetation is located in the northern half of the continent.

    The two inversion studies cited above suggest we are currently a net sink of c.320 Mt CO2 per year – after averaging the La Niña and El Niño year results and deducting all fossil fuel emissions for each respective year from the ‘natural’ flux.

    Australia is the 6th largest nation in area in the world (and in the main has a land mass covered by CO2 absorbing perennial vegetation), yet it has far fewer people than live in a single world mega city (e.g. Tokyo). Yearly fossil fuel emissions generated by anthropogenic sources within this country (https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/australia) are more than offset by the capacity of our LULUC&F sector (‘landscape’) to absorb them. Net zero? QED!

    200

    • #
      John R Smith

      Informed and informative post.
      I clicked to the CISRO link.
      The first two paragraphs stated basically, Australia’s average temp has increased 1C since 1910.
      Then, this increase has led to extreme heat and drought events.
      I consider both assertions highly questionable at best.
      (Outright fibs actually.)
      Is the average temp of entire continent even measurable to an accuracy of 1 degree (C or F), especially since most of the data has been algorithmed beyond recognition. (And would that mean anything anyway?)
      The last 110 years is one of the most stable climate periods the planet has ever seen.
      The climate issue and the public health issue (just to name two,) have nothing to do with climate or health … or facts.
      I repeat myself, the conflict we are in is raging in a completely different theater, and we have no idea how to get there.

      250

      • #
        Klem

        Yes we do, it’s simple: Stop voting for the Left.

        130

        • #
          John R Smith

          To paraphrase my Emperor, Joe Biden, quoting one of his mentors …
          “it’s not who votes, but who controls the voting machine software.”
          In my prefecture and large swaths of the domain, elections are pre-fortified.

          170

        • #
          Kalm Keith

          MalEx444?

          60

        • #
          PeterPetrum

          Stop opting for the left

          Sadly, I feel that there is now little difference. Labor are hellbent on Greens policy; Lib/Nat have no idea where they are heading on this.

          20

          • #
            Hanrahan

            If you think the greens are on the wrong track [nothing I have read from you indicates this] get on side with the only non-green party and try to influence it with constructive criticism.

            I do not expect you to embrace them. lol

            00

      • #
        David Wojick

        Given the huge variation in temperature at any given place and between any two places there is indeed no feasible way to know the average temperature of all places, over a period of time or even at a given instant, to one degree F or C.

        Sampling theory tells us that when variance is high virtually all possible samples will give a false value. This is shown by the fact that the 95% confidence interval is very large. Even the 49% confidence interval will be large and the true value is likely to lie outside it, while it is centered on the sample value.

        131

        • #
          David Wojick

          Here is a simple example of the general case. Suppose you have 100 people whose heights vary from 4’6″ to 6’6″ and you try to estimate their average height using a 3 random person sample. The vast majority of the 3 person combos will have an average height very different from the whole population of 100. So your chances of getting a sample that gives a close value are very small. In fact there may be no 3 person sample that gives the correct value for the whole.

          We are constantly given the sample value as though that were a good estimate of the true value but that is a fundamental fallacy.

          281

          • #
            GD

            Thanks, David. This is why I read Jo’s blog. You explain things in a way that I can understand them.

            120

          • #
            Greg Cavanagh

            The historical measurement of temperature was 9am and 3pm, min and max.
            I believe they sample multiple times per day now, but don’t know what exactly.

            So the average of that is a useless number to begin with. Then you do an area calculation of those temperatures between all of the thermometers, like 500km apart or more. And you get the area average of that.

            So what do you have? It’s just a number that they pretend means something. It’s not an average, it’s not a typical, it’s just a calculated mean value over an area of two numbers, morning and afternoon. Nothing can be said about the final figure, to be honest.

            50

      • #
        William

        John,

        If our official records started about ten years earlier, it would likely show litte or no change since 1900 as it would include thehigh temperatures from the Federation drought. By excluding those records, the alarmists in the government and bureaucracy can show warming where little exists.

        130

      • #
        Chris

        As one of the simple minded, I like simple answers. The Earth’s surface is made up of 71% Oceans – average depth 4000meters.
        17% is basically uninhabited; hot and cold deserts, polar regions, mountainous regions and uninhabited islands. This leaves just 12% of the Earths surface inhabited by humans, and ‘experts’ want to tell me they ‘know’ the Earth’s average temperature.

        41

        • #
          Hanrahan

          Only 12% inhabited? Who’d a thunk it.

          What percentage of that is in the north? I’ve always wondered if the heat island effect extends to the whole hemisphere where the majority of thermometers are sited. Down under seems largely unaffected.

          00

    • #
      Chad

      Bill Burrows
      July 25, 2021 at 3:31 pm ·
      ……….
      Australia has already achieved net zero CO2 emissions (in terms of current FCCC, IPCC and Australian NGGI guidelines) – and well before 2050! Consider:

      Im guessing here,…but i suspect that does not include the “implied emissions “. from the coal and gas we export to other countries ?
      They seem to be a primary focus of the environmental activists and as such would undermine any argument based on your information.

      10

  • #
    PeterS

    Chevron seeks a deal? I suppose that makes sense in our up-side-down world of ours today. Reward failure more so than success. I bet the thousands of small business that have failed or about to fail won’t get the same sort of treatment. This is despite the fact their failures are a direct result of state government policy to lock-down for no real reason other than to scare people to be vaccinated.

    110

  • #
    Richard Owen No.3

    Only $60 million? Why we are spending $5 billions on Snowy2 supposedly to make renewables workable (some year), $2,500* million for an interconnector between SA & NSW for the same reason, $400 million on a pilot plant in Gippsland to turn brown coal into hydrogen (for the Japanese),
    $440 million on something or other on/at/near the Great Barrier reef** and a few billion a year subsidising part-time electricity generators.

    * wait for the increase.
    ** or somewhere else (the Cayman Island perhaps) see TdeF for any details.

    150

  • #
    Global Cooling

    Zero carbon is a fallacy. Nuclear reactions are the only way to destroy carbon. There is no practical way to do it. Carbon is the element of life. Zero carbon means destroying life of planet earth.

    You can bind carbon to other elements with chemical reactions. These reactions require or release energy. Carbon is part of huge amount of useful molecules. If you start with CO2, you can just release it into the atmosphere and plants will use photosynthesis to create other carbon based substances.

    CO2 has also many industrial usages: https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-10-ways-to-use-co2-and-how-they-compare.

    Carbon capture is a question of costs and priorities. Additional CO2 in the atmosphere is useful for life forms like plants, animals and people. Adjusting carbon cycle beneficially is the big question.

    Virtue signalling and politics is the root problem. We need to educate people to think about the consequences of the policies that are advertised in media.

    280

  • #
    Wixy

    FGump was correct… Stupid is as Stupid does.

    150

    • #
      Flok

      There is 3,358,101,000,000 tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere at 417ppm concentration

      34,400,000,000 tonnes of CO2 contributed by humans in 2020

      Which is only 1.024% human contribution to the whole of atmosphere.

      Half of that contribution (0.512%) is absorbed by the terrestrial systems meaning that 17,200,000,000 tonnes is the human net contribution

      Think about this carefully.

      It would take 195 years for earth terrestrial systems to absorb all of the atmospheric CO2 if we stop outputting CO2 now.

      Now that is what I call emergency because it would mean the end of life if there were no other sources of CO2 in nature.

      20

  • #
    David Maddison

    Although totally unnecessary, if they at least planted trees to offset the “carbon” there would be something useful for future generations, especially if slow growing, high quality wood types were planted that could be harvested in 100 years or more.

    170

    • #
      Sceptical Sam

      Yes, in theory.

      But, where would you grow them?

      What crops would you displace in finding the acreage for those slow growing high quality wood types, that you refer to?

      In 100 year’s time they’re of no financial benefit to you. Or your children.

      Then of course there’s the red tape. Pick your way through this for size:

      https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/Primary-producers/In-detail/Tree-farming-(forestry-operations)/

      70

    • #
      William Astley

      David,

      Lost opportunity applies to all of the money that has been spent on all of the green scams.

      Wind and sun is, however, the only scalable technology. Part of the scam is to talk about the ‘green’ idea of the week to hide the fact that the only scalable solution is wind and sun and biofuel (if mass starvation is OK).

      The wind and sun, concept ‘saturates’ so that more and more money, is spent with no change in total CO2 emissions, at the point where the magic battery is required. The magic battery must store the entire energy of a country for months. Just what hydrocarbons do now.

      Hydrocarbons are a type of battery. That is why there is a US strategic storage reservoir.

      German was reached the point where installing more and more sun and wind gathering does not change total CO2 emissions. The solution does not work. Cannot get to carbon zero. Spending money on a solution that does not work and increases the damage footprint of humanity per person (i.e. As Moore showed the green scams are damaging large regions of the planet now.

      Greta’s cause is from humanity’s and the environment’s standpoints, a pathetic lie. Sabotage of our countries, just like critical race theory. Something stinks when politicians push plans that sabotage our country. They are just actors reading a script.

      There is no logical excuse to damage the earth and reduce the amount of land that can be used to grow food, to installing sun and wind gathering produce ‘biofuel’, because those solutions, cannot/will not work, regardless of money spent.

      https://www.bitchute.com/video/KQnVEMOOYuJd/

      Planet of the Humans

      Michael Moore

      Spending money on a plan that cannot work ….. Is justified by the Left because they say the first wasted money will initialize the entire world to find a solution that will work.

      70

      • #
        Lance

        Nuclear is the only scalable technology that actually can supply a stable grid.

        SMR ( small modular reactors ) are a viable path. The question is how to handle waste products.

        The Thorium cycle does that. Does not eliminate nuke waste, but does minimize it and it avoids the transuranic series.

        The reason for a uranium based reactor core is to produce plutonium for weapons and because the design is AEC approved because it is a modification of the reactor design used for military ships ( carriers, subs, etc ).

        Thorium can work in a molten salt or pebble bed design. India and China are way ahead of everyone else in applying it.

        Wind and Solar are scalable, but resource limited and intermittent. They pretend to be viable, but are not, at grid scale.

        70

    • #

      especially if slow growing, high quality wood types were planted that could be harvested in 100 years or more.

      David,
      A good plan but not likely to be followed.
      Sadly the species chosen here in the UK for forestry are fast growing alien conifers (e.g. Sitka Spruce) which are planted in dense mono-species forests that have zero ecological benefit for animal wildlife. The trees in these plantations are then clear felled and trucked to be burnt for electrical power generation.

      30

    • #
      Hanrahan

      David, methinks you overstate the years to harvest of hardwood by a factor of 2+.

      Eucalypts are relatively fast growing but I seem to recall Cali has found them fire prone. I don’t live in a fire prone region in Oz so I’m guessing but I believe “crown fires” [which must be terrifying] are a gum tree phenomenon. But so too are pine plantations which are the worst form of monoculture.

      I personally favour selective logging in native forest. Somewhere in SE Asia small teams of loggers go into a forest, fell a tree, mill it and carry the sawn timber out – no trucks, no tracks.

      I have had time to spare in the forests on Atherton Tableland. Where the cover is unbroken one can walk in relative comfort but getting from the radio shack where I was working, with a big break in the cover, into that forest, there was an almost impenetrable barrier of wait-a-while, stinging nettle, and other nasties.

      In a perfect world a large airship would lift the trimmed log out of the forest, again without the need of logging tracks.

      BTW Much of what greens call “virgin forest” today has been logged and regrown.

      00

  • #
    Paul G.

    Any amount buried is minuscule compared to all the CO2 in the atmosphere. Why not just let nature take care of it for free?

    220

    • #
      PeterS

      There’s no profit in that and the up and coming dictators won’t be able to turn us into slaves.

      150

  • #
    David Maddison

    Why can’t warmists / Leftists understand it’s carbon dioxide they are terrified of, not “carbon”?

    160

  • #
    David Maddison

    What was the extent of their legal obligation, if any, to bury this carbon dioxide?

    Also, why did the taxpayers fork out $60 million?

    If I was a shareholder, I’d be wanting to know why the company wasted $3 billion when it could have spent just $200 million, not that it was needed anyway.

    100

    • #
      James Murphy

      The Gorgon project got initial government approval based on their commitment to “capture” CO2. it was never going to be a large % stored (even if everything worked perfectly), less than 25% of CO2 just associated with processing the gas, if I recall.

      70

      • #
        TdeF

        That’s the stupidity of all this. Chevron plays along. Everyone plays along. It’s just a stupid, useless cost in doing business with politicians advised by our CSIRO, BOM and the other groups captured by the glamour and careers in man made Global Warming. So no one dares contradict, if they value their jobs. Not even the Chief Scientist who knows better. In fact a Chief Scientist would not be appointed unless they agreed to say nothing.

        No one challenges the very idea that Carbon dioxide builds up in the atmosphere, which is utterly unproven and borderline ridiculous. Surely no scientist believes it? You can prove categorically that it is not true. Jim Hanson may not have known this. He was too busy studying the atmosphere of Venus.

        Impossible to deny, even the IPCC admit CO2 eventually goes into the oceans but they have built their index of greenhouse gases on the amazing unproven idea that the half life for removal of CO2 is 80 years when it was known to be around 5 years even in the 1950s and earlier. In in some places IPCC authors claim ‘thouands of years’. Where they came up with these fantasy figures is unknown.

        Consider that fish breathe. So where do they get their oxygen? And CO2 is 30x more soluble than O2. You do not have to be a scientist to realise that CO2 is rapidly sucked into the water and equally comes out of the water. Fish breathe out carbon dioxide too. Humans, all plants and animals on the planet came from the water and some fish have lungs.

        So the make believe science continues. And our politicians do not dare question ‘the science’. Except for Tony Abbott who called it crap. He was spot on.

        210

        • #
          TdeF

          And Chevron knew it was useless when they started. But that’s how deals are done. Like Australia’s massive debt in desalination plants because super scientist Tim Flannery said “even the rains which fall will not fill our dams”. And as a dead wombat ‘scientist’ with no actual physics, chemistry, mathematics, computer science, biochemistry, geology, meterology at university level, he really was our Chief Climate Scientist.

          But then Julia Gillard appointed her friend Nicola Roxon as Attorney General when she was just a clerk. Jobs for all the boys and girls, even if totally unqualified. It was a magic time of National id*ocy only surpassed by useless diesel driven attack submarines, unused desalination plants, Snowy II with a statue of Malcolm Turnbull and $444 million in cash unrequested, to ‘save’ the Great Barrier Reef, the RET laws. Daylight robbery in Canberra.

          What’s a lousy few tens of millions to pretend to stick CO2 underground? The electricity retailers steal $6Billion a year on behalf of the Federal government to gift generally foreign owned windmills. The river of Climate Cash never stops.

          230

        • #
          CriddleDog

          I nominate TdeF for PM.
          Seriously.

          80

    • #
      Just Thinkin'

      Does anyone remember where this CO2 came from?

      Like, it came from within the earth.

      Now, putting it back is a different matter.

      Like putting a fart in a bottle.

      90

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        🙂 🙂 🙂
        Blaaat

        30

      • #
        Chris

        Yes. ‘Katia Volcano’ in Iceland was considered to be non erupting , however a team from Leeds university found ‘Katia’ is emitting 12-24 kilo tons of CO2 per day. ( Iceland Magazine 9-13-2018)

        There are now five volcanos monitored for daily CO2 emissions . There could be considerably more but the logistics of monitoring them is very difficult.

        10

  • #
    Simon

    Planting trees is a successful carbon capture system and it provides environmental benefits, but it does lock up land. Best not to emit the CO2 in the first place.

    131

    • #
      PeterS

      In that case the only viable solution is to start building nuclear power stations, and we better do it fast or else the world will end, right?

      140

    • #
      clarence.t

      Its really simple, Simon.

      Trees need CO2 to grow, up to 1000 ppm is really good for them.

      If we don’t emit CO2 , how will the trees grow to their fullest.

      170

      • #
        Lance

        CO2 is routinely increased to 1000 to 1500 ppm in greenhouses to accelerate plant growth.

        For example, at 1000 ppm, tomato and cucumber growth is increased 25-30%.

        Plants love more CO2. It increases crop yields, accelerates growth, and lowers the cost of foods.

        50

      • #
        beowulf

        And 10,000 ppm is even better. We had a huge argument here with PF on that very point a couple of years ago. Tons of evidence that ultra-high concentrations of CO2 are great for trees and other plants.

        1,000ppm is nothing. Plants crave CO2. One example below.

        Loblolly Pine grown in 30,000ppm CO2 — it’s additional growth didn’t plateau until 10,000ppm, but no ill effects right up to 30,000ppm where the trial ended.
        http://www.co2science.org/articles/V7/N30/B3.php

        “fresh weight of seedlings, needles per seedling, roots per seedling, and shoot length in loblolly pine seedlings increased 341%, 200%, 74%, and 75%, respectively, after 30 d exposure to 10,000 [ppm] CO2 over those obtained from seedlings grown at ambient CO2 levels,” but that there were no further increases – or decreases – when going from an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 10,000 ppm to one of 30,000 ppm.”

        Other trials lasted several years.

        20

    • #
      MrGrimNasty

      Don’t worry about wasted land, the UK is already helping out, burning trees for power at the rate of the production of a spruce plantation almost the size of Wales per year.

      130

    • #
      clarence.t

      Anyway, nature plants far more trees that humans can.

      How about we let nature do its thing, and feed those plants that CO2 that they rely on for their very existence..

      …. just like all life on the planet does.

      Yes, even you rely completely on CO2 for your existence. Its that simple, Simon.

      160

    • #
      TdeF

      6 billion more humans in a century! 1 billion in just China and another billion in India. So let’s punish the cows.

      110

      • #
        John F Hultquist

        Can you try again with this comment, please.
        I can’t tell if you refer to the last 100 years, or
        the next 100 years.
        The 6 billion roughly fits the last hundred,
        bringing the World to about 8 — headed toward 11B
        or lower in 2100.

        40

        • #
          TdeF

          Not so sure about the continued growth of population. It has stopped in many large countries and education, birth control, machinery, the internet and social change and sheer population pressure is changing everything. Except for South America, the Middle East and India. Thanks to increased CO2, GM, machinery, reticulation, food supply is going up. The real problems are the lack of water and the soaring cost of green electricity to power desalination. Iran is now in total crisis with no water. All the oil in the world is no substitute for water. It will bring down regimes. Hunger in the 20th century will be replaced by thirst in the 21st.

          90

          • #
            clarence.t

            “All the oil in the world is no substitute for water”

            There is absolutely zero reason that oil could not be used to power desalination plants.

            70

            • #
              TdeF

              Of course. Oil can be used to power desalination plants, if you have them. And Trump’s embargo on Iran and the US self sufficiency in oil under Trump was crippling Iran.

              Now Iran is in major crisis as all the wells run dry. It is big news and could bring down the Arab muslim regime which has enslaved Persia for 1200 years.

              We have a number of multi billion dollar ones, bought on hire purchase and unused. An unholy deal between the French and the banks. We could not gift them because we will never own them. And by the time we do, they will be as unusable as they are unused.

              90

    • #
      Simon

      Liebig’s Law of the Minimum states: ‘The local yield of terrestrial plants should be limited by the nutrient that is present in the environment in the least quantity relative to its demands for plant growth’.
      The limiting factor is CO2 only if all other nutrients are present in optimum quantities.

      215

      • #

        As earth is greening, where is your problem ? Is there any ?

        160

      • #
        clarence.t

        And farmers know how to provide the right amount of nutrient.

        Yes, the limiting factor has been CO2 for a very long time.

        Thank goodness there is somewhat more than the bare minimum now !

        Plants need more CO2…

        Its that simple, simon !

        201

      • #
        John F Hultquist

        Simon,
        You, I, and everyone else knows that your statement . . .

        The limiting factor is CO2 only if all other nutrients are present in optimum quantities.

        . . . is a toss-off without thought. Consider that if all other nutrients were at 79%** of “optimal” and CO2 was 2000ppm, the plant would grow well. If the CO2 drops to 100 the plant will die.

        **I wanted to write 97% here but it just didn’t work in this context. It is usually my choice for a WAG.

        130

    • #

      Ohh, trees need place ?
      That’s why greenies want to cut them down and replace them with windmills ??

      140

    • #
      Wet Mountains

      Do solar farms lock up land?

      90

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      Hilarious.

      50

    • #
      Simon

      It’s puzzling how you guys correctly recognise CO2 fertilisation but not the CO2 greenhouse effect. It makes a mockery of the CO2 is a trace gas therefore it can’t affect the climate/biosphere argument. Logical inconsistencies abound.

      224

      • #

        Nothing is inconsistent, And nobody says, CO2 isn’t a greenhousegas.
        Wha is said and it’s right, that, because of a lot of reasons, it’s effect minor.
        But for a Simple Simon it’s to difficult to follow further explanaions. Proof: your comments

        111

        • #
          Kalm Keith

          Krishna, “it’s effect is minor”?

          There is a greenhouse effect, true, but it is only an alternate effect.

          If water, natural origin CO2 and the almost invisible pittance of human origin CO2 do pick up the low grade InfraRed coming from the ground, then have a think about what would happen if they weren’t there.

          That “greenhouse” energy would simply be taken from ground level by the other atmospheric gases, nitrogen and oxygen via transfer during impact.

          The towering column of the atmosphere above every point on the earth ensures intimate contact between the gases and the ground and energy transfer ensues.

          Make no mistake, there’s only one load of energy allocated by the Sun each day and it is all accounted for at the end of the day; it doesn’t sit up there waiting to rain rain down superheated photons on the unsuspecting planet below.

          The whole thing is exasperating and the mind set is frightening; how has this been allowed to dominate our lives and take so much money from us?

          How do we get out of this prison.

          170

          • #
            John R Smith

            “The whole thing is exasperating and the mind set is frightening; how has this been allowed to dominate our lives and take so much money from us?”

            “How do we get out of this prison.”

            I think you’re quite right. A carefully constructed psychological prison is locking us down (pun, sort of). They’ve convinced most people that ‘carbon’, the foundation of organic life, and ‘greenhouse effects’, the reason said organic life can flourish, are bad.
            Climate dogma was the prototype for the V.
            The ‘science denier’ and “consensus’ agitprop has a fearful rebrand.
            Feels like walls closing in to me.
            I wonder if I would be as aware of this, had I not understood the climate scam first?

            100

          • #
            Maptram

            “Make no mistake, there’s only one load of energy allocated by the Sun each day and it is all accounted for at the end of the day; it doesn’t sit up there waiting to rain rain down superheated photons on the unsuspecting planet below.”

            And it’s not as if the daily load of energy is hitting the whole of the earth, and reflecting back the radiation, 24 hours per day. At any given time the sunlight reaches about 60% of the planet.

            60

      • #
        clarence.t

        Its simple, Simon..

        You can provide no evidence of a CO2 greenhouse warming effect existing.

        Measured data that would provide for meaningful warming.

        We can wait.

        Do at least try.. for the comedy aspect.

        110

      • #
        clarence.t

        There is also no scientifically rational mechanism by which atmospheric CO2 can cause meaningful or measurable warming.

        We would love you to try and explain one, because, well….. everyone needs a laugh.

        110

      • #
        clarence.t

        “It makes a mockery of the CO2 is a trace gas”

        Where biology is concerned, it is the essential supply ingredient, and it is in very short supply.

        As far as the atmosphere is concerned, it is a tiny insignificant fraction of the whole.

        Sorry the concept is too simple for you Simon.

        110

      • #
        Simon

        On the contrary clarence.t, you need to explain why you alone are correct and 120+ years of established science is wrong.

        119

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          Simon, Clarence is arguing that only the CO2 produced by humans is important in plant biology. As you point out this asinine view point is not supported by anything other than ideology

          119

          • #
            clarence.t

            Poor Peter, asinine comments are your speciality.

            The simplistic attempt at twisting words is that of someone who knows that have nothing of merit to say.

            All CO2 is important to plant growth. The increase over the last several decades has been an absolute boon for all plant life.

            Do you deny that CO2 is essential for all life on Earth.. Really !

            That would be ignorant, even for you Peter.

            140

          • #
            clarence.t

            “supported by anything other than ideology”

            Here is your chance Peter.

            Produce your evidence of CO2 causing warming…

            … or is your “belief” supported on by unscientific ideology.

            60

          • #
            clarence.t

            “Clarence is arguing that only the CO2 produced by humans is important in plant biology”

            Please show where I said that.

            Making up lies is not a good look, but probably all you are capable of.

            40

          • #
            el gordo

            Mr Fitzroy, our planet at the moment is suffering from CO2 starvation and CCS is very silly, like solar and wind farms.

            140

            • #
              Peter Fitzroy

              Are you saying that C02 levels since the Cambrian are a blip?
              Can you define what CO2 starvation is?

              Can you explain how, if CO2 starvation is real, what is the evolutionary evidence?
              Can you explain how, if CO2 Starvation is real, what value is CO2 sufficiency
              Can you explain what effect that sufficiency value would have on human functioning?
              Please remember that humans evolved in what you call an environment of CO2 starvation.

              11

              • #
                clarence.t

                Go and study some basic biology, PF.

                Most plants stop growing below about 200ppm

                And yes, the last several hundred thousand years has seen very low CO2 levels, only just above survival level of most plants

                The evolutionary evidence is the appearance of C4 and CAM plants which adapted extra processing pathways to cope with low CO2 levels.

                You could live on a slice of moldy bread and a glass of water a day… that is what 200ppm is like to plants. Why do you hate them so much that you want them to starve.

                You do know that if plants starve and can’t grow, the human population would be in a desperate famine, don’t you.. Is that really what you want ??

                1000ppm + is what plants desire, and humans can easily cope with values up to 5000ppm once they acclimatize.

                Why do you continue to parade your abject ignorance at every possible moments.

                At least try to learn the most basic facts about life on Earth !!

                20

              • #
              • #
                el gordo

                ‘ … humans evolved in what you call an environment of CO2 starvation.’

                Yeah, good point. Adaptation is the key to survival.

                We need to discuss why Antartica has been cooling since the Great Climate Shift of 1976.

                https://notrickszone.com/2021/07/26/new-study-finds-east-and-west-antarctica-have-profoundly-cooled-by-2-8c-and-1-68c-since-1979/

                10

          • #
            David Maddison

            Peter, please let us know the minimum amount of CO2 requires for plant life.

            We are barely above it.

            Thankfully nature is correcting the imbalance and it’s increasing.

            We came dangerously close to all life being extinguished.

            70

            • #
              Lance

              Just in case anyone cares about that, the minimum CO2 level to sustain plant life is 150-170 PPM.

              The optimum level for plant life to flourish is 1000 – 1200 PPM. 1500 PPM is usual in a greenhouse.

              Currently, the Earth is at about 380-400 PPM. About 1/3 of the optimum for plant health and growth.

              Plant life is the foundation of all other life. Without them, everyone faces starvation.

              100

              • #

                not sure of your source but the optimal must be when no other input is limiting. Can you name one place on earth, that is not inside a greenhouse or an lab, where this condition exists?

                113

              • #
                clarence.t

                LOL, the only way you can deny the absolute need for atmospheric CO2 for plant growth.

                Obviously you got an “F” in biology. !

                Do try harder next time.

                70

              • #
                clarence.t

                But you are right, GA…

                There is nowhere on Earth’s surface that has optimal CO2 concentration for plant growth, except in actual CO2 enriched greenhouses.

                80

              • #
                Dave

                Well
                Parameters matter GA!

                Can you name one place on earth, that is not inside a greenhouse or an lab, where this condition exists?

                Are you only interested in the last 120 years like PF and Simon?

                Or are you open to discussion?

                20

        • #
          clarence.t

          So you are saying that you cannot produce any measurements that show CO2 causes any meaningful warming

          Choose instead to try to divert and distract.

          Sorry, won’t work.

          70

        • #
          clarence.t

          “120+ years of established science is wrong.”

          What is wrong, is your naive, scientifically-illiterate, comprehension of 120 years of established science.

          70

        • #
          Richard Owen No.3

          What established science?
          John Tindall (1861?) proved that CO2 radiated infrared very rapidly. In the Proceedings of the R.S.
          He (correctly) considered water vapour as the main regulator of temperature.
          Aarhenius came up with the claim that 5% of CO2 in the atmosphere would lead to the end of an ice age. He faced opposition from Planck, Angstrom, Boltzmann and Einstein.
          Callendar in 1938 revived the claim that increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere were warming the Earth. His paper was published in the Proceedings, but were disputed by a number (about 26%). If you ever read that paper you might find it somewhat less than convincing too, and Callendar changed his mind after the very cold winter in the UK in 1962.
          Still he left many with the thought that CO2 might be a factor.
          This was disagreed with by Climate Scientists (from NASA, NOAA and the University of East Anglia).
          After the very cold winter of 1979 in North America the next few years were (thankfully) warmer. This led Jim Hanson to jump on what looked like a bandwagon to fame and fortune, and he pointed out that 1981 was only 0.15℃ cooler than 1944 (this claim has since been adjusted to make 1981 warmer). By 1987/8 he was predicting coming disasters – in the next 30 years the Earth could warm by 3℃, that parts of New York and The Maldives would be under water by 2018. He was boosted into fame by Al Gore, more known for tobacco growing than for knowledge of physics.
          Then the UN got involved and Noel Brown, Director of the UNEP New York Office claimed that “entire nations would be wiped off the face of the Earth (by rising sea levels unless warming was reversed by 2000) and by 2005 the UN was claiming that there would be 50 million ‘climate refugees by 2010’ and lots of grant money was suddenly available.
          Numerous people all suddenly realised that Global Warming could be useful. Al Gore, Tim Flannery, the Prince of Wales, Gordon Brown and assorted others with NO Science qualifications as well.
          And so long as the money is available there will be no shortage of claimants who want some settled on them.

          170

          • #
            clarence.t

            Simon and Peter have heard the words “the science”..

            … but neither have the vaguest clue what it actually is, or what it means.

            60

          • #
            Simon

            Time for you to leave the cognitive dissonance bubble and actually read the peer-reviewed literature.

            013

            • #
              clarence.t

              Produce some.. or not.

              So far your grasp of science has been shown to be below zero.

              50

            • #
              Richard Owen No.3

              Here you are Simon, some settled science!
              1850 (approx.) Glaciers in Montana reach maximum extension
              1885(or near) Glaciers in Montana noted as shrinking in area.
              1923 Montana Glacier could disappear in 25 years Says Professor.
              Medford Mail Tribune (Oregon) Dec. 29
              1952 Montana’s Glacier Park may need new name
              The giant glaciers are melting away and could be gone in 50 years say naturalists
              The Post-Standard (Syracuse N. Y.) 05/3/ 1952
              2009 No more Glaciers in Montana by 2020?
              National Geographic News March 2 2009
              2010 Signs installed about glaciers being gone by 2020
              2014 No more Glaciers in Montana by 2034?
              What will they call Glacier National Park (Montana) in 30 years when all the glaciers are gone? New York Times Nov. 22, 2014
              2019/20 Signs removed (all 29 of them)
              2021 All of the glaciers in Glacier National Park are expected to be gone by 2030,” said Noah Greenwald, director of endangered species for the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD)

              50

            • #
              el gordo

              ‘ … read the peer-reviewed literature.’

              Imagine we have just been to a lecture and now here we are in tutorial, peer review comes later. In the meantime let us grasp the big picture, CCS is unnecessary because Australia is the carbon sink with back to back La Nina.

              https://theconversation.com/record-rains-made-australia-a-giant-green-global-carbon-sink-26646

              40

            • #
              clarence.t

              Still waiting.

              It must be s simple task for you Simon. (can you cope with a simple task ?)

              Please, I have been looking everywhere for scientific evidence that human released CO2 causes atmospheric warming.

              Please don’t continue to hide it. 😉

              40

        • #
          el gordo

          ‘ …. why you alone are correct and 120+ years of established science is wrong.’

          I’m fairly convinced this scientific concept has only been up since the 1970s, after the global cooling scare evaporated. Enlightened self interest by certain sections of the scientific community ran with the new meme and fingered CO2.

          You should put up the NASA/ Antarctic ice core graph for best effect, shows CO2 levels never before seen on this planet.

          90

      • #
        Chris

        The Earth is NOT a green house, that is a lie.

        00

      • #
        Roger Evans

        Few people doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas but it’s affect is now almost saturated due to the non-linearity of its absorption. At 400 ppm it has a greenhouse effect of approx 25 watts per square meter but if it is doubled to 800 ppm its effect only increases to about 28 watts/square meter.
        CO2 has absorption bands at IR wavelengths of 2.7 micron and 4.3 micron but the 2.7 micron band is also absorbed by water vapour and so CO2 mainly just blocks IR radiation in the 4.3 micron band. Water vapour is, by far, the gas with the largest greenhouse effect.
        CO2 does more good than harm and is causing the greening of the planet and may help provide the increased food supply that will be needed for increased population. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T4WKtVgnI8&t=4s

        20

      • #
        el gordo

        ‘ … but not the CO2 greenhouse effect.’

        It has been falsified, we are presently experiencing a plateau in world temperature. ENSO is the temperature control knob and CO2 has no part to play.

        00

    • #
      Ross

      100’s of thousands of hectares of Victoria were planted to wood chip plantations of eucalyptus during the 1990’s. You could have planted 10 x the amount and not even noticed. Farmers readily planted them because of the potential cash income. Which, unfortunately didnt actually appear to any great extent. They all provided wonderful windbreaks for livestock, nature corridors and in some cases stalled grassfires. They dont lock up land because Australia has immense quantities of that – even in areas relatively well populated.

      60

      • #
        Chad

        Those timber plantations were actually the result of a Government tax incentive scheme for agricultural investment. They all failed after 10 yrs when the tax incentives were removed.
        Thousands of investors lost out big time !

        10

  • #
    MikeHig

    CCS is actually an interesting opportunity for the oil companies.

    They have been using CO2 as one of the techniques for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR)for decades. To date most of that CO2 came from geologic formations although some comes from captured industrial emissions, for example:
    “During its life, the Weyburn and Midale fields combined are expected to produce at least 220 million additional barrels of incremental oil, through miscible or near-miscible displacement with CO2, from fields that have already produced over 500 million barrels (79,000,000 m3) since discovery in 1954.”
    Those extra barrels are worth about $11 bn at current prices – well worth the effort. The CO2 injection has been running for 20+ years, using gas piped over 300 km from a synfuel plant where it is a by-product.

    So we now have the prospect of carbon-negative oil, christened “Blue Oil” by the company promoting CCUS (Carbon Capture *Use* & Storage):
    “Chris Kendall, Denbury’s President and CEO, commented, “We are thrilled to continue progress on our Cedar Creek Anticline EOR project in 2021. This will be one of the largest EOR projects ever undertaken in the United States, using 100% industrial-sourced CO2 to recover over 400 million barrels of oil. Additionally, the oil produced will be Scope 3 carbon negative, as the amount of industrial-sourced CO2 that will be permanently injected to produce each barrel of oil will be greater than the combined emissions associated with the development and operation of the field, including the refining and combustion of the finished petroleum products. We believe that this carbon negative oil, which we have labelled “blue oil,” will ultimately be a preferred commodity as it assists end users in reducing their own carbon footprint.”

    Supporting this approach, both Texas and Louisiana will now subsidise EOR using CO2 to the tune of $50 per ton. As one ton liberates 2-3 barrels of oil, that adds $20-25 to the value of each barrel.

    What’s not to like? You can fill your gas-guzzler with “blue petrol” and help to save the planet!
    It will be fun to see how the greenies set about trying to squash this.

    100

  • #

    Draw CO2 out of the air as much you like, later you will see starving forests and the natural CO2 sink will disappear so fast, you can’t follow it.

    110

  • #
    TdeF

    The science nonsense behind everything is that humans control atmospheric CO2 because CO2 is NOT in equilibrium with the huge oceans which contain 98% of all CO2 and the tiny amount we generate with fossil fuels accumulates in the atmosphere. This is not even logical let alone proven science. Where are the Australian universities and the CSIRO in defeating this? Utterly silent.

    140

    • #
      Curious George

      There is a very simple reason for this failure: It attempted a technical solution to a legal problem. Lawyers must first abolish the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

      100

      • #
        TdeF

        I do not know how that applies, but I do know they need to repeal Henry’s law of gaseous exchange.

        What is really perverse is the idi*tic idea that if aerial CO2 goes up, more must dissolve in the oceans. Do these environmentalists realise this is the exact opposite of what they are claiming?

        CO2 absorption embodied in the equally fake science of Ocean Acidification. I have seen American students in bikinis pumping CO2 into tanks with fish and crustacea and molluscs on the beach in Tahiti. Great job if you can get it, but hasn’t anyone told them about chemistry and Henry’s law? CO2 is determined by surface temperature and partial pressure/concentration on the two sides. It’s why Dr Munday and his PhD students at JCU faked the results. There were none.

        So while half the Climate Change community is claiming CO2 does not dissolve, the other half is claiming industrial CO2 is rapidly polluting the oceans? I did envy the job of the American supervisor checking out the tanks and his under dressed scientists.

        Does James Cook University have their own research catamaran and snorkel gear? With $444Million on offer and government funded equipment, it’s a wonder there are not thousands of people wanting to save the Great Barrier Reef from Carbon Dioxide.

        70

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      That is the core issue.

      Even this great blog has only attacked it from the sides, never full on.

      The pseudo-science of man made global warming and CO2 atmospheric heating is simply a baseless advertising campaign that has succeeded beyond comprehension.

      Those who have confronted the massive educational-political-industrial-financial-coercion complex in recent years have been overwhelmed but, thank you Bob Carter and Peter Ridd.

      They tried.

      Goebels understood it all eighty five years ago.

      150

  • #
    Flok

    There was Coal21 established in 2006, After AUD$300 million investment and managed to bury 65,000 tonnes of CO2. They then transformed to LETA (apparently a better name) (wink) .

    https://www.letaustralia.com.au/ mentions the above Chevron project.

    Yeah, madness about money

    30

  • #
    Fuel Filter

    Jo said:

    “ (Or, if they had used it to grow plants and make beer they might have broke even and made something useful.)”

    Bold mine, and wotta GREAT idea!

    If you guys have some of those micro-brewerys that we in the States have literally thousands of, I’m sure they would love those taxpayer grants! Just imagine the prospects!

    40

    • #
      Fuel Filter

      Sorry for all the boldface. Screwed up again.

      Anyway, when you Aussies visit the States (and no, we don’t imprison you for two weeks when you get here) be sure to try as many of our IPAs when you get here. We beat everybody with our selections of wonderful brews.

      90

  • #
    CHRIS

    I recently read an article that stated that the Amazon rain forest is releasing more CO2 than it is absorbing. Interesting, given that the Amazon only accounts for about 15% of global O2 production. If true, could this be due to deforestation? I don’t know, but it would be worthwhile to test this hypothesis

    20

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      That’s funny.
      So the trees are shrinking?
      🙂

      10

    • #
      el gordo

      The story originally emerged from a paper in Nature, technically correct, the areas which have been burnt or deforested are no longer sinks. Of course the Guardian and SMH extrapolated, in their fevered imagination the whole Amazon is going that way. Which it isn’t.

      30

  • #
    Gerry

    If I put a paper bag over my mouth and breath out into it, can I get someone to pay me squillions for the CO2 I’ve captured.

    40

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      Only if you seal the top and put an elastic band around it.

      40

      • #
        clarence.t

        And whatever you do, don’t pop the bag… that would cause an environmental disaster.

        All that CO2 suddenly released into the atmosphere. !

        60

  • #
    James Murphy

    Don’t forget that when the project kicked off, it was touted as being the biggest CCS scheme in the world. They still claim this title, according to the marketing info.

    50

  • #
    Jojodogfacedboy

    I know this is the wrong thread to post…
    CDC has issued a scale back of Covid testing as the test couldn’t differentiate what bug you had.
    https://archive.is/1O0uQ#selection-679.0-679.373
    The testing was picking up the flu virus as Covid as well.

    This then is worrisome on our governments all in on Covid vaccination when you actually had the flu.

    80

  • #
    GD

    In the first place, why the hell would you bury CO2?

    It’s one of the most important gases for life on Earth.

    These people are nuts.

    110

    • #
      PeterS

      Good point. In fact one could argue it would be anti-Green and it would be depriving the essential food for plants. A true environmentalist would protest against such techniques to do away with CO2. A true environmentalist by definition is a person who is concerned with protecting the earth’s environment, solving environmental problems and preserving natural resources, such as plants. Without plants there would be no oxygen and so virtually all life on earth would die.

      50

  • #
    David Maddison

    Remember also that’s $3 billion wasted on this absurd scheme that won’t be taxed, won’t be invested, won’t be used to increase the salary/wage of workers, won’t be paid to shareholders, won’t be spent in the local or national economy etc..

    The final outcome is no different in effect than if you took a $3 billion pile of money and burned it. Just like all “greenhouse” mitigation efforts.

    60

  • #
    David Maddison

    Where are the resident Leftists to defend this waste of money?

    30

  • #
    Neville

    CCS has always been just more BS and fra-d and yet it goes on and on.
    Dr Hansen kicked off this so called global warming idiocy in 1988, so whats happened over the last 33 years?
    Human population in 1988 was 5.1 bn and today is 7.8 bn. BUT GLOBAL life expectancy in 1988 was 63.8 years and today is 73, or an increase of 9.2 years.
    And our poorest continent Africa ( 53 countries) has seen a similar increase.
    In 1988 African pop was 596.8 million and today is 1.37 billion. UNBELIEVABLE but true.
    And African life exp was 52 years in 1988 and today is about 63.8 yrs. That’s an increase in life exp of 11.8 years since 1988 and YET their population has increased by another 773.2 million people in the last 33 years. THINK ABOUT IT?

    And in 1988 the world URBAN LIVING number was 42% and today is 56%. HOW can any of this be possible if we’re experiencing a CLIMATE APOCALYPSE or CRISIS or EMERGENCY or silly Biden’s EXISTENTIAL THREAT?

    But then again I’m looking at the data of the real planet Earth and NOT THEIR SILLY FANTASY WORLD.

    https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/AFR/africa/life-expectancy

    50

    • #
      PeterS

      Has anyone noticed yet that there are a number of crazy and fake ideas still being supported by governments and pursued by businesses? The biggest one still is the idea that we must reduce our emissions, ultimately to zero, which would crash and burn our economy in no uncertain terms. A terrorist could do a better job. Anyone who still votes for either major party is an ignorant fool at best for that reason alone yet there are many other reasons as well.

      20

  • #
    PeterD

    Green oppose nuclear energy, because we need to store its waste for 10,000 years, after which it is not radio-active anymore. However, they do agree with storing CO2 which will remain as “harmful” as it is now. Its “heat-trapping capabilities” doe not change over time.

    50

    • #
      David Maddison

      If it wasn’t for the double standards of the Left they would have no standards whatsoever.

      60

      • #
        PeterS

        True but one could argue they do have one and only standard; destroy the West. Everything else from the left is just fluff.

        50

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      🙂

      But hang on; the other gases “trap heat” and personally the vibrational heat is more of a worry to me than the orbital adjustment of electrons method practiced by those labeled as “trappers”.

      Does it really matter if a molecule carries its heat in a bag in its left hand or the right?

      This type of micro focus, induced obsession, which has been so successful with CAGW is now being used in the CV19 monster where “cases” are the new rally point.

      Goebbels salutes those who come after him.

      Cases my foot.

      50

    • #
      clarence.t

      “Its “heat-trapping capabilities” does not change over time.”

      It will remain at zero !

      60

  • #
    David Maddison

    I wonder how much “carbon” was generated capturing and compressing this CO2? What was the net balance?

    50

  • #
    Neville

    Since 1988 and Dr Hansen’s panic button speech Australian population has increased from 16.5 mil to nearly 25.8 mil and life expectancy from about 73.3 then to 83 yrs in 2021.
    That’s an increase in life exp of 9.7 years and of course no CCS .
    But the CSIRO tells us that the entire SH is a co2 SINK, so perhaps we should be asking for billions $ in REPARATIONS from the delinquent NH co2 SOURCE countries? SARC.

    https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/0/1647509ef7e25faaca2568a900154b63

    50

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      Yeah.

      BFM!

      30

    • #
      PeterS

      To do that we must first build up a nuclear missile defence capability to defend ourselves using the MAD principle given those countries already have such weaponry. 🙂

      30

      • #
        Serp

        Or we could surrender to a nation so equipped and obtain your desired defence capability by proxy; ugly shortcut eh?

        20

  • #
    Neville

    Even Dr Finkel ( our chief scientist) told the Senate that eliminating Aussie co2 emissions would have ZERO change on the climate.
    And Lomborg’s expert team told us that following the Paris COP 21 idiocy would have no measurable change on climate or temp by 2100.
    EVEN IF every country followed this Paris BS and fra-d from 2015 to 2100 to the letter.
    OH and even Dr Hansen said that Paris was BS and fra-d and akin to believing in the Easter bunny and the Tooth fairy.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJY8xKknpms

    30

  • #
  • #
    David Maddison

    Imagine how much food all that CO2 sucked out of the air could have grown.

    20

  • #
    David Maddison

    Remember when there was a natural CO2 eruption in Lake Nyos in Cameroon in 1986? It killed 1746 people and 3500 livestock by suffocation.

    Imagine if a terrorist uncorks one of these artificial CO2 reservoirs, or it happens by accident.

    60

  • #
    David Maddison

    The incompetence and stupidity we see with Australian politics, “science” and “engineering” is frightening and nation-destroying.

    60

  • #
    Ross

    Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS). This is the impossible idea of stuffing a gas back down the small hole it used to live in, when it was a rock and before it met O2 and grew threefold in weight and 2,000 times in volume. (Calculating the expansion of coal to CO2: 1 tonne of Coal generates 2.8 tonnes of CO2. 1 tonne coal fills 0.74m3.  1 tonne of CO2 fills 556m3. Therefore, 1 tonne of coal expands from 0.74 to 1590m3. or about 2148 times. Again, the climate alarmists trying to disprove basic laws of either physics or chemistry. All because its sounds sexy and gets you more “retweets” or” likes”.

    70

    • #
      TdeF

      Most of what is being sequestered is oxygen, not carbon. We need trillions of self sustaining organisms which strip off the carbon from carbon dioxide and release the oxygen. Let’s call these trees. Problem solved.

      70

      • #
        Ross

        God yes!! A couple of years ago CSIRO passed on some information from some uni is the US. They had developed technology which extracted CO2 from the air and via some processes a solid material was the end product. Apparently, this was going to solve the climate crisis. No doubt CSIRO was going to use this to hit up Angus Taylor for a couple hundred million $ more to waste. I’m reading the tweet thinking- “Just plant some bloody trees”.

        70

        • #
          Ronin

          “They had developed technology which extracted CO2 from the air and via some processes a solid material was the end product. ”

          Sounds suspiciously like a tree.

          30

          • #
            David Maddison

            CSIRO are wasting staggering amounts of taxpayer resources on trying to suck C02 out of the air.

            Leave terraforming to science fiction…

            40

  • #
    Neville

    The co2 level in 2015 was about 400 ppm and today is about 418 ppm.
    That’s about 3 ppm per year increase over the last 5.7 years.
    SO we can now say that Dr Hansen, Lomborg, Shellenberger, Koonin,Christy, Happer etc were correct about the clueless Paris agreement in DEC 2015.
    But for how much longer can the so called scientists accept this 2015 BS and fra-d agreement?
    Here’s the NOAA link for the latest co2 levels from Mauna Loa.

    https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/

    30

  • #
    Serp

    What an avalanche of stupidity.

    The bottom line is that carbon dioxide is mixed throughout the fluids which envelop the planet and there is a continuous transfer of molecules across the atmosphere-ocean boundary.

    Were some cataclysm instantaneously to remove every last carbon dioxide molecule from the atmosphere the oceans would maintain equilibrium at the boundary and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would resurrect as if by magic.

    60

  • #
    Lawrence Cooper

    Rather than biasly fame it as an implied failure of only burying 1/5 of its 5 years of emissions, wouldn’t it have been more truthful to say that Exxon only was able to bury 1 years’ worth of emissions and also stating what was their intended goal?

    21

  • #
  • #
    Zigmaster

    This highlights the failure of fossil fuel companies to not fight back.If they basically provided a United front told its activist shareholders to take a hike ( like all good environmentalists should) dare governments to shut them down, the world will quickly learn it can’t live without fossil fuels. Using this leverage they then need to lobby governments to educate its population about the true facts on climate change.
    Every major corporation, every conservative government who refuse to fight back and thinks that placating activists is the way to go will quickly regret their inaction and find themselves subsumed by the rampaging left.

    10

  • #
    Bruce

    “Carbon Capture” is also a monumental crock.

    How much “energy” will be used compressing and transporting the stuff to one of these “sacred sites” and then trying to pump the stuff down to great depths?

    If there is ANY water down there, the CO2 will dissolve in it.

    For starters, the resultant Carbonic acid will cheerfully react with limestone and marble,especially if heat is involved. Also sounds a LOT like a spinoff of the technology used for “fracking”. More “situational ethics”?

    Here in western Queensland and in several sites in the USA, people spend big bucks to DRILL very deep holes in the ground to EXTRACT Carbon dioxide for use in various food and beverage technologies.

    i can’t be the only one that finds these two activities happening simultaneously as and very odd situation.

    The energy and “cash” equations seem likely to be interesting.

    20

  • #
    Paul

    The carbon they wish to dispose of most is us.

    20

  • #
    CHRIS

    Digging the soil releases C02…about time the real/actual effect of humans on climate is properly studied. Fossil fuels contribute (minimally) to CAGW… and so does agriculture and deforestation. The confusion about just how much humans contribute to the Earth’s climate MUST STOP!! Until there is some sort of accurate answer, CAGW IS A MYTH!

    10