"The election of Joe Biden as president of the US could reduce global heating by about 0.1C, bringing the goals of the Paris agreement “within striking distance”, if his plans are fulfilled, according to a detailed analysis.

Biden’s policy of a target to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050, and plans for a $1.7tn investment in a green recovery from the Covid crisis, would reduce US emissions in the next 30 years by about 75 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide or its equivalents. Calculations by the Climate Action Tracker show that this reduction would be enough to avoid a temperature rise of about 0.1C by 2100."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/08/joe-biden-paris-climate-goals-0-...

$1.7 trillion for 0.1C? Just imagine if he really meant it and used 3 times that investment.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 9^th, 2020 at 1:33pm:



No petal. You?

Lets hope Biden goes this direction,

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/energysource/nuclear-energy-policy-represe...

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 9^th, 2020 at 2:02pm:


"Green" spending is not sustainable environmentally.

"We need a rapid transition to renewables, yes—but scientists warn that we can’t keep growing energy use at existing rates. No energy is innocent. The only truly clean energy is less energy.

In 2017, the World Bank released a little-noticed report that offered the first comprehensive look at this question. It models the increase in material extraction that would be required to build enough solar and wind utilities to produce an annual output of about 7 terawatts of electricity by 2050. That’s enough to power roughly half of the global economy. By doubling the World Bank figures, we can estimate what it will take to get all the way to zero emissions—and the results are staggering: 34 million metric tons of copper, 40 million tons of lead, 50 million tons of zinc, 162 million tons of aluminum, and no less than 4.8 billion tons of iron.

In some cases, the transition to renewables will require a massive increase over existing levels of extraction. For neodymium — an essential element in wind turbines — extraction will need to rise by nearly 35 percent over current levels. Higher-end estimates reported by the World Bank suggest it could double.

The same is true of silver, which is critical to solar panels. Silver extraction will go up 38 percent and perhaps as much as 105 percent. Demand for indium, also essential to solar technology, will more than triple and could end up skyrocketing by 920 percent.

And then there are all the batteries we’re going to need for power storage. To keep energy flowing when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing will require enormous batteries at the grid level. This means 40 million tons of lithium—an eye-watering 2,700 percent increase over current levels of extraction."

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/09/06/the-path-to-clean-energy-will-be-very-dirty...

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 9^th, 2020 at 2:22pm:


If that's the way you want to put it. You tell us what those extraction figures would do for the environment.

lee wrote on Nov 9^th, 2020 at 2:21pm:


All these extra minerals that need to be mined how much manmade CO2 will they generate....???

What about the wind farms they are manmade climate change.

So who do we blame when the wind farms change jet stream, these changes will then flow on to our weather and then climate. How much will that cost to fix.

But of course the alarmists will not say any such thing.

Will anything grow around solar panel farms and battery storage depots.

IMHO we are going to destroy the Earth trying to save her.

Ajax wrote on Nov 9^th, 2020 at 3:07pm:




Reference?

https://reneweconomy.com.au/global-fossil-fuel-subsidies-reach-5-2-trillion-and-...

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 9^th, 2020 at 3:09pm:


I'm not for any subsidizing whether its fossil fuel or green energy.

You wan to create a business and make profits fine, but don't expect tax payer dollars to back you up.