US Reducing CO2 Emissions – Due To Fracking

According to prominent Democrats, the US is evil, fracking is evil, and China is good – because they signed on to the fake Paris accord.

China’s CO2 emissions are skyrocketing, and will continue to do so indefinitely. Meanwhile, US CO2 emissions are down – due to fracking.

03 Dec 2012, Page 5 – The Star-Democrat at Newspapers.com

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to US Reducing CO2 Emissions – Due To Fracking

  1. M. X says:

    Actually it has yet to be confirmed but I heard from a well informed source that China is now on a declining slope re: CO2 emission. We’re speaking about 2016 trend shift if I remember right, not yet visible in widely available figures.

    • RAH says:

      Only visible in the Chinese propaganda claiming they have cancelled construction of 150 plants and by some undescribed miracle reduced coal consumption. Of course many uncritically rebroadcast that PRC BS without asking any questions or even trying to research for the facts before doing so.

    • arn says:

      Sales in cars and production should be the main driving factors(+population growth)

      As long as production and population are growing more energy will be needed
      and as long as China has not discovered some very special sort of fairy tale dust or has started to install a 100.000 windmills+ a million solar panels per year and
      50% of all new cars are electric there is no chance in hell that they have peaked in terms of co2 output.

      Their only chance to peak in 2016 is a massive collapse in production afterwards.

      The reason for this propaganda is simple:
      “Look at us USA,we have achieved our goals before time.
      You can too= please outsource more jobs towards china(=co2 reduction) and by stiffling your energy output(while at the same time having to provide each&every year energy for a million more illigals) you won’t eventually be able to meet the basic energy demands.
      As result companies will leave you country with the speed of light and
      most of these jobs will be transferred to china.
      Thank you very much.

      Let me tell it you that way:
      If you do some research you will find out that many of chinas
      non-chinese communist revolutionist originated from the USA.
      Mostly New York.
      That’s no coincidence.

      • R. Shearer says:

        And hundreds of millions of Chinese still live in very poor conditions. It will be a challenge to raise the standard of living of these people without increasing energy consumption.

        • arn says:

          Not just that-
          china has also built huge ghost citys
          with currently zero population.

          People will be force… moved into those cities
          and you will need a lot of power for those cities.

          (and as long as china does not develop a huge energy storing whatever most of the alternative energy will diassappear unused)

      • M. X says:

        Just modernizing cars over the country could have that kind of impact. Same goes with carbon plans. China does acknowledge massive air pollution and is actively trying to reduce it because basically, even party leaders have a hard time to breath some days. It wouldn’t be reasonable IMO to entirely dismiss the idea that chinese leaders are not likely to actually decide to follow on recommandation on anything related to air emissions.

    • Anon says:

      MX You must have been listening to a feed from CNN or MSNBC:

      As Beijing Joins Climate Fight, Chinese Companies Build Coal Plants

      https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/climate/china-energy-companies-coal-plants-climate-change.html

      Despite the Paris Agreement, China and India Continue To Build Coal Plants

      http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/despite-paris-agreement-china-india-continue-build-coal-plants/

      India’s coal plant plans conflict with climate commitments

      https://phys.org/news/2017-04-india-coal-conflict-climate-commitments.html

      And for a little info on US energy & fracking policy:

      How Hillary Clinton’s State Department Sold Fracking to the World

      http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron/#

      Why Obama’s top scientist just called keeping fossil fuels in the ground ‘unrealistic’

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/07/12/why-obamas-top-scientist-just-called-keeping-fossil-fuels-in-the-ground-unrealistic/?utm_term=.fdb3621e4bae

      Protesting the Dakota pipeline is not cut and dried

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/protesting-the-dakota-pipeline-is-not-cut-and-dried/2016/11/06/2872e228-a207-11e6-8832-23a007c77bb4_story.html?utm_term=.e899d42df5d0

      Plain and simple: what you have here is Progressive Democrat vote harvesting scheme, piggybacked on a global wealth redistribution scheme. Instead of the Democrats using skin color to divide the people they are using environmental politics, with the upside that climate change has no solution, so a voter with this issue is locked into the Democrats for life.

      Therefore, the Democrats want to create just enough fear that their “green voters” will continue to vote Democratic, but not so much fear that this group starts to interfere with their corporate backers plans (ie. fracking & pipelines) and goes off to form a third party with Bernie Sanders. In other words, some fear is good, but too much fear is undesirable

      • R. Shearer says:

        And they continually endorse massive immigration for the same reasons, although the result goes against their purported desires to reduce consumption.

      • M. X says:

        I don’t have that info from those media as I said. And I didn’t state it as fact. The triggering is surprising me here. Are the people here the same as the climate crusaders on opposed sites ? Where can I find people who looks at data before stating facts ? I don’t have data but someone who does told me one thing, which is true or isn’t, but that I am reporting to mention it may be worthy to keep track of in the future. The information is “official report are likely to mention China getting results on CO2 in the next years”. No more, no less.

  2. rms says:

    But does CO2 emission reduction *really* matter. That’s still a debate by many. By continuing to justify new investments and new technology in alternate energy sources to produce power, we are linking success of that investment to a probably false and non-useful end-result?

  3. john kolb says:

    Remember also that the spend on “green” in China includes installed but not producing capacity (e.g. wind farms with no transmission lines), and that spend on all renewables, including hydro, is down over 20% in the current 5 year plan compared to the one prior. Coal is the largest source of electrical power and will continue to expand the lead in actual CO2 release … i would imagine until 2030 or close to it when they have said they would cap.

  4. frederik wisse says:

    Where were you when the lights went out in Peking city ? Ever caught a cold in a chinese restaurant ?

  5. This is sounding like a Groundhog Day endless loop, now with communist China playing the insecure, altruistic communist Russia, American CO2 cast in the role of perverse, destabilizing, non-MAD Strategic Defense Initiative anti-ballistic missiles and Chinese CO2mmunism as the sensitive, concerned and aware Soviet hydrogen bomb arsenal, whose benevolent and peaceful function is to contain laissez-faire capitalism and keep the world safe for kleptocracy. Intellectuals of the looter persuasion need a new script writer.

    • arn says:

      The real groundhog day loop is:
      No matter what you do,
      no matter how much you lower your Emmissions,
      how much refugees you take,
      how tolerant you are,
      how much of your own culture you destroy,
      how many individual rights you give away
      or how many power you transfer to the big state&corporation
      and how much centralisation you let happen.

      It will never be enough.They will always ask for more,more,more.

      until
      they reached their goals=total controle and total replacement of the existing culture with some hedonistic perversion combined with the naive Star Trek mindset.

  6. Gail Combs says:

    Everyone forgot nuclear power.

    From the World Nuclear Organization:

    Nuclear Power in China

    (Updated October 2017)

    Mainland China has 37 nuclear power reactors in operation, about 20 under construction, and more about to start construction.
    The reactors under construction include some of the world’s most advanced, to give a 70% increase of nuclear capacity to 58 GWe by 2020-21. Plans are for up to 150 GWe by 2030, and much more by 2050.
    The impetus for nuclear power in China is increasingly due to air pollution from coal-fired plants.
    China’s policy is to have a closed nuclear fuel cycle.
    China has become largely self-sufficient in reactor design and construction, as well as other aspects of the fuel cycle, but is making full use of western technology while adapting and improving it.
    Relative to the rest of the world, a major strength is the nuclear supply chain.
    China’s policy is to ‘go global’ with exporting nuclear technology including heavy components in the supply chain.”
    http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx

    Of course that ‘western technology’ was either stolen or ‘given’ to them by Billy-Boy Clinton. link and the Chinese hacking of Oak Ridge. link

    Chinese Scientists were repeatedly touring the Oak Ridge Labs too.:
    http://blogs.knoxnews.com/munger/2012/01/whos-that-knocking-ornls-front.html

    • R. Shearer says:

      When they decide to do something, no regulations or protesters stand in the way (and live). They still have to contend with real costs and real outcomes, i.e. they aren’t immune to making bad decisions or building projects with flaws. I hope they have no major nuclear accidents, especially when I’m there.

  7. Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE says:

    Fracking leads to inexpensive gas. Inexpensive gas plus combined cycle design power plants lead to efficient inexpensive electricity leads to retirement of old less efficient coal pants and reduced lb CO2/MWh.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *