In my inbox this morning, a statement from Schneider Electric titled: Successful case studies in climate action, subtitled How Schneider Electric supports each ambition of the Biden-Harris Climate Plan.
Schneider endorses three ‘green’ initiatives:
- Net-zero and decarbonization goals
- Infrastructure and manufacturing modernization
- EV adoption
Joe Biden says he and his administration ‘follow the science’. I call into question the science Schneider Electric follows: decarbonization.
Question: When burning wood in your fireplace, how much carbon do you create? When driving to some remote destination to see the USA in your Chevrolet, how much carbon does your gasoline-fueled engine create? How much carbon does the burning of 1,000 gallons of 87-octane gasoline produce?
Answer to all three questions: Zero. None. Nada.
There are a few types of atoms that can be a part of a plant one day, an animal the next day, and then travel downstream as a part of a river’s water the following day. These atoms can be a part of both living things like plants and animals, as well as non-living things like water, air, and even rocks. The same atoms are recycled over and over in different parts of the Earth. This type of cycle of atoms between living and non-living things is known as a biogeochemical cycle.
UCAR Center For Science Education: The Carbon Cycle
With respect to the ‘net zero’ idea, we already have this in place. Everywhere. I point to the Law of Conservation of Mass: mass in an isolated system is neither created nor destroyed by chemical reactions or physical transformations.
Self-appointed environmentalists demonize carbon. Are they wholly unaware how carbon is the the foundation of all life on Earth?
Political correctness is a contemporary version of fascism. Capisci?
John White
Rockwall, Texas
John N. White 
Hi John,
Stumbled across your website when researching wind turbines for my Master of Science in sustainability. I always stride to understand both sides of an argument and as such I read through your post. Please don’t mistake me as a bleeding-heart but more as a human trying to understand other people’s world ideas.
From your bio it appears you are also an engineer with an impressive background. As a fellow engineer, I am well viced in theory of the laws of conservation, and I have no objection to your use of the theories. I do think however, you may have misunderstood the fundamental problem with regards to the ethos of decarbonisation. It is true that we have an unfathomable amount of carbon in and on our planet and life could not exist without it. The issue as I see it, is that most of that is locked away under the earth in coal, oil & gas. Therefore, it’s not floating around in our atmosphere. There is no disputing that carbon is a greenhouse gas and that releasing the trapped carbon under our earth will increase the amount of carbon in our atmosphere. This is the consensus of the scientific community (also of exon mobile if your interested in looking that up). So the issue is not that carbon is inherently bad, its that it will cause a rise in global temperatures and disrupt the environment from its current relatively stable state.
You might argue that all that carbon was in our atmosphere before it was metabolized by plants and buried millennia ago and eventually turned into oil, coal and gas. The issue here is that the earth’s atmosphere at that time would have made it inhospitable to most of the earths current plants and animals.
Curious to get your view on this.
Regards,
Alan
LikeLike
The carbon in our atmosphere is nothing compared to the carbon dioxide in our oceans, lakes, rivers, and ponds.
LikeLike
My eldest son has been a tenured university professor for many years, an expert in volcanoes. He lives and works on grants. I understand what your university expects from you, Alan. I do not view you as a “bleeding heart.”
I am old-school. All I produce is reliable solutions to my customer’s problems. The scientific method is not dependent on buzzwords (sustainable, environmental, green, etc.)
I never use the buzzwords.
With respect to Exxon, the reason that great company goes along with the “concensus” is due to ESG, the purpose which, according to Larry Fink, is to “force behaviors.” Exxon has a board member who is an envronmental activist (a climate alarmist).
The singular greatest greenhouse gas is water, not CO2.
I encourage you to study the hydraulic and the geological properties of the Earth.
LikeLike