WashPost: Is the fight against global warming hopeless?

“That path, however, must end with phasing out most, if not all, energy based on fossil fuels.”

The Washington Post editorializes:

…But two policies can buy the world more time to allow carbon-free technologies to catch up. One is aimed at greenhouse substances that clear out of the atmosphere after a few years, months or even days. Cutting back the emission of soot and ozone gases such as methane would reduce the world’s warming by as much as a half degree Celsius over the next few decades, according to a study in last month’s Science. Adding hydrofluorocarbons — another class of short-lived pollutants — to the list would help even more to delay the approach of temperature thresholds beyond which global warming could be catastrophic.

Reducing these emissions is relatively cheap, especially when the benefits to health are factored in. For example, primitive cooking stoves in developing countries produce much of the world’s soot; using more efficient ones would prevent perhaps millions of deaths from respiratory illness. Methane, meanwhile, is the primary component of natural gas — a commodity that pipeline or coal-mine operators could sell if they kept it from escaping into the atmosphere. Researchers have even concluded that global crop yields would rise…

Read the entire editorial.

About these ads

9 responses to “WashPost: Is the fight against global warming hopeless?

  1. And how much methane in the atmosphere is actually produced by man compared to natural occurrences? The absolute arrogance of these greenie weenies is mind boggling. Global crop yeilds would increase under a more CO² enriched atmosphere because CO² is plant food, thus more food for plants means more plants, which means more food for humans and animals. Common Sense to the average. And I want global warming, I am sick of freezing my butt off every winter. Bring it on so I and many others can enjoy it. Should sue all the AGW liars for getting my hopes up.

  2. Ideas like that are why they are writing editorials and not in charge of anything.

  3. Tell me, what is the logic here. EPA demands we close down old power plants to prevent mercury spreading into the atmosphere and, on the other hand, demand we use curly curl light bulbs right in our house that contain mercury. What the common metric here is government forcing their rule on us. All this “green” energy promotion is for, not a better cleaner environment, but government control over energy, all sources of energy. Then they control how we live and die(ObamaCare will kill us earlier). And we thought Hitler and Lenin were evil, yet today’s progressives and environmental allies are far more evil!

  4. Dear Mr. Milloy.
    In my opinion, the history of AGW is identical to the Andersen tale “The Emperor’s New Clothes” The warmits every day that passes they are becoming more desperate as the unfortunate Dr. Peter FakeGleicklimate. They will lie more and more … but Humanity is waking up from this nightmare. The truth and democracy has defeated Nazism and Communism and certainly will defeat Warmism. One day I hope that all citizens of the world will scream at the same time: “The King is naked!”
    My name is Mauricio Porto, I’m Brazilian 67 years old. I have a skeptical blog and I read every day the JunkScience.com!

    My blog is:http://terrorismoclimatico.blogspot.com/

  5. The do get One thing right: if they really want to reduce these things, BUILD UP the poor nations! Invest in companies which will build infrastructure, raise the quality of life (water and agriculture), bring cheap, Abundant energy to them (none of this wind stuff, except where it can be used, as it has been used on farms for the last few centuries, to pump water).
    Sure as Hell do NOT give it to the governments of those countries. We know where that will go.

    Of course, actually Helping poor people is not what they are about.

  6. Read the whole editorial at WaPo. It is actually advocating for unconventional natural gas as a bridge fuel. They must have gotten the Chesapeake Energy sponsored Sierra Club memo.

  7. The logical fallacy: If you’re for a solution that is pro-development, you should do this. What’s the problem in need of a solution? If I agree it is a problem and I like to call myself “pro-development,” must I agree with your solution?

    It looks very much like they want Africa to get “clean” without all that dirty economic development stuff that China, India and Brazil are putting the world through. Brilliant!!

    Other than that, it’s grade school stuff – Hey, I saw a study in “Science” just last month! Methane could be sold by pipelines if they kept it from escaping – and by coal mines – if only they wanted to.

  8. “Methane could be sold by pipelines” Hmm, I thought it has been transported via pipelines by the companies that sell it for decades. Coal bed methane enjoyed a boomlet a few years ago because it was fairly easy to clean up and inject into natural gas pipelines. Landfill-gas-to-pipeline projects also had a boomlet. However, the price of gas has dropped so much with frakking, they are not as economically viable.

    I wonder if the the “Science” article was written by the EPA “expert” who years ago testified against my company. He knew all about natural gas, couldn’t identify “CH4″ and would ban methane because of the explosion potential from leaks.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s