The United States is leading the world in reducing its emissions of carbon dioxide. And it’s doing so by a wide margin.
Yes, you read that right. The United States – the country that is routinely vilified by the Green/Left for refusing to sign the Kyoto Protocol or impose carbon taxes or institute a cap-and-trade system – is dramatically cutting its production of carbon dioxide. Proof of that has come from both the International Energy Agency in Paris and the Energy Information Administration in Washington.
But you won’t hear about America’s success at cutting carbon dioxide emissions from groups like the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, or the leftist Center for American Progress. That’s because those very same groups are opposing production of the fuel that’s making those reductions possible: natural gas.
Welcome to the strange world of “green” energy politics where fossil fuels – all of them – are vilified because, well, they aren’t wind, and they aren’t solar. Nevertheless, the facts are readily available for anyone who cares to look at them.
Please tell me, when dealing with the left, that facts had anything to do with the discussion. Facts simply prove that the left lies about everything, and the MSM is along for the ride, as they are too lazy to do any actual investigative journalism.
“Facts simply prove that the left lies about everything”
Thank you, I had no idea…
The real killer here is that emissions are not dropping because of government programs or regulations.
Emissions are dropping because businesses who don’t care about politics or ideology, but who do care about making a profit have discovered what you haven’t.
It’s a money maker.
Ironic, isn’t it?
Yay- rates of change for the win!
Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy the US is decreasing its CO2 emissions, however that doesn’t mean everything is perfect:
First, it’s easy to have a large initial drop of anything if you’re the one producing the most. It’s taking the next step that’s more difficult. In economics, it’s a term called diminishing marginal returns.
Which leads me to my second point: natural gas, while definitely better than coal, is not ideal. Solar or wind plants are the ideal end result, therefore shifting resources to developing natural gas is only a stall.
How many thousands of wind turbines (that only work when the wind is present) and how many square miles of solar cells (that only work if the Sun is shining) are needed to replace one gas fired power plant? Perhaps the wind turbines could be located next o Sierra Club headquarters to harness all that hot air emanating fromthere!
Actually, Gerard, that is an excellent question! Do any of our fellow Junk Science fans have the answer?