In order to reduce carbon emissions, we’ll have to increase them!

Great news!
According to a Princeton University study, if we take greenhouse gas emissions arguments seriously, the implementation of cap-and-trade will have precisely the opposite effect that it’s intended to have.

Carbon reduction laws encourage widespread deforestation as trees and other vegetation are harvested to produce energy from biomass to replace oil and gas. The problem is that in long run, this process actually increases greenhouse gas emissions, which cap-and-trade is meant to reduce, according to Searchinger.
The Princeton researcher’s paper, published Oct. 23 in Science, points out that almost all prior global warming studies failed to take into account the carbon emissions that result from converting cropland and forests to energy production. This accounting error treats all bio-energy as carbon-neutral, the authors say, despite the fact that burning wood and clearing land actually releases quite a large quantity of carbon into the atmosphere.
“By using a worldwide agricultural model to estimate emissions from land-use change, we found that corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20% savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years,” the Princeton authors say. “Biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on U.S. corn lands, increase emissions by 50%.” Neither the Kyoto Protocol, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, nor existing European cap-and-trade programs have taken into account widespread deforestation as farmers worldwide respond to the new economic incentives, Searchinger added.
Those figures might actually underestimate the growth of greenhouse gas production caused by reliance on energy produced from bio-mass sources because cap-and-trade includes $30 billion in subsidies for alternative energy research, development, and commercialization, including bio-mass. In other words: A vote for the House version of cap-and-trade or the companion legislation sponsored in the Senate by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-CA, and Sen. John Kerry, D-MA, actually means a vote for even more greenhouse gases. Who knew? Now, it’s the opponents of cap-and-trade bills who can honestly say they are just trying to save the planet from the ravages of greenhouse gases.

But will this faze Boxer, Kerry, and company? Hell no! The goal is not really to decrease greenhouse emissions, but to take control of the economy.
Cap-and-trade is also unconstitutional, but then, so is federalizing heath care, regulating wood, federalizing hate crimes, and most of the legislation they’re passing these days.


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

2 responses to “In order to reduce carbon emissions, we’ll have to increase them!”

  1. Tom DeGisi Avatar

    Just skimmed your post on wood. I think we need to bring back congressional effigies as a form of protest. You can tar and feather an effigy, or hang it by the waist from a liberty pole….
    Yours,
    Tom DeGisi

  2. Veeshir Avatar

    The “leaders” of the global warmmongering community are uninterested in global worming.
    They want power, politicians mostly.
    They want money, Gorequemada for instance.
    They are anti-technology and their goal is to reduce, if not eliminate, man’s footprint on the Earth.
    The followers, the people who vote for them, mostly really think they’re trying to save the planet.
    I’ve heard more than one pine for a time when man lived in harmony with nature.
    When I tell them the only time like that there were only two people on the Earth (Adam and Eve), they don’t like that.
    Wrong religion I guess.