Pakistani Climate Change Minister Calls For Doing Away With Fossil Fuels

Of course, we’re told that no one is calling for the complete (forced) abandonment of fossil fuels usage

‘Ditching fossil fuels’ essential stablising climate change’

Federal Minister for Climate Change, Senator Mushahidullah Khan, has hailed leading G7 industrial nations for announcing that they will phase out the use of fossil fuels by decarbonising the global economy in the course of this century.

Such move, if actualised, would help control emission of climate altering green house gases (GHGs), which have caused global warming. Eventually, this will lead to stablising climate change and reduction in occurrence of the climate change-induced natural disasters, the minister said in a press statement issued here on Sunday. (Snip)

Mushahidullah Khan said that getting rid of fossil fuels’ use would require energy transition beyond fossil fuels through multiple means, including transport electrification, decommissioning of operating fossil fuel-fired power plants and prevention of the construction of new fossil-fuel-fired power stations in the rich countries.

“Above all, a move to the many forms of renewable energy from solar, wind, water and air is must for shifting away from fossil fuels,” he emphasised.

Of course, there is absolutely nothing available that can replace fossil fuels at this time. It would be great if there was. Warmists, though, want to put the cart before the horse.

Then they jump in their own fossil fueled vehicles.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

16 Responses to “Pakistani Climate Change Minister Calls For Doing Away With Fossil Fuels”

  1. john says:

    How very true Teach there is nothing available at THIS time to replace fossil fuels.
    However
    Things are changing quite quickly. Solar costs per watt have fallen by 70% in only 6 years.
    Every month we hear of big changes in battery storage.
    Tesla has boosted their driving range to 400 miles between charges. My personal prediction is that by 2020 (5 years) that will be over 600 miles.
    Khan was calling for doing away with within the next 85 years. Teach do you think that is impractical? Fossil fuel prices are increasing, solar prices are decreasing, When do YOU see solar as being flat out cheaper? In 5 years ? 10 years?As far as the analogy of putting the cart before the horse???? Teach that shows how far in the past you are.
    The big danger for conservatives is that the big political money for their GOP comes mainly from fossil fuel companies.

  2. john says:

    And Teach SC is (finally) going to take down that Confederate flag as everyone knows that it identifies with racism and rightwing extremism. Any chance you may take down your sign as identifying YOU as a right wing extremist like Dylann Roof ?

  3. Jeffery says:

    Federal Minister for Climate Change, Senator Mushahidullah Khan, has hailed leading G7 industrial nations for announcing that they will phase out the use of fossil fuels by decarbonising the global economy in the course of this century.

    See where he said “phase out the use of fossil fuels by decarbonizing the global economy in the course of this century”?

    See the terms “phase out” and “this century”?

  4. Liam Thomas says:

    Things are changing quite quickly. Solar costs per watt have fallen by 70% in only 6 years.
    Every month we hear of big changes in battery storage.
    Tesla has boosted their driving range to 400 miles between charges. My personal prediction is that by 2020 (5 years) that will be over 600 miles.

    Again….do you even have half a notion how many batteries it will take to replace fossil fueled transportation?

    Can you fathom how much strip mining is involved in the quest to build trillions upon trillions of batteries?

    You guys keep talking about generating electricity….and battery operated cars.

    Super go for it…..

    The problem continues to be that petroleum based products are used to make almost everything we consume.

    Synthetics which could theoretically replace fossil fuels will have to be produced/manufactured or created somehow.

    You can neither create nor destroy matter therefor….your going to be taking ENORMOUS resources from the planet to create all the synthetic resources that used to be filled by fossil fuels.

    The gigantic can of worms that the world is opening upon itself is unimaginable in the land of the AGW loony toons.

    In 85 years you might eliminate fossil fuels.

    but at what cost? The strip mining and gutting of the rest of the planets resources all in a vain attempt at keeping co2 out of the atmosphere.

    Im glad I wont be here to see the idiocay unleashed on Planet Earth by Morons.

  5. Liam Thomas says:

    Synthetic oil is a lubricant consisting of chemical compounds that are artificially made (synthesized). Synthetic lubricants can be manufactured using chemically modified petroleum components rather than whole crude oil, but can also be synthesized from other raw materials.

    API Group II- and API Group III-type base stocks help to formulate more economic-type semi-synthetic lubricants. API Group I-, II-, II+-, and III-type mineral-base oil stocks are widely used in combination with additive packages, performance packages, and ester and/or API Group IV poly-alpha-olefins in order to formulate semi-synthetic-based lubricants.

    Yes I understand that synthetics can be made but to create 1 bottle of oil requires the equivalent of 1 bottle of STUFF….organic or inorganic…..

    MATTER can neither be created nor destroyed….hence as I have pointed out repeatedly producing the goods required by 8-9 billion people in 2100 is going to require the amount of organic and inorganic compounds that is mind boggling and stagggering.

    In fact it will destroy the earth 100x’s faster the global warming could ever do. I would laugh at this if I didnt have children and grand children who have to suffer the repercussions of this hysterical lunacy.

  6. Jeffery says:

    Liam, you type as if Earth has an inexhaustible supply of fossil fuels.

    What percentage of the total consumption of fossil fuels goes into making plastics, pharmaceuticals, household solvents etc?

  7. jl says:

    We see John is off his meds again- “Fossil fuel prices are going up” Really? Gas is cheaper than it was last year. “SC is going to take down the Confederate flag as it identifies with racism and right-wing extremism.” The Confederacy, by today’s standards, would be extremism from Southern Democrats. But you know that. Do you really think taking down a symbol will stop racism? And from Instapundit-_England had slavery till 1833. Are you going to ask them to take down the Union Jack because it symbolizes slavery? “The big danger for conservatives is that the big political money comes mainly from fossil fuel companies.” Why would that be a danger, John? And do you have the data to show GOP money come “mainly form fossil fuel companies?

  8. Liam Thomas says:

    What percentage of the total consumption of fossil fuels goes into making plastics, pharmaceuticals, household solvents etc?

    1. How many batteries will it take to power the world? The entire world? How do you make those batteries? Do they appear from thin air? or do they require strip mining raw materials to make……

    A. Currently, the power train in electric cars consists of the storage of power in batteries with lithium anodes and power generation by an electric motor. The electric motor requires rare earth elements such as neodymium.

    What about Solar Panels?

    1. silicon (doped with boron and phosphorus) is the best know solar cell material it is not the only element solar cells are made out of. Silicon is also the most abundant of the elements used and so far produces the most efficient photovoltaic cells. Here is a list of some of the other type of solar cells:

    Gallium Arsenide
    Cadmium Telluride
    Copper Indium Diselinide

    Great NEWS!!! Silicon comes from SAND!!!

    AWESOME….just one problem……Industrially, silica is converted to pure silicon by heating it with coke (the form of coal, not the drink) in a furnace. But there’s an even easier, if less cost-effective, method that I learned from Jason Stainer, a science teacher in England. All you have to do is heat a mixture of common silica sand and magnesium powder in a test tube. The magnesium steals the oxygen atoms from the silica, leaving elemental silicon.

    AWESOME…..so all we need is a bazillion tons of Magnesium powder and some way to create a FLAME…..

    BUT WITH ZERO FOSSIL FUELS…good luck making industrial strength flames to melt Iron and things like that…..

    I know…I know you can use a windmill for that……

    WINDMILLS……Glad you asked.

    1. To estimate the quantities and types
    of materials used in wind turbines, a
    database was compiled from a
    variety of industrial, DOE laboratory
    and existing PERI sources.

    LOL so many types of materials go into the manufacture of a windmill they had to create a data base to keep up with all of them….

    But I KNOW……….

    IN YOUR WORLD OF NO FOSSIL FUELS we will have to find a way to make all this stuff using…………

    what? I give up…its your pipe nightmare not mine…..explain to me what exactly will mine, produce, transport and get to market just about anything…..let alone enough of it for 9 billion people?

  9. Liam Thomas says:

    1. Three different raw materials are needed to make aluminium, aluminium oxide, electricity and carbon.

    This is of course after the Bauxite is STRIP MINED AND TRANSPORTED to the factory.

    2. Electricity is run between a negative cathode and a positive anode, both made of carbon. The anode reacts with the oxygen in the alumina and forms CO2.

    And then…….

    3. In the extrusion process, the aluminium ingot is heated and pressed through a shaped tool called a die.

    Of course we know we can convert fossil fuel fired aluminum plants to use More windmills and solar panels…..

    but now of course your going to have to make like 10x’s more alternatives then originally planned because as a heat source for manufacturing fossil fuels are unsurpassed…..

    the point of this exercise is the simple production of aluminum the most used metal on the planet creates CO2 and requires a heat source and an electrical source just for manufacture….I guess we can strip mine all the bauxite and ship it to the plants with electric operated massive earth movers.

  10. Jeffery says:

    How is it the engineers and scientists haven’t accounted for all your discoveries? Or do they know and ignore and suppress the information to enable their takeover of Earth?

    Stanford engineers propose a state by state strategy for transitioning to renewables.

    http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2015/pr-50states-renewable-energy-060815.html

  11. Dana says:

    No one has a problem with the idea that we should replace fossil fuels when we can; my problem is with adding additional costs to people for using what fuels are actually available. Alternative fuels will replace current fuels when they become available, and they’ll become available through the normal research and development process.

  12. Liam Thomas says:

    How is it the engineers and scientists haven’t accounted for all your discoveries? Or do they know and ignore and suppress the information to enable their takeover of Earth?

    From your linked article:

    For each sector, they then analyzed the current amount and source of the fuel consumed – coal, oil, gas, nuclear, renewables – and calculated the fuel demands if all fuel usage were replaced with electricity. This is a significantly challenging step – it assumes that all the cars on the road become electric, and that homes and industry convert to fully electrified heating and cooling systems. But Jacobson said that their calculations were based on integrating existing technology, and the energy savings would be significant

    Even though the costs would be in the trillions.

    Again you AGW people can’t quite grasp the concept of where all this shit comes from.

    You keep going back to electricity. FINE.

    Build all the stupid windmills and solar panels you want……build…build…build…build…. build….dont stop building….build them all.

    And when your done building them…build some more….

    Great now you’ve got a bazillion windmills and solar panels and nukalar power plants all making:

    E L E C T R I C I T Y

    Great.

    Now this is assuming that you can find enough materials to build 1oo trillion solar panels and windmills and Battery packs.

    This is assuming you can figure out how to recycle a trillion battery packs a decade…running cars, planes, trains and automobiles….farming equiptment, tractors, semi-tractor trailers, boats, barges and motorcycles.

    Say good bye to the army, Marines and national guard…..Why? because I doubt tanks, planes, bombers, Bradleys etc…etc…are going to fly on battery packs…..

    So when push comes to shove there is not going to be a single country willing to be the first to give up its Army, Marines and most of its Navy because of the lack of Fossil fuels to fly planes, drive tanks and bradleys.

    Except for most of Europe because by the time all of this comes to pass Europe will be mostly Muslim anyway and declaring a Jihad on the rest of the world.

    but let say you accomplish all this….how long do you think it will take to run out of the other shit needed to make all these solar panels, windmills, nuke plants and BATTERY PACKS that literally run everything?

    The point….if you have even bothered to read this far is that…..

    1. The worlds Armies run on fossil fuel and there is no technology even thought of that can power stealth bombers, propel anti ship missles, rockets, Nuclear Missiles….oh excuse me you can use carbon based solid propellant….no you cant you’ve eliminated carbon so perhaps you can mine some more rare earth shit to power the armies of the world.

    Wait….of course their will be no armies because no one can have anything except electricity….so now its back to throwing rocks and stones at each other and guess what…..1.6 billion starving Chinamen or 2 billion starving Muslims or 1 billion starving Indians and throw a lot of rocks and stones.

    2. You have literally gone from rapeing the planet of fossil fuels to raping the planet of non renewable resources….

    In short your dream of a fossil free world will in the end gut this planet of its soul by strip mining until there is nothing left to strip mine.

    And thats why the pandoras box you guys want to open is going to destroy this world a lot faster then buring fossil fuels until we have harnassed Fusion energy…..the only energy that will ever save this planet from extinction.

  13. Liam Thomas says:

    OMG………..Have you even read the Stanford study?

    Let me summarize.

    1. 77 million solar panels needed in the USA ALONE…JUST THE USA…which accounts for 3 percent of the worlds population…..multiply 77 million by 33….as you can see you will need by 2050…

    TWO BILLION FIVE HUNDRED FORTY ONE MILLION SOLAR PANELS BY 2050.

    2. OMG…You will need 46,480 SOLAR POWER COLLECTION PLANTS just in the USA….now multiply this by 33 to fuel the rest of the world and the world has to build……

    1,533,840 Power Plants…..lolol.

    wait it gets better.

    3. 208 geothermal power plants required….208×33 for the world….now we have to build

    6,864 Geo Thermal Power plants.

    4. 8,823 tidal turbines for the USA….8,823×33 for the world or

    291,159 Tidal turbines for the world.

    5. 484,000 new Wind generators for the USA……..484,000×33 for the world or

    15,972,000 wind generators for the world.

    6. Awesome 36,050 WAVE DEVICES…or tidal harnesses which are mindboggling expensive and assume your not land locked…..so 36,050×33 for the world gives us……

    1,189,650 World Wide Wave Devices….2/3rds of the world is land locked thus the other third of the world will have to triple down to get up to speed.

    7. THREE new hydro electric power plants. 3×33…equals 100 new hydro electric power plants world wide the cost of which is around 500,000,000,000. Dollars not to mention the ecological damage involved.

    Now this is exactly why the IPCC and the AGW truthers say the USA and the west but mainly the USA has to pay for all this….

    The cost is estimated world wide to be on the order of about 300 trillion dollars to get all this done…..

    but thats okay the Koch Brothers and Exxon can pay for it…….

    and when were done…….bingo tons of electricity even though we have nothing to eat and nothing to buy cause we raped the planet of resources to build all this shit.

  14. Liam Thomas says:

    Lunacy……sheer lunacy.

    The AGW, IPCC and all these Academicians have no clue how the real world works, how to pay for this or if its even possible to pay for it.

    Right now they are just in the Cloward and Piven strategy mode…..

    for those who dont know what that is……..Cloward and Piven is a strategy to over burden the system until it collapses.

    Their Goal is the collapse of Capitalism and its sister semi capitalist systems in Korea, Japan, Europe and Eastern Europe.

    Cloward and Piven was experimented with in New York City back in the 70’s. The City Fathers had the Bankruptcy Petition written up and were within 1 day of declaring Bankruptcy when they were bailed out.

    Cloward and Piven works in a world that lets it work…..and the AGW crowd, IPCC and scientists are all of one mind…..

    Capitalism is evil……so Cloward and Piven it is until the system collapses. The doomers and gloomers who predict the collapse of society by 2040 are being truthful….they just have the wrong reasons for why it will collapse.

  15. Dana says:

    Mr Thomas wrote:

    The AGW, IPCC and all these Academicians have no clue how the real world works, how to pay for this or if its even possible to pay for it.

    I’ve long said that if liberals really understood economics, they wouldn’t be liberals anymore.

    The most basic underpinning of economics is the fact that, in the aggregate, human beings take economic decisions which are in their own best interests. The left are then amazed, shocked, stunned when people don’t behave in what the left believe to be their own best interests, because it is simply outside their paradigm that individuals might have a different view of what is in their own best interests than do the left.

  16. Liam Thomas says:

    I’ve long said that if liberals really understood economics, they wouldn’t be liberals anymore.

    Under Obama, the average federal tax rate paid by the top 1% of households has gone up more than 6 percentage points to an estimated 33.8% today, according to the Tax Policy Center.

    Related: How Obama would close the ‘trust fund loophole’

    That’s largely due to the following tax hikes that were part of the Affordable Care Act and the bipartisan fiscal cliff deal at the start of 2013.

    Higher Medicare tax on top wages: It used to be that everyone paid 1.45% in Medicare taxes on all their wages (or 2.9% if self-employed). But the Affordable Care Act added an additional 0.9% tax on wages over $200,000 ($250,000 if married).

    So the highest wage earners now pay 1.45% on their earned income up to that threshold and 2.35% on the earnings above it.

    New Medicare tax on investment income: The ACA also imposed the Medicare tax on investment income at a rate of 3.8%.

    In this context, investment income can come from capital gains, dividends, interest, rental income and annuities.

    (I was pounded by this one when I sold my Kraft stock that I had been socking away a little at a time…..penalizing savings)

    It’s not a straightforward tax in that it wouldn’t necessarily apply to 100% of one’s investment income. It would apply to whichever is less — your investment income or the amount that your modified adjusted gross income (AGI) exceeds the high-income threshold.

    A higher top income tax rate: For those with taxable income over $400,000 ($450,000 if married), the fiscal cliff deal raised their top income tax rate to 39.6%, up from 35% previously.

    So for taxpayers also subject to the 3.8% Medicare surtax, they would pay a top rate of 28% on at least some of their investment income.

    Limits on tax breaks for high-income households: For people with adjusted gross incomes over $250,000 (or $300,000 for married couples), the fiscal cliff deal reinstated limitations or phase-outs that reduce the value of itemized deductions and personal exemptions.

    So do not let them tell you taxes have not gone up under Obama. Its a blatant lie. The problem is that taxes have only gone up for the upper middle class…..Remember the definition of wealthy by the Left, Democrats and obama?

    1 million and your rich…..well 90 percent of the new taxes hit hard people making between 250k and 1 million….

    So if your not rich…you must be middle class huh>?

Pirate's Cove