Warmist: No New Carbon Infrastructure Can Be Built After 2018

This is about as nutty nuts as the Cult of Climastrology can get. Level 10 moonbattery (not Shub, he just highlighted it). And by “carbon infrastructure”, there is way, way more involved.

In only three years there will be enough fossil fuel-burning stuff—cars, homes, factories, power plants, etc.—built to blow through our carbon budget for a 2 degrees Celsius temperature rise. Never mind staying below a safer, saner 1.5°C of global warming. The relentless laws of physics have given us a hard, non-negotiable deadline, making G7 statements about a fossil fuel-phase out by 2100 or a weak deal at the UN climate talks in Paris irrelevant.

“By 2018, no new cars, homes, schools, factories, or electrical power plants should be built anywhere in the world, ever again unless they’re either replacements for old ones or are carbon neutral? Are you sure I worked that out right?” I asked Steve Davis of the University of California, co-author of a new climate study.

“We didn’t go that far in our study. But yes, your numbers are broadly correct. That’s what this study means,” Davis told me over the phone last fall.

I couldn’t accept that we need to immediately slow production of new things like factories, hospitals, homes, and ten thousand other things that use fossil fuels. I couldn’t accept that everything had to change…right away. I sent out emails to leading scientists in different countries practically begging them to tell me I screwed up the math or something. “It’s a different way of looking at where we are but you’ve got it right,” they said.

The CoC really wants the world to look like Ethiopia than Portland.

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

10 Responses to “Warmist: No New Carbon Infrastructure Can Be Built After 2018”

  1. Liam Thomas says:

    Insane.

    This only confirms what I believe most dingbats in the AGW cult really want to do.

    They simply do not think it thru because of some arbitrary number they imposed upon themselves that will act to reduce fossil fuel use.

    This number then becomes the holy graille. The Book of Revelations, the Koran, the dead sea scrolls to the AGW movement.

    Its partially based in science….yes 3.5 degrees F will certainly change the climate on this planet….

    Everyone has always understood that this planet cannot sustain continued unabated growth.

    The potential for a hot planet will abate that population growth and force people to stop having children as the planet cannot sustain them, feed them or supply unlimited energy to them.

    As the population naturally declines because of climate shifts……..balance will be restored…hopefully alternatives will be the source of power and energy and renewable resources the key to our future.

    But until that day arrives to end fossil fuel use today…or to drastically cut it in the short term is unrealistic. The chaos and panic it would cause would lead to world wide war and rebellion.

    I pointed out that in 2007-2008 oil spiked at 140 dollars per bbl which led to food riots all over the far east. The facts are there to point to even worse food riots and calamity if we were to do even half what the AGW crowd wants us to do in the short term with no alternatives in place.

    This has always been my argument….I do not care who feeds and powers the world…..I only care that the world is fed and powered.

    Food riots would turn into resource WARS.

  2. Jeffery says:

    For those interested in reading the Davis & Socolow (2014) paper.

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/8/084018/pdf/1748-9326_9_8_084018.pdf

    The authors did not present recommendations but projected the amount of CO2 emissions based on current and future construction of coal, gas and oil plants. Some “journalist” made the claims about infrastructure.

  3. gitarcarver says:

    Some “journalist” made the claims about infrastructure.

    “Some journalist asked Davis if that was a conclusion of his paper to which Davis agreed.”

    There. Fixed that for ya because you have problems reading and comprehending.

  4. Liam Thomas says:

    ************READ THIS**************

    The problem is China….

    Coal, the most carbon-intensive of the fossil fuels, accounts for 70 percent of energy used in China today and is responsible for about three quarters of electricity generation.

    In just 5 years, from 2005 through 2009, China added the equivalent of the entire U.S. fleet of coal-fired power plants, or 510 new 600-megawatt coal plants.

    From 2010 through 2013, it added half the coal generation of the entire U.S. again.

    At the peak, from 2005 through 2011, China added roughly two 600-megawatt coal plants a week, for 7 straight years.

    And according to U.S. government projections, China will add yet another U.S. worth of coal plants over the next 10 years, or the equivalent of a new 600-megawatt plant every 10 days for 10 years.

    India is a problem.

    India is poised to contend with China as the globe’s top consumer of coal, with 455 power plants preparing to come online, a prominent environmental research group has concluded.

    The coal plants in India’s pipeline — almost 100 more than China is preparing to build — would deliver 519,396 megawatts of installed generating capacity. That is only slightly less than pending new capacity in China, which remains the undisputed king of coal consumption.

    In the meantime the US coal fired power plants are shutting down and being replaced with more renewables and more gas fired plants which are 100x’s more efficient and produce way less co2 and polltuion.

  5. Liam Thomas says:

    Yet the USA is the evil culprit always in the AGW movements eyes.

    Again they are obsessed with per capita and more importantly……CAPITALIMS.

  6. john says:

    nut picking is pretty easy Teach
    But it is nice to see you agreeing with Obama that this is too extreme a position

  7. Jeffery says:

    gc massages the truth once again… you have problems reading and telling the truth.

    “By 2018, no new cars, homes, schools, factories, or electrical power plants should be built anywhere in the world, ever again unless they’re either replacements for old ones or are carbon neutral? Are you sure I worked that out right?” I asked Steve Davis of the University of California, co-author of a new climate study.

    “We didn’t go that far in our study. But yes, your numbers are broadly correct. That’s what this study means,” Davis told me over the phone last fall.

    As to your comprehension, the authors Davis and Socolow did not make that observation in their paper, as I clearly stated.

    I understand you are obsessed with me, and it’s at once both flattering and creepy. Mostly creepy. Are you the SAME gitarcarver that used to make reasonable and thoughtful comments here?

  8. jl says:

    Because we promise you-and this time (not like all those other times), that Artic ice we said would be gone will really, really be gone this time…..and all those millions of climate refugees we promised you will suddenly materialize by then, too. And all that other stuff that hasn’t come true will……

  9. gitarcarver says:

    Jeffery has comprehension and memory issues….again.

    What you said in your reply to my comment:

    As to your comprehension, the authors Davis and Socolow did not make that observation in their paper, as I clearly stated.

    What you said initially:

    The authors did not present recommendations but projected the amount of CO2 emissions based on current and future construction of coal, gas and oil plants.

    Yet when asked, Davis did agree with the question asked by the reporter.

    Davis is an author of the paper, isn’t he Jeffery? So while you want to try and worm out of the idea that you said the paper made no assertions, you clearly did not say what you thought.

    Furthermore, the idea (actually a lie) that you implied that the infrastructure idea was simply an idea of a journalist and not agreed to by one of the authors of the paper is another deception at best and a lie at worst from you.

    Also, if you actually read the paper (which I doubt that you did) the authors talk about using regulation to limit infrastructure building.

    I understand you are obsessed with me, and it’s at once both flattering and creepy.

    And I understand that you don’t like having people fact check your lies. You don’t like people calling you out for your deceptions.

    It’s called a “debate”Jeffery. I know you don’t like to debate facts and therefore have to attack the messenger. If facts are “creepy” to you, maybe you should look in the mirror and ask why.

  10. Jeffery says:

    GC,

    Ummmkay, yeah, sure.

Pirate's Cove