When It Comes To Doing Something About ‘Climate Change’, NIMBY Joins In

This is the current Axios headline

The obstacles to building our way out of climate change

If you check the URL, it mentions NIMBY (not in my backyard), and hover the tab and you’ll see Resistance to development might be the biggest block to climate action. People do not want this stuff in their backyard, and they do not want the negative effects in their lives

Averting catastrophic climate change — while ensuring economic growth for the world — will require renewable energy and carbon removal projects on a massive scale.

That’s sarcasm, and probably a bit too much for 2021. Give it about 5 years, and it’ll be an easy spoof with the doomsday cult of climastrology.

Driving the news: On Friday at the UN climate summit in Glasgow, the U.S. Department of Energy announced it will launch a major research effort to bring the cost of carbon removal below $100 a ton by 2030.

  • That’s good news for the climate, as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has calculated the world may ultimately need to remove 100 billion to 1 trillion tons of CO2 by the end of the century to keep temperature rise below 1.5°C.
  • But beyond the scientific challenge of vastly reducing the cost of effective carbon removal — which is currently as much as $2,000 per ton — achieving it on a massive scale would require building out an entirely new kind of energy infrastructure.

So, the DOE wants to cut that cost by 50% by 2030? How? And how much will this cost U.S. taxpayers? And, why are they using the unscientific word “carbon”?

13% of the world — almost 1 billion people — still lacks any real, reliable access to electricity. The average person in the Democratic Republic of the Congo uses just over 100 kWh, more than 100 times less than the average American or Canadian.

Sure seems like California is dealing with unreliable energy, to the point they are trying to use more natural gas for a cold winter. Anyhow, these 1st world cultists would like to deny the same energy use to those icky black and brown people.

The catch: The development required for net-zero carbon is increasingly meeting local resistance on the ground, including from people who identify as environmentalists.

  • On Tuesday, people in Maine voted against a $1 billion, 145-mile energy transmission project that would bring clean Canadian hydropower to New England, on the grounds it would disrupt the state’s woodlands.
  • That vote came a few months after plans for what would have been the U.S.’s largest solar plant — providing enough daytime electricity to power 500,000 homes — were scrapped because of complaints the 14-square-mile project would damage the Nevada desert.
  • Expanding offshore wind development is a key part of the White House’s climate plans, but actually building it has repeatedly run into local resistance.
  • Making it easier and cheaper to live in dense urban areas is an immediate way to shrink carbon footprints, but NIMBY movements (“Not In My Backyard”) and regulations have helped keep the most productive U.S. cities from sufficiently expanding housing supply.

People do not want this stuff around them, and the extreme enviros, and regular people, will block it

“You’re creating whole new supply chains that don’t exist, and you’re trying to do it in a very fast time,” says Daniel Yergin, author of “The New Map: Energy, Climate and the Clash of Nations. “That means transitioning from Big Oil to Big Shovel.”

And who runs that new supply chain? The government, right? And we all know what a wiz bang job they do. And then they have control over, at a minimum, everything regarding your energy use.

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

4 Responses to “When It Comes To Doing Something About ‘Climate Change’, NIMBY Joins In”

  1. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    William Teach: why are they using the unscientific word “carbon”?

    “Carbon” is not an unscientific word. It’s the name of an element.

  2. Hairy says:

    Teach would rather have us think that most people would prefer to have nuclear and coal plants next door

  3. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    In this case, the use of “carbon” is a synecdoche, a figure of speech where a part represents the whole, e.g., “Tampa Bay won the Super Bowl last year”.

    Actually, we all know that the city of Tampa Bay did not win, it was a National Football League (NFL) team, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, that won the 2021 annual championship of the NFL. The annual championship game of the NFL is known as the “Super Bowl”. It’s more efficient to say “Tampa Bay won the Super Bowl”, and with no loss of meaning to most Americans.

    William Teach should be delighted that the powers that be (also a synecdoche) wish to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

Pirate's Cove