By Jo Nova
This below, is the latest graph of coal plants in operation in the world today.
Luckily there is one place on Earth where carbon emissions are irrelevant.
Global Energy Monitor: Coal Plant Tracker (GW)
While most CO2 emissions cause wars, droughts, and kill eagles, there are some CO2 emissions that just create refrigerators, so nobody minds.
Where is that Boycott, Divest, Sanction China Movement?
China has 1,271 gigawatts of operating coal power capacity, over half of the world’s total.
The UN has met every year for twenty-eight years to badger everyone to stop using coal to appease the Goddess of Trace Gases and Weird Weather — all while China became the coal furnace of the world.
Or perhaps The UN met every year, so China could do exactly that? Lord above, imagine if the bureaucratic diplomats of the West could be bought off so easily by trophies, trinkets and photo-opportunities? Or perhaps they were naively trapped in cheap honeypot schemes? As a trade strategy, it would be a bargain. And it surely was.
Somehow life on Earth depends on Extinction Rebellion protestors, but they can’t seem to find the Chinese Embassy.
And just so we can appreciate what a standout China really is, let’s compare China to every country in the world.
Global Energy Monitor: Coal Plant Tracker (Total in megawatts)
Everything else is irrelevant.
When the world hits an iceberg and sinks from view, a contributing factor will have been the inability to extinguish the coal fires in China which were warping the solar system.
170
And the chances of hitting an iceberg are getting greater; nothing like more icebergs.
And if you look at https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/
“Antarctic sea ice rebounds in 2026, nearing average after four years”
This looks a lot like natural variation.
Here it’s called ‘the 16th smallest’ since 1979, another way of saying about a third of the years since then were ‘smaller’.
Hardly a convincing or even obvious decline of any great significance.
150
China specialises in high ash, sulphur and toxic metals type coal.
We are worried about their CO2 emissions. Why? The last thing of concern on the lets make the atmosphere unbreathable list.
The public service has a problem.
A nepotism analysis of hiring practices may be revealing.
Just like marrying your cousin, eventually brains are fried.
In this case its a skewed government by committee.
Family Democracy.
Get rich on the back of everyone else.
80
I’m keen to see relevant comparisons – installed renewable capacity, gereration from renewables, cost of installation of renewable capacity (including power lines and backup) v cost of coal.
Sure, this data shows China loves coal, but lefties always counter with “they installed more renewables too” or “they are closing down just as many” and I cannot be bothered arguing with them any more, I’m tired of it.
300
Wind-Solar is always quoted in sales and marketing promotions by private sector and government sources as Installed Capacity or similar reference with weasel words like could supply up to ….. dwellings.
But never Capacity Factor from intermittent operation, AEMO for wind average 30% to 35% of Installed/Nameplate Capacity and from observation by a contributor here 29%
150
In fact, that Capacity Factor for wind generation in China struggles to average 20% on a ‘whole of fleet’ basis, and Solar Generation struggles to average 12 to 15% Capacity Factor.
Tony.
270
The low Chinese renewables capacity factor is partly a consequence of China’s dysfunctional national grid and the remote location of the recent build out of bulk renewables. However, at ~20% fleet average cf it’s arguably not extraordinarily low, particularly considering that (mainly high-latitude) solar makes up 60%+ of the installed renewable capacity.
For me, the really remarkably low cf is actually in the coal sector – currently running at ~50%. WoodMac forecasts this falling further to ~40% in the next couple of years as the coal fired build-out continues.
https://www.woodmac.com/press-releases/chinas-coal-fired-power-generation-declines-for-the-first-time-since-2015/
While some of this excess coal capacity is required to back up intermittent renewable supply, this over investment doesn’t seem to suggest any central intention to reduce coal usage anytime soon.
40
As I said a few weeks ago — the 50% capacity factor for Chinese coal power seems like such a waste, but it means that should a crisis arise, say like war, they could double their generation in a few days.
Just why is China building too much coal power?
What contingency are they planning for?
160
My suspicion is, and often mentioned by former Liberal MP Bronwyn Bishop, is that China is cultivating Vassal States recruiting MPs from targeted countries and with the long term objective of effectively ruling our world and reaping the benefits of power and prosperity for Chinese, CCP above all of course.
The earlier considerations were early 1400s when the Emperor was convinced to invest lots of money in a fleet of sailing junks including very large cargo carriers and smaller protection and exploration junks in several fleets. They sailed all over the world, the Queensland Gympie Historic Society has evidence of Chinese visitors consisting of porcelain and other ornaments planted under trees to mark their visit and possible future land claims? A settlement at what is now Tin Can Bay on the mainland close to Fraser Island is where the settlement was located and a stone watchtower was erected on a hill behind beyond which is the Town of Gympie, the gold mining town that saved the Queensland colony from bankruptcy. Evidence of Chinese prospecting has been discovered near Gympie. It is believed that the settlement was established because the fleet lost many junks probably in the bar entrance to now called Sandy Strait and the rule was that any survivors could not transfer to other junks because that would strain provisions etc.
In the end the decision was burn the fleets and retreat into China but encourage foreign traders to visit as in The Silk Road.
Maybe the CCP have decided to create Belt & Road investment lures and other means to make countries dependent on China?
It is a very deep and complex new world order latest development and one that businessman Trump has been concerned about long before he stood for election as POTUS.
60
That Chinese junk story was bunkum. The more I read, the more skeptical I became. Then the book made an outrageous statement that I knew was clearly wrong. Further web research showed that many others had poked numerous holes in the story. Threw the book in the bin.
00
See Gympie Queensland Historic Society about the Gympie and Tin Can Bay discoveries and the watch tower that, I recall but vague memory, was dismantled around the time the White Australian policy was enacted.
00
Joanne,
as I have said all along, it’s just a matter of industrialisation, bring their standards up to what the already Developed Countries have in place.
It happened in the U.S. immediately after World War Two. in the late 1940s the U.S. was only generating a little more than what Australia generates now, a tick over 250TWH.
The U.S. very rapidly Industrialised, and to cater for all that Industry, they had to construct power plants like there was no tomorrow, basically all of them coal fired power.
As those plants went on line, the benefit was that people got more access to electricity in their homes. Virtually half of that generated power went to Industry, and it wasn’t until the late 80s, early 90s that Industrial power consumption fell to second place, surpassed by Residential, and now Industry has dropped below Commercial power consumption. The ratio is now (around 39% Res, 37% Comm, and 20% Industrial, and the rest to Transport)
In China, back in 2007/8, before coal fired power generation ramped up ‘off the map’, the residential sector in China was only consuming 7% of all power. As all these new plants went in, virtually all the power went to Industry, as our already developed World moved their Industries to China. The benefit (exactly the same as what happened in the U.S.) is now that people are getting access to electricity in their homes, and when I last had a look, Residential power consumption in China is up to (around) 20%. There’s still humungous numbers of Chinese without ANY access to electricity in their homes.
And similar to what is happening with coal fired power, the Chinese have also ramped up Hydro power on a similar humungous scale.
They (China) are only doing exactly what we have already done, only we did it 50/60/70/75 years ago.
Their population skews the data completely, because even now, China consumes less electricity per capita than we in the Developed World do, and a hell of a lot less in fact.
I know it sorta makes me sound a little like an ‘apologist’ for China, which I most definitely am NOT, but they’re only doing what we have already done.
Tony.
100
Pointing out the facts doesn’t make one an apologist.
Post Cold War, China has transitioned from a purely Communist State to a country that wears two hats. Ideologically, it’s Communist. Economically, it’s practicing Capitalism but with all the benefits that a Communist regime can provide in terms of suppressing all labourer’s rights -whilst maximising profits- without any repercussions.
Anytime Western nations refer to China as a “developing nation”, they are certainly misguided. That’s an old term which should be potted.
20
I agree with you Tony, developing countries were given economic growth opportunities by UN and member nations that signed the various UN Agreements beginning with 1975 Lima Protocol.
We might have reservations and concerns about China and CCP totalitarian government foreign policies hower economic prosperity for the people who are gaining benefits should not be condemned.
00
I agree with you Tony, developing countries were given economic growth opportunities by UN and member nations that signed the various UN Agreements beginning with 1975 Lima Protocol.
We might have reservations and concerns about China and CCP totalitarian government foreign policies hower economic prosperity for the people who are gaining benefits should not be condemned.
00
Robots and mnore robots. They need continuous, reliable electricity.
Expect one billion Chinese machines that can move.
10
Forgot the robots that make the robots.
11
Loss of oil supply obviously.
Something like 3/4 of the oil going from Venezuela to China has now been diverted by Trump, thanks to the US Navy.
Not sure how much reduction in oil and gas coming out of the Middle East … but it’s significant
!
The US policy has always been to control China by throttling the oil supply … this has never even been secret.
10
US is again an oil and gas exporter and more than Saudi Arabia and Qatar export, oil and gas.
00
Think the low CF figures are also caused by constrained supplies of solar and wind.
40
Even the lucky ghost says when the wind blows and when the sun shines
20
I should have been more explicit. It seems that the Chinese limit the amount of solar and wind that can be supplied to the grid, I’m presuming to maintain grid stability. This curtailment doubled during 2025, up to 6.6% for solar and 5.7% for wind. So regardless of extra solar and wind being added, that doesn’t mean they will be allowed to use that solar/wind for grid supply. That’s why I believe it’s important to look at the complete annual figures for where power actually came from, and ignore what’s available.
40
And, in a manner EXACTLY the same as what happened in the U.S. from the late 60s onwards, as those new Large scale (2000MW+ Nameplate) plants came on line, then hundreds of those older ‘tiddlers’, (between 5MW and 50MW Nameplate) closed down in great numbers, all across the Country.
In China, the same is happening. The plants now opening are huge Nameplate USC plants. The plants closing are ancient tech tiny Nameplate plants.
What is also happening is that China has now perfected the ability to Upgrade some of those older tech Units (between 250MW and 660MW) to the newer USC technology.
Tony.
280
Tony recently a UK based engineer who has confirmed his expertise in nuclear technology, nuclear reactors including certification and building power stations in various countries including in China pointed out that in very recent times China has redesigned a couple of coal fired power stations with nuclear reactors replacing the boiler system.
60
That whole line of alarmist argument is riddled with false equivalences, which they can never admit.
100
Also waiting for the total annual electricity generation figures for 2025 from China. Haven’t as yet seen them. Link anybody?
10
No one in power and the Left care because the entire anthropogenic global warming scam is about the destruction of the West and the supremacy of China, a notionally communist and real totalitarian country beloved by the Left.
How else do you explain how the world’s largest CO2 emitter, by far, an advanced industrial, military, space, AI, nuclear weapons, nuclear electricity, total surveillance state, superpower is allowed to operate emissions-free?
All helped along by the slave army of useful idiots of the Left in the West who are happily helping to destroy Western countries and elevate China.
340
David:
But India (and lots of others) are expanding their use of coal.
It may be that “the slave army of useful idiots” is actually blind or possibly stupid.
180
Yes, as admitted by the UN Official before Paris Conference 2015, link posted here many times.
And UN Lima Protocol/Agreement 1975, UN Agenda 21 – Sustainability 1990 and emissions reduction targets ever since Kyoto Climate Conference 1997 (Howard Government formed 1996) but really taking off after 2007 Copenhagen and here Rudd-Gillard Labor governments – emissions trading scheme plan became carbon tax and hidden in service to property charge renewable energy surcharge also 10%, Renewable Energy Target legislated 32% and so on.
80
Copenhagen Climate Charade (CCC)
notable for snow & ice & cold which closed the airport causing chaos for private jet-setters getting to the Party™️ on time … thankfully saved [mitigated? adapted? resilient?] by limousines & helicopters & police escorts to make the show a success [sumpfink about a road map and moving forward and sustainably saving mermaids].
Some emissions are more equal than others.
110
I have been following the stories about a new world order that began with rise and fall in between times with the UK Fabian Society (late 1800s) Marxists, one of their sayings is the inevitability of gradualness.
Moving forward to 1975 and the United Nations Lima Protocol/Agreement Whitlam Labor signed for Australia, and Keating Labor 1990 UN Agenda 21 – Sustainability, regarding transfer of manufacturing wealth redistribution and related free trade with developed countries eliminating tariff barriers, I attended one meeting of government and businesses during 1980s after Hawke Labor was elected 198s, and as businessman Donald Trump opposed long before he stood for election for POTUS, in my opinion the climate change emissions reduction demands have included get out of gaol free cards for developing nations and China is the best example and the leader of growing economic prosperity.
10
I’ll be that China doesn’t use the junk metric LCOE (Levelized Cost of Energy) to compare electricity generation types. That’s for all the dumb countries like Australia.
160
The LCOE would work better as COLE [sic].
80
Cost of Levelised Energy probably makes more sense as they arrive at cost by tinkering with energy performance and making slanted assumptions.
40
I actually meant “cole” rhymes with “coal” but yours works.
00
China doesn’t compare energy types … they build all of everything, everywhere they can.
They just build and build.
00
A reminder from the IPCC.
130
Australia 2007-2013 Renewable Energy Target 32%, Transition To Renewable Energy = transition away from fossil fuels
However, since RET 82% Albanese Labor and collapse of the green dream hydrogen taxpayer monies squandering exercise it is natural gas “the transition fuel”
40
I started doing what I do back in March of 2008. I was a beginner at it, and reading those early Posts can sometimes be a little embarrassing for me. Ed at PAPundits (and the International he added to the Blog title later when we started being ‘picked up’ everywhere) encouraged me to keep going, and to write whatever I wanted. I couldn’t do that without at least checking on the things I was actually putting down.
I found an obscure fact as I researched what I was doing that China was bringing on line new tech coal fired plants, and ….. ‘at a rate’ I couldn’t believe.
I wrote it up in my word processor and emailed the new Post off to Ed . I emailed the first dozen or so to him, he would check them, and then Post them at the site timed for his Midnight in Harrisburg Pennsylvania. After that first dozen or so, he gave me a ‘login’, and from then on I would just write them straight into the Posts at the site.
However, with that third Post in the Series, before he actually posted it, he sent me an email, asking if what I had written was actually true ….. when I wrote that China was indeed bringing on line one new coal fired plant every week. (Here. I had written what I had originally researched, and that was two new plants every ten days, but Ed changed it one a week, still not certain that it was actually true) And on top of that he actually then put that whole sentence into Bold text to highlight it.
Now, that’s just the back ground.
Back at that time, some of you will remember that Andrew Bolt had his own Forum that you could leave comments at. I used to do that quite often, and sometimes, I would wait till after Midnight, write my comment in my word processor, and then as soon as his Forum Comments section came on line, cut and paste my Comment into his site, and in that way, I could be the first Commenter for the night.
Okay, so after my Post was published at (what is now) my home site, I made my comment, with the short version saying that China was indeed opening these new plants at that rate, and then I left the link to the Post at my home site.
Now, in much the same manner as here at Joanne’s site, we have people like Simon, then the same was occurring at that Andrew Bolt site as well.
So, one of those ‘regulars’ came in early on the ‘reply’ facility, and scoffed at me, saying that was patently bewlSh1te, and there was no way they were doing that.
In fact, Ed had even watered the original back down.
I was somewhat chastened, and again, thinking that it probably DID sound unreasonable, so I went flat out with more checking, and everything I found pointed to it actually being correct.
Okay, so here IS the link to that original Post of mine. The bolded text is at the bottom of the Post, the third in my original series, and dated 26 March 2008.
Kyoto – A Perspective (Part 3)
There was NEVER any reason for me to apologise for writing that, as confirmation soon became axiomatic.
Tony.
290
And ALL of that COAL was, previously, mostly CO2.
And aeons before that, there was NO FREE OXYGEN, It was ALL tied up in a multitude of metallic (nostly) oxides; noteworthy among them, DiHydrogen Monoxide.
Ah: The “good-old-days”, before photosynthesis..
110
Those graphs could also serve as comparative IQ between the leadership of China and the other countries.
100
Given that Australia’s environs absorb more CO2 than we emit, doesn’t that mean that in order to achieve Net Zero we should be building more gas and coal powered stations?
230
no
014
YES!
140
Most certainly we should be adding nuclear to the mix, and consider the use of appropriately-sized SMRs for large country towns, to minimise very expensive and risky long transmission lines. The environment would surely benefit.
100
And the developments at Copenhagen Atomics is a great example of what’s happening right now.
10
Your link to Copenhagen Atomics simply goes back to Jo’s page.
21
As of today Matt Canavan is the new leader of the Nationals . He has lead from the back to promote the use of our own coal and to ditch net zero .
By electing him as leader the National party room has endorsed the values he has overtly promoted for a long time .
Just need to get the Liberals up to speed now .
One Nation will give them a good push too .
191
Canavan and Taylor are a very good match for Leader and Deputy Leader of the Liberal National LNP Coalition and both have complimented one another already and referred to their past political compatible points of view
70
Is there any way, or any metric, that shows China in a good light vis a vis the west?
As far as I can see, China has spent decades stealing IP, flooded our markets with dodgy products (including some that were toxic or unsafe), operated unfair and deceptive trade practices, spied on supposedly friendly nations, operated highly illegal and secretive shadow police forces in our midst, conducted cyber warfare online not just against foes, but among ordinary citizens by stoking division and hate, provoked other nations such as Australia through the conduct of ‘naval exercises’, including live fire, without the customary notice, cosied up to rogue nations that hate the west, America in particular, by providing military support and weapons, applied trade restrictions and/or tariffs on nations simply which criticised the CCP (Australia again).
Of course much of this they are perfectly entitled to do, and other nations do some of this as pert of normal, inter-nationional rivalry/commerce. The difference that is inexplicable to me is how all of the overt belligerence is not just tolerated by western leaders but facilitated through one-sided agreements.
70
Past week interviews with a former Israeli Mossad chief and a US based journalist revealed that the propaganda sources directed at countries of allied nations including Australia include Iran and China, Russia and other allies on that side.
Yesterday it was revealed but no details provided by our authorities here or allies of a message intercepted from the remnants of the Iran power base to “sleeper cells” in foreign countries calling on them to cause disruptions, but what we are not told.
20
One Nation, not Labor, is what the Coalition fears most. They could end the renewable subsidy harvesting rort.
100
Transition to renewable energy away from fossil fuels was full speed ahead from Rudd Labor after the 2007 Federal election, first was emissions trading scheme proposed and later implemented as carbon tax and hidden in services to property charge renewable energy surcharge levy. The Minister at the time admitted when questioned that part of carbon tax was remitted to the UN IPCC from Australia.
Labor legislated for Renewable Energy Target of 32% that Abbott Government from 2013 attempted to repeal but the hostile Senate (numbers opposing) rejected that, but did agree to get rid of carbon tax. Thereafter, and noting electricity supply, development applications, public land are all State areas of responsibility, Federal legislation backed by State legislation and regulations and therefore a Federal Government has problems dealing with any opposite side governments and therefore RET 32% Transition continues and since 2022 is 82%
The Morrison net zero at Glasgow Climate Conference was not “signed up to” as often claimed by media sources, the offer by PM Morrison was for Australia to have an aspirational goal and based on new technologies (example nuclear power stations zero emissions) and that was opposed within the Coalition ranks but continued until only recently when first the Nationals dumped it and then the Liberals followed them.
The subsidies situation was first addressed by the Dutton Plan that contrary to mischief political attacks did not revolve around a nuclear power station/plant future, it required 7 nuclear power stations ( large nuclear reactors) and 2 of them smaller plants (SMR technology reactors and suitable generators) to replace shut down coal power station capacity and add new installed capacity while retaining all other supply technologies existing.
And, as I understand the plan, let the market work out if wind, solar, batteries are commercially viable without taxpayer profit subsidies.
30
No one has ever proven fossil fuel CO2 builds up in the air. So what is the problem again?
And how does any government get to pass laws based on science which is not proven? Unless you listen to the United Nations IPCC. The Intergovnermental Panel for Climate Change. Surely the name alone should give you the clear idea that man made world ending CO2 driven Climate Change is entirely the responsiblity of the UN politicians. And therefore the right to tax everyone to death and send the money to China. While China does whatever it likes.
There is no science in this whole scam. Humans CANNOT change the smount of CO2 in the air. (And I have to say that even the CO2 Coalition thinks otherwise, again without any proof.)
CO2 is simply the vapour pressure of dissolved CO2, 98% of which is in the oceans. And slight warming means slightly more CO2. You don’t need scientists to prove that.
As for whether the increase in CO2 is harmful in any way, that also is not proven. (And there the CO2 Coalition has volumes to say.)
90
And no one has ever proved that rising CO2 causes warming – unless they delete data which disproves their theory.
And the latest waffle claims that Antarctic iceberg are only 15th lower in volume since 1979 so “warming is happening”.
That will also cause the outcry about melting arctic ice will flood Edinburgh**, as recently claimed.
**which is only 67 metre (220 feet) about current sea levels.
And no doubt London will be at great peril despite the Watergate at the Tower of London still not being flooded since its completion in 1285 AD.
60
Agreed. In fact all the alarmism for the last 38 years has proven completely false. All of it.
Then Presidential candidate Al Gore made it up and the UN/WMO revelled in their new found power with the IPCC, a political group not a science group, announcing the end of the world. Very soon.
Many of the people who made it up are dead. James Hansen is 84 while Al Gore is 77. But two generations of people have been educated in their hatred for carbon dioxide. They have never heard anything else. Perhaps someone should tell them that all living things produce carbon dioxide and now its supposed to be a toxic industrial gas?
Chicken Little/Henny Penny has nothing on Climate Change. The sky is falling. And for half a lifetime, now billionaire Al Gore has been Foxy Loxy. And enjoys his many houses and holidays at the beach. From a tobacco heir to father of the greatest lie in human history. And it suits poor third world China just fine.
70
” And how does any government get to pass laws based on science which is not proven?”
The ONLY science in play is POLITICAL SCIENCE.
00
There’s one interesting little factor about ‘carbon [sic] pollution’ that – mysteriously – seems to have been overlooked by all ‘the experts’. And what it it? CO2 is heavier-than-air! And so all the propaganda about it ‘trapping heat up there’ is clearly complete garbage because – in reality – it goes DOWN!
And what does it do when it ‘goes down’? It feeds the plant life! No CO2 = No plant life. No plant life = no us!
Hmm… I wonder why ‘the experts’ never seem to point this nastily-inconvenient fact out?
110
CO2 is a well mixed gas. It is lifted up into the upper atmosphere by convection, and is found in the stratosphere. There are many empirical measurements that demonstrate this. The molecular weight of CO2 is 44g/mol, but the molecular weight of CFCs found in the stratosphere is 137g – 187g/mol. The atmosphere is in constant motion.
But yes, plant life loves CO2, you are 100% correct on that. 🙂
100
Agreed, CO2 is well mixed over time. Measured time to cross the equator is around 2 years. But CO2 does also sink as much as rise as hot exhaust which quickly cools.
Except for aircraft most fossil fuel CO2 is output at very low altitude and most human habitation is very near the water, often oceans but also lakes and rivers. Consider all the world’s shipping.
And while thermal updrafts cause by air expanding on heating produce major mixing, CO2 is heavier and does usually go down. An example of how heavy it is was been seen tragically in the limnal explosions in Africa where vast amounts of volcanic CO2 have been released suddenly from lakes. A bit like the Menthos effect. And in one case triggered possibly by a rock slide.
Plus the incredible solubility of CO2 in water. 30x higher than O2 and while O2 is relatively insoluble, fish breathe and all life started in the oceans, not on the bare rocks.
The agreed time in fact for all atmospheric CO2 to cycle through the oceans is around 8 years. Measured times 7 years with C14. However that is for ALL CO2. CO2 output near the water from sea side cities or ships does sink and can keep going. So the time of absorbption is closer to 6 months. We saw that with the massive bushfires on the East Coast of Australia as the cooling air blew across the South Pacific. Of course the usual explanation is just rubbish, more faux science from the CSIRO about trace metals like Iron. In fact CO2 is the food of all plant life including rapidly growing phytoplankton.
As a matter of interest in the Menthos experiments, there are about 6 litres of CO2 in just a litre of Coca Cola at a pressure of only 2.5 atmospheres. And that’s only 1.5 atmospheres higher than you are breathing now and equivalent to only 15 metres depth in the ocean. So the capacity of oceans to absorb incredible amounts of CO2 are just staggering. And we are told the oceans are ‘full’ and cannot take any more CO2. Rubbish.
80
I need to point out too that CO2 can be layered trapped in water, as shown in the link to limnal experiments. Thus ocean movements, currents can move both heat and CO2 around. And CO2 atmospheric changes can be no more than ocean osciallations which produce El Nino which can not only bring warmer water to the surface, but also associated higher levels CO2 gas. The idea of thorough mixing of both heat and CO2 is not credible in the oceans where 99.9% of all surface heat is stored and 98.0% of all Co2.
50
You are absolutely correct! The point that I’m trying to make is that its natural tendency must be to go down – contrary to the Al Gore-type propaganda.
So the popular belief that ‘carbon pollution’ floats up there is basically propaganda ….
40
Perhaps one of the funniest pieces of fake science behind the CO2 story is simple. The current output of fossil fuel CO2 is 1% of what is in the atmosphere already. But the growth of CO2 in the atmosphere is only 0.4%. So the story is that the ocean is full, but it manages every year to absorb 60% of the CO2 and 40% stays in the atmosphere. Exactly why that should happen is beyond logic. But then so is inexplicably sending billions of dollars stolen from electricity bills to China for windmills and solar panels for 30 years. And the Australian government now crying economic disaster and flagging sudden booming inflation when oil prices go up 23%, likely temporarily.
It was sad when Kappel Prince(Portland), Australia’s only maker of windtowers closed its Portland business because they could not compete with cheap imported Chinese windmills. Now there’s a caring government worried about manufacturing. Especially when the money to buy Chinese windmils ultimately came from Australian electricity users through hidden carbon dioxide taxes and Green schemes.
90