On April 8, 2022, Annette Smith, executive director of Vermonters for a Clean Environment, testified before the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee regarding the problems with H.715, the “clean heat standard.”
“I have a very good knowledge of how this bill came about and how the Climate Council has operated. I will observe that the process was extremely rushed. Nobody on the council had seen the full report 12 hours before it was presented to the meeting where it had to be voted on. … My general observation is the Climate Council has no accountability process and, Senator Campion, I happened to by the accident of YouTube see a video of you asking questions two years ago about ‘shouldn’t we have some accountability before the plan is adopted, shouldn’t we vote on it?’ You were asking extremely good questions and you were told no. I think the legislature needs to revisit the Global Warming Solutions Act and expand the narrow priority of the emissions reduction. Any representation that the language in the Climate Action Plan is fully supported by all the Climate Council members, I don’t think is accurate.”
Watch her full 25-minute testimony on YouTube or press play below.
Life is carbon, and carbon emitting. Get used to it!
If you want to freeze in the dark and only walk for transportation –
More POWER to you!
https://notrickszone.com/2021/01/29/over-400-scientific-papers-published-in-2020-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm/
Per the accounting of CO2 emissions:
You maybe surprised to learn that the effect of CO2 on the temperature is NOT linear, but exponential.
This means that adding more CO2 causes less warming as the wavelengths where radiation is captured and emitted become saturated.
Currently, physicists estimate that these wavelengths are fully saturated, so adding more CO2 will have no effect on global temperatures. For example, the UAH satellite global mean temperature measurements show no change (ie flat) for the past 90 months, even as CO2 levels continue to rise.
The greening effect of CO2, however, will continue as more semi arid land is converted back to grass and forest. This already has caused an area equal to the size of the US to change from arid to green.
Here is a technical analysis of the physics involved: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.03098.pdf
Given all this is there any reason at all to try and curtail CO2 emissions when all that will do is decrease the amount of arable land on the planet.
Yirgach,
You are right about saturated wavelengths, and world AVERAGE temperatures not increasing for the past 90 months.
It takes a long time for certain self-seeking, subsidized, RE folks to admit to the science, but eventually they will have to.
A giant infrastructure has been built up during the past 20 years.
It would fight tooth and nail to prevent its demise
A study by German scientists find electric vehicles are responsible over the ten year expected battery life of adding 11% to 28% more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than their Diesel counterparts when energy requirements including battery production are considered.
When rainforests and grasslands are cleared to grow biofuel crops, the carbon stored in the soil and plants is released as CO2. Fargione et. al showed that altering natural ecosystems into cropland releases 17 to 420 times more CO2 than the annual GHG reductions that these biofuels would provide by replacing fossil fuels (Science, Feb. 2008). A more recent study found that corn ethanol (the most common biofuel) emits at least 24 percent more carbon than gasoline (PNAS, Feb. 2022).
Absolute dogmatism, believe it or else, is a characteristic of cult religions. The AGW cabal are zealots. They refuse debate, demonize heretics, would burn apostates at the stake if it weren’t for the carbon dioxide resulting. Can you take seriously anyone who flies a private jet to an exotic location to convene with other like saviors of the world to discuss denying petroleum use by the commons? Or Buttigieg proposing five billion dollar coast to coast recharging stations? Gas stations didn’t happen that way.
This is one of the key studies that have gotten recent support. Your description is right on target. We need the crisis alarmist to actually do some learning! There are over 200 recent studies by actual climate science that demonstrate CO2 is NOT the driver of Earth warming.
Thank you for your comments.
Nothing pertaining to any tax should be passed without having a cost
analyses done to prove it doe’s something. In the case of lowing the global
co2 output of one of the greenest states it better provide a substantial decrees
compared to planting trees or some other co2 absorption method. When our
0.03% of the worlds problem is only lowered by 0.001 that’s no reason for a tax.
As Steve Koonin argued in his book, “Unsettled,” we need a red team approach to climate science before we start basing policies on the supposed necessity to stop CO2 catastrophic warming. I’ve written an essay on this: https://jimreagen.substack.com/p/global-warming?s=w
Agreed 100%!
I misspoke in one place, where I said I have no alternative to propane, and then said I could swap out my oil furnace for a biofuel furnace. I meant to say I would have to swap out my propane furnace for a biofuel furnace. I do not have an oil furnace. I have no alternative to a propane heater in the basement, which was required in order to get fire insurance.
Annette,
A lot of people do not know biofuels have upstream CO2 equal to 45% of the combustion CO2.
Propane has upstream VO2 equal to about 15 to 20% of combustion CO2
The concept of not counting combustion CO2 of biofuels is faced on very dubious premises.
The GWSA telling folks biofuels are ok, but propane is not, are drinking the Kool-aid of these premises.
In a rational world, all this would be dismissed as bull manure
But in the fake news world any thing goes regarding anything
Thank you Annette I found your presentation and testimony compelling and hope that this senate committee and the others in Montpelier review this information and comes to a common sense decision on this absurd clean heat standard. How clean is clean, taking into account all of the processes needed to produce a BTU of energy, and is electric power delivered through a grid the most reliable source for most of our essential energy needs and the panacea for reducing CO2??
As a fellow off-the-grid rural resident in the middle of the Green Mountains already living a comfortable low carbon fossil fuel existence I am attempting to make a decision whether to move on before this H.715 becomes a reality nightmare. Too many radical changes too quickly and not sure this old homestead can be economically retrofitted to become an affordable and sustainable domicile on a retirement income. May have to head to the suburbs and give up the independent, free and outdoor rural lifestyle that this VT locale currently offers.
Thank you Annette for having the courage and patience to try to deconstruct absurdity in front of those responsible of promoting and imposing it.
Thank you, Annette, for your hard work and research and bringing a voice of common sense often lacking under the Golden Dome.
Before we know it they will be taxing the smoke coming out of our chimneys.
Never mind the smoke. Just wait. Before too long these progressive, liberal morons will be trying to tack a value added tax on to the air we breath. Would probably require a different type of mask than we’ve been mandated to wear previously…
Mark
,
You are alive and breathing, but will be accused of being a CO2 emitter, and banished to purgatory, unless you make a big $contribution to the climate gods
I hope and pray that in the upcoming Nov election enough of these idiots who think they have rights to be in charge of us, are shown the door. This needs to happen because they do not understand reasoning with the goal of common sense and good judgement outcomes… they do not get it, period. Just look at history and see where these nut cases have had influence and then look at outcomes. Once this has been done, how does anyone expect the climate change actions poised to be the wallbanger of lifetime (my lifetime) are going to produce the expected results they say will be realized? It just boggles the mind, and thanks to Annette for her common sense objectives and reasoning.