Climate Change

Show Only... Charts / Google Maps / Maps / Photos

Energy Movement
Climate Change
Fossil Fuels
Natural Gas
Nuclear Power
Power Plants

Questions? Need an updated map? Email me

Rick Perry Denies Climate Change Role of CO2

"Energy Secretary Rick Perry said Monday he does not believe carbon dioxide emissions are the main driver of the earth's record-setting warming, a core finding of climate science. Instead, Perry said, the driver is most likely "the ocean waters and this environment that we live in."

"Perry became the second of President Donald Trump's cabinet members to go on television to publicly dismiss the importance of CO2 in global warming, ignoring the scientific evidence. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt rejected its role in answer to essentially the same question in March, also on CNBC's "Squawk Box."

Two Government Agencies. Two Different Climate Maps.

"With gardens a-sprouting, a warm, wet winter behind us,1 and a hotter-than-average summer for much of the country ahead, we decided to look at whether and how climate change was affecting what plants can grow around the country. The easy data solution — or so it seemed — was to look at a series of maps dedicated to showing Americans what plants can survive in their neck of the woods. These are called plant hardiness zone maps, and they’ve been produced since the 1960s by the U.S. Department of Agriculture."

"But then we noticed something weird. The USDA’s website specifically asks people not to use these maps to document climate change. Meanwhile, it looked as if other parts of the federal government were doing exactly that in reports such as the National Climate Assessment."

"So what gives? It turns out, the government produces two hardiness zone maps — one made by the USDA and one made by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. Both divide the country into segments, each of which represents a 10-degree increment of the average annual minimum temperature. But the underlying data used to build out the zones is different. Those differences are driven by the agencies’ goals, and they affect what the different maps are intended to be used for."

Carbon Emissions, Pie Chart

This is a graph of sovereign states and territories by carbon dioxide emissions due to certain forms of human activity, based on the EDGAR database created by European Commission and Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency released in 2014. The following table lists the 2014 annual CO2 emissions estimates (in thousands of CO2 tonnes) along with a list of emissions per capita (in tonnes of CO2 per year) from same source. The data only considers carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and cement manufacture, but not emissions from land use, land-use change and forestry. Emissions from international shipping or bunker fuels are also not included in national figures, which can make a huge difference for small countries with important ports. The top 10 largest emitter countries account for 68.2% of the world total. Other powerful, more potent greenhouse gases are not included in this data, including methane.

Data Source:

Weekly Carbon Dioxide Readings, 2015-present

68% of the Earth's land is north of the equator in the Northern Hemisphere, while only 32% is south of the equator in the Southern Hemisphere. During the summer in the Northern Hemisphere, there are a lot more plants that become green and turn carbon dioxide and sunlight into sugars using chlorophyll.

Data Source: Mauna Loa Observatory Readings, Weekly Averages 2015-2017.

BBC: There are diseases hidden in ice, and they are waking up

"However, what would happen if we were suddenly exposed to deadly bacteria and viruses that have been absent for thousands of years, or that we have never met before? We may be about to find out. Climate change is melting permafrost soils that have been frozen for thousands of years, and as the soils melt they are releasing ancient viruses and bacteria that, having lain dormant, are springing back to life."

Don't worry, be happy !

What If Climate Scientists Are Guessing Wrong?

"There is, they reckon, about a 10 percent chance of a temperature increase exceeding 6 degrees Celsius, or 11 degrees Fahrenheit. That would be a civilizational catastrophe, orders of magnitude more dangerous than the likely warming scenarios, and potentially on a scale that could threaten human life. Even if the likely scenarios were completely harmless, the far-right tail alone is horrific enough to justify significant steps. After all, they argue, people do not accept a 10 percent likelihood of a fatal car crash or terrorist attack. Wagner and Weitzman are economists well versed in climate science who bolster their case with a rigorous analysis of both science and probability."

Climate of Complete Certainty

"Let me put it another way. Claiming total certainty about the science traduces the spirit of science and creates openings for doubt whenever a climate claim proves wrong. Demanding abrupt and expensive changes in public policy raises fair questions about ideological intentions. Censoriously asserting one’s moral superiority and treating skeptics as imbeciles and deplorables wins few converts.

None of this is to deny climate change or the possible severity of its consequences. But ordinary citizens also have a right to be skeptical of an overweening scientism. They know — as all environmentalists should — that history is littered with the human wreckage of scientific errors married to political power."

I was hearing about President Trump’s tax reform idea and was thinking what would be the most effective, job creating tax proposal out there. I think it would be a carbon tax.

Right now, America does not tax fossil fuels based on their carbon content. President Bill Clinton once proposed taxing carbon using a “BTU tax” but the idea never really got off the ground. But that was 25 years ago, and if anything the climate crisis has gotten more urgent. At the same time, the tax code has gotten more complicated, picking winners and losers without much of a sense of fairness.

I really like the idea of a national carbon tax. Individuals and most businesses would not pay the carbon tax — the only businesses who would pay a carbon tax would be those who extract or import carbon products into America. Certainly it would be an expense to owners of coal mines and oil and gas wells — but those are a small fraction of the American economy. While it would mean consumers would pay higher gas prices and more for heating fuel — it could be offset by growing the economy by eliminating taxes on investing and saving.

I suggest the carbon tax be used to cut taxes on businesses and investors. One of the taxes which has bothered me to no end is the tax on capital gains and on most interest-bearing investments. It just doesn’t seem right that after working hard, and paying taxes — and doing the right thing to invest money into growing the economy — I should be hit with another round of taxes. Imagine if all investments were tax free, like municipal and most government bonds are. It would encourage millions of Americans to invest their money rather then spending it on consumption. Tax the fossil fuel-burning car, not the growth of the economy.

Tax-free investments would provide billions in new capital funding, rather then being blown on frivolous things like new cars or disposable toys. If people didn’t ever have to pay on investments, they would be much more likely to save for retirement or just a better tomorrow. And because investments would be tax-free, investors wouldn’t have to report their gains to governments. It would make taxation much simpler, as your taxing much fewer people — just the carbon fuel producers, and not the general economy.

A carbon tax would allow the government to replace the Clean Power Plant program with just a tax on carbon-rich fuels. It would discourage the use of the most-carbon intensive fuels, especially dirty coal. And as many of the most carbon-intensive industries are the most polluting, it could allow government to reduce the level of regulation on many polluters, especially if there was a dramatic drop on overall emissions over time when people move away from burning large quanities of coal and oil to make energy.

This is why support replacing the Capital Gains tax and the tax on interest-gaining investments with a Carbon Tax.

Other Greenhouse games – Carbon Monoxide

Carbon monoxide unlike carbon dioxide doesn't directly cause climate change, but it does have impacts on the atmosphere which can slow down the breaking down of climate changes gases, especially methane.

Carbon monoxide is more of a danger to urban areas, as it causes heart attacks -- and in high concentrations in enclosed location -- headaches and death.

Greenwashing The Obama Climate Legacy

"The first Obama Administration’s climate policy was largely indistinguishable from George W. Bush’s and it fought having to regulate greenhouse gases almost as hard as its predecessor. Only after the 2012 election did it show any appetite for actual emissions regulation, and by then it was mostly too little, too late. As I previously noted, the low priority Obama gave to climate issues makes his policy legacy fragile. While his second administration took some steps to reduce emissions, only about half of it will matter – and, as discussed below, even that may be outweighed by their mistakes."