Carbon Capture Doesn’t Work, So Why Are They Doing It?
Carbon dioxide harvesting is the Establishment’s latest eco-darling initiative and a big part of the Biden administration’s net-zero fantasies.
The 2021 Infrastructure Bill included a mind-blowing $12 billion in carbon capture technology funding and the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act increased government subsidies for capturing CO2 from $50 to $85 per metric ton.
“Carbon capture and storage” (CCS) aims to trap CO2 as it is produced by refineries and power plants. “Carbon dioxide removal” (CDR) involves large machines that extract CO2 directly from the atmosphere.
The trapped gas is liquified and transmitted at extremely high pressure to underground reservoirs. Sometimes it is used to extract oil and gas from deep, otherwise-depleted wells, in a process known as Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR).
Around 5,000 miles of CO2 pipeline already exist in this country, but experts estimate that up to 65,000 miles will be added if Biden’s government’s plans are realized.
Of course, all these exorbitant expenditures are based on the lie that CO2 is a pollutant, when carbon dioxide is actually the “gas of life,” as plants require it to survive, and as we rely on plants to survive. Every 8th grader knows this.
But here’s an interesting twist about CCS and CDR. Even environmentalists are against it as a “false solution”! As radical an activist as Al Gore calls it “nonsense.”
Why? Because it doesn’t work, plus it is net carbon additive!
Take, for example, a CDR module from the Swiss manufacturer Climeworks AG. Its energy consumption is approximately 2,650 kilowatt-hours per metric ton captured. In order to generate that amount of electricity, a coal power plant emits 2.4 metric tons of CO2. That’s a net add of 1.4 metric tons. In the case of natural gas plants, the net add is approximately 0.5 metric tons.
And though it is rare that you can make such an absolute statement as this, every single carbon capture project in existence today has missed its forecasted CCS goals. Every. Single. One.
At this point, the critical thinker in you is probably asking, “If the technology doesn’t work, and if it adds carbon instead of removing it from the atmosphere, why are they using it?”
It’s part of the ongoing global land-grab masked behind the virtue-signalling “Save Mother Earth” narrative. We’ve seen the same in regard to wind and solar projects, which gobble up otherwise arable land for wasteful “renewable” energy sources that could not compete in the level playing field of a free market, but depend upon hefty government subsidies for their very existence.
This global land grab has been in the works for years. The Action Plan from the 1976 UN Conference on Human Settlements spelled it out in clear words:
Land, because of its unique nature and the crucial role it plays in human settlement, cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership … contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development scheme.
Public control of land use is therefore indispensable to its protection as an asset and the achievement of the long-term objectives of human settlement policies and strategies.
These dystopian ideals have been built into most major UN declarations and conventions, most notably Agenda 21, which then-President George H.W. Bush signed us to at the 1992 UN Earth Summit in Brazil. Its latest update is known as Agenda 2030. The goals are best summed up in the World Economic Forum’s video, “8 Predictions for the World in 2030,” which promises that we modern feudal serfs will “own nothing” and “be happy.”
Owning nothing would most certainly not make me happy, and I hazard a guess it would not tickle your fancy either. The solution? Fight tooth and nail against these encroachments on our God-given rights. Educate yourself, your family and friends, and especially public officials within your reach.
Learn that code words such as “sustainability,” “carbon footprint,” and “renewable” really mean slavery to ever-increasing government overreach. It’s easier than you think to expose the plot to steal our rights, when you can point to the proof playing out in your own backyard.
Here are other materials by this scientist that you might find interesting:
Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.
WiseEnergy.org: discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.
C19Science.info: covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.
Election-Integrity.info: multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.
Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2024 Archives.
Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time – but why would you?
See more here Substack
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Tom
| #
It’s all part of the depopulation scheme. Eventually these clowns will stage a carbon-capture pandemic of some sort.
Reply
VOWG
| #
Money.
Reply
aaron
| #
too obvious
Reply
Anapat
| #
Did you know? Up to three liters of CO₂ can be dissolved in one liter of wine. So, if we turn all that noxious CO₂ into sparkling wine and drink ourselves to death, we’ll have solved the climate problem.
Reply