Reader Question: Carbon Capture?

Here’s the latest reader question, along with my reply! 

Gregg asks: There is a psychological problem with the current way we battle the climate change scam.  We present a truck full of evidence that the numbers don’t add up, that the predictions have been wrong and we get Homer Simpson types who say “maybe the Earth is warming, we can’t be sure.”  I propose an end around: carbon capture.  Of course, it is not needed and is terribly pricey, but it is cheaper and much less obnoxious than existing and future regulations.  These regulations encompass all human activity since human activity takes energy.  Carbon capture costs about $50 a ton and roughly $2 trillion for the whole planet at current levels of technology. Since Washington has shipped most of the dirty manufacturing overseas the cost for the United States may be far less. Improved technology may even reduce the cost further, but the beauty of carbon capture is there is no technical argument against it. The argument may even make crude oil a good thing again. Don’t expect big oil as an ally on this though. The scarcity of oil, caused by war or regulation, is the mother of oil profit.

My reply: Carbon capture has been proposed, actually – but  (leaving aside the cost) it will never be implemented because the goal is not carbon reduction. That is merely the excuse for the economic strangulation of the masses and the increased control of the government-corporate nexus over the masses.

Once you understand this, everything makes sense.

Just as Face Diapering and Sickness Kabuki are not about “stopping the spread” but rather increasing the spread . . . of control by the government-corporate nexus.

Consider the EV thing as a for-instance. If the object of this exercise were truly to reduce CO2 output then why are almost all EVs extant designed to deliver performance that at least doubles if not triples the amount of energy they consume and thus massively increases the amount of C02 generated to produce it? The fact is that the preponderance of electricity generated in this country is not generated by wind farms and solar arrays but by C02 emitting utilities.  And EVs like the Tesla are the electric equivalent of a V8 SUV in terms of the power they suck down.

This is cheered – subsidized and promoted.

Meanwhile, small and extremely efficient hybrids are now the ugly ducklings of the new car marketplace, notwithstanding that they place almost no burden on the grid and consume very little energy (and use very little gas) and so produce essentially nil of any harmful emissions – while also being practical and affordable, unlike all the EVs extant.

See what I mean?

. . . .