Climate Realism

[Herman]

A little warming aint all doom and gloom.



https://co2coalition.org/publications/american-midwest-life-in-americas-breadbasket-is-good-and-getting-better/">https://co2coalition.org/publications/a ... ng-better/">https://co2coalition.org/publications/american-midwest-life-in-americas-breadbasket-is-good-and-getting-better/

Our report, American Midwest and Climate Change: Life in America's Breadbasket is Good and Getting Better, was just published. In it, we provide the science that disputes the claims of ongoing and future climate catastrophes.



We document that there is no climate crisis. In fact, we discover just the opposite. The ecosystems and agriculture in these ten Midwestern states are thriving and prospering partly because of modest warming and more CO2.



We find that:



High temperatures peaked 90 years ago.

Recent temperatures are comparable to those nearly 100 years ago.

Growing seasons are lengthening.

Minimum winter temperatures are increasing (that is a good thing).

There is a beneficial increase in precipitation.

There is a decline in droughts, strongest tornadoes and heat-related deaths.

Agricultural productivity has increased greatly.





Further, we find that a transition to "net zero" for the Midwest would make no improvement to the environment and be prohibitively expensive.



The cost to transition the 10 Midwestern states to so-called renewable power would cost more than $6 trillion, or $92,000 per capita. A theoretical effect of such a transition is calculated as averting 0.043⁰ C of warming by the year 2100, which translates to a cost of $14 trillion for each tenth degree of warming averted.

[Herman]

It is very well documented that many more people die from cold than from heat. The largest study on deaths attributable to heat or cold found that cold weather kills 20 times as many people than heat. Another study in the U.K. and Australia found that cold-related deaths in these countries accounted for more than 15 times higher mortality than heat.

The results of a new European study in the journal Nature reported that cold-related deaths account for 10 times the number as deaths due to heat. But when it came to presenting the results, they pulled a graphical sleight of hand.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62114-0/fulltext

https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1307524

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(23)00023-2/fulltext

[Herman]

Another article by my buddy Alex Epstein about this summer's temperatures.

The myth of an overheated planet
This year's hot temps are part of a slow warming trend on a planet where far more people die from cold than from heat, and where we need fossil fuels to protect us from both.

Myth: This year's hot temperatures show that fossil fuels are already making Earth unlivably hot.

Truth: This year's hot temperatures are part of a slow warming trend on a planet where far more people die from cold than from heat, and where we need fossil fuels to protect us from both.


nyone commentating responsibly on summer temps must acknowledge 4 facts:

1. Cold-related deaths > heat-related deaths
2. Earth is warming slowly, and less in warm places
3. Fossil fuels make us safer from dangerous temps
4. Anti-fossil-fuel policies increase danger from cold and heat

1. Cold-related deaths > heat-related deaths

When our leaders discuss the warming of the planet, they treat warming as obviously bad. But while they portray the planet as already "too hot," the fact is that far more human beings die of cold than of heat.

Study after study has found that deaths from cold outnumber deaths from heat by 5-15 times. On every continent cold is more dangerous than heat. Even in many countries we think of as especially hot, such as India, cold-related deaths significantly exceed heat-related deaths.


The fact that far more human beings die of cold than of heat means that for the foreseeable future, even without accounting for the heating and cooling benefits of fossil fuels, fossil-fueled global warming will save more lives from cold than it will take from heat.


Every story about warming and human mortality should obviously mention that deaths from cold are the biggest source of temperature-related mortality.

But almost no story about warming mentions this!

This level of ignorance and/or dishonesty cannot be tolerated.

Much of the medical community has been particularly shameful in treating warming as catastrophic.

Observe how the prestigious journal The Lancet drastically exaggerated the threat of heat death by making each heat death show up 5 times larger than each cold death on this bar chart!


2. Earth is warming slowly—and less in warm places

So far we've had ~1°C of warming from a cold starting point in Earth's history 150 years ago. And future warming will be limited by the diminishing nature of "the greenhouse effect"—as well as being concentrated in colder places.

If we remember that cold kills more than heat, and we compare the ~1° C (~2° F) average warming that has occurred over the last 150 years with the wide range of temps we deal with every day/month/year, we will not be scared at all.

So climate catastrophists use deceptions to scare us.

he "compressing the Y-axis" deception

To make the slow warming we have experienced look scary, climate catastrophists like to show warming, not on a human temperature scale but on a compressed Y-axis where 1°C is huge. This is like measuring weight gain on a scale where 1 pound is huge.


The "hottest on record" deception

We hear constant alarming-sounding claims that we are in or near "the hottest year on record."

But given that records began at a cold time and we're experiencing slow warming, of course any given year we can expect a new record. So what?


Given our limited temperature records, alarming us about a "hottest year on record" during a slow warming period is like a doctor alarming a patient who gains 1/10th of a pound of muscle that it's his "heaviest year on record."

The "hottest ever" deception

Climate catastrophists often absurdly equate a month or year being "the hottest on record"—which refers to the fewer than 200 years we have detailed temperature records—with being "the hottest ever."

Even though Earth was 25°F warmer for millions of years!


The "treating local extremes as global" deception

Given the slow pace of global warming, local temp changes tend to be much larger than global ones. To scare us, catastrophists take the hottest local temps and portray them as global so we think everywhere is very hot.

An example of treating local extremes as global has been the national media's focus on Texas when Texas has been "abnormally" hot while ignoring the many places that have been "abnormally" cool.


For some true perspective on heat waves, look at the US Annual Heat Wave Index from the EPA, which says "Longer-term records show that heat waves in the 1930s remain the most severe in recorded U.S. history"
Today's "reporting" would give you no indication that this is the case.


The "treating El Niño warming as global warming" deception

On top of slow global warming, we experience additional warming due to the change from La Niña to El Niño. This is a temporary phenomenon, not a climate trend, but catastrophists exploit it to exaggerate global warming.


Warming so far has been slow and benign. But will future warming make the world unlivably hot?

No, given 2 facts almost universally acknowledged by climate scientists: 1) the diminishing warming impact of CO2 and 2) the concentration of warming in colder places.

The warming impact of CO2 diminishes ("logarithmically") as it increases in concentration.

Every new molecule of CO2 we add to the atmosphere has less of a warming effect than the previous one. Warming will diminish as emissions increase—the only question is at what rate.


Even the most wildly implausible "scenarios" from the anti-fossil-fuel IPCC include diminishing warming and a highly livable world with an increasing population.


Climate warming is concentrated in colder areas of the world (such as the Arctic), during colder times of day, and during colder seasons.

This means that future warming will occur more in cold situations where it saves lives than in hot situations where it causes problems.


All reporting on the warming of the Earth should specify not only that humans are far more endangered by cold than by heat, but also that Earth is warming slowly—and less in warm places.

That virtually no reporting acknowledges this shows that much "reporting" is propaganda.

3. Fossil fuels make us safer from dangerous temperatures

Not only is the warming from fossil fuels' CO2 emissions slow and in many ways beneficial, the uniquely cost-effective energy we get from fossil fuels makes us both safer from cold and heat.

The portrayal of warming temperatures as a huge danger is based on the fallacy of only looking at the negative effects of something (in this case, warming), not the benefits.

Opponents of fossil fuels also commit this fallacy by ignoring the temperature-mastery benefits of fossil fuels.

The key to being protected from dangerous temperatures is to master them by producing different forms of temperature protection, such as: insulated buildings, heating, and air-conditioning. All of these things require energy—which means for most people they require fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels are the only source of low-cost, reliable energy that for the foreseeable future can provide energy to billions—in a world where 3 billion people still use less electricity than a typical American refrigerator.

The developing world overwhelmingly uses fossil fuels because that is by far the lowest-cost way for them to get reliable energy. Unreliable solar and wind can't come close. That's why China and India have hundreds of new coal plants in development.

"Studies" that claim future warming will make the world unlivably hot are denying temperature mastery. E.g., one assessment used by the EPA absurdly assumes that if a city like Chicago got as warm as some of today's Southern cities, it won't adapt and just suffer mass heat death!

It should be common sense for reporters and leaders that if we're going to be looking at the temperature side-effects of fossil fuel use we also need to consider the enormous temperature mastery benefits that come with them.

But this common sense is almost never practiced.

4. Anti-fossil-fuel policies increase danger from cold and heat

The number one thing that will determine people's safety from cold and heat for decades to come is the availability of cost-effective energy.

Anti-fossil-fuel policies will increase both cold deaths and heat deaths.

On a planet where people die much more from cold than from heat, but both are major threats, the key to safety is to have energy be as affordable and plentiful as possible so as many as possible can afford heating and air conditioning. For the foreseeable future, this means more fossil fuels.

Even though billions need fossil fuels to protect themselves from cold (above all) and heat, today's media and leaders pretend that heat is the only problem and the solution is to follow anti-fossil-fuel policies that will supposedly cool the Earth.

This is breathtakingly dishonest.

Not only do anti-fossil-fuel policies deprive people of the energy they need to protect themselves from both cold and heat, these policies cannot cool the Earth for at least several decades, and only then if the whole world, including China, follows them absolutely.

Even if 100% net-zero energy is just decades away (absurd) that won't even have a tiny cooling impact until emissions are zero (or negative) and today's warming energy dissipates.

To portray anti-fossil-fuel policies as cooling in any way anytime soon is dishonest.

[DKG]

"Extreme," "hellish," "broiling," and "deadly." These words, and then some, are being used by politicians and media to describe the summer temperatures sweeping the nation.

"The hottest month just ended. We witnessed scorching heat, extreme weather events, wildfires, and severe health consequences," said Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the director-general of the World Health Organization (WHO), on X, formerly known as Twitter.

"It's a stark reminder of the urgent need for collective action to address climate change. Let's use this alarming milestone to fuel our determination for bold climate action. Together, we can turn up the heat on sustainable solutions and create a cooler, more resilient world for generations to come."

Myron Ebell, director and senior fellow at the Center for Energy & Environment, said that while June and July were hot in many locations, other places experienced below-average temperatures. Los Angeles for example, experienced its 10th coolest June on record, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

"Yes, June was hot, July was hot, globally, but not through the roof," Mr. Ebell said. "The planet is not boiling. Southern Europe has been very hot. But not everywhere is having record high temperatures.

NOAA's primary method for collecting data on minimum and maximum temperatures are the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) stations. These are land and surface stations across the globe measuring climate data, and are often located in areas of high population and infrastructure.

Mr. Ebell said temperature readings are affected by what's around the thermometer, including infrastructure and people. To get a truly accurate reading on temperature, you have to examine satellite data, he said.

Recording Temperature
Areas of high population and infrastructure experience higher temperatures, which in turn influence large scale area average temperatures because most GHCNs are located where people live and work, said Roy Spencer, a climatologist, former NASA scientist, and now a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. That effect, Mr. Spencer said, is called the "urban heat island."

"As we progress to higher population stations, we find that [urban heat island] warming effect becomes larger," Mr. Spencer reported on July 13.

Mr. Ebell agrees, "If you believe the consensus climate scientists, then the urban heat island effect doesn't really amount to much. But, in fact, it does. And even fairly small places with asphalt will experience that effect."

To get a more accurate reading of the Earth's fluctuating surface temperatures in general, Mr. Spencer and Mr. Christy developed a global temperature data set from microwave data observed from satellites. They started their project in 1989 and analyzed data going back to 1979.

[DKG]

Canadian wildfires just like the Australian wildfires a few years ago by the climaggedon crowd. They have no basis in science.

No evidence to support wild claims of 'global boiling'

According to the Hill Times, the "planet is in a climate emergency." Salon said we're facing the "Hellhounds of summer" as the "hottest heatwave in human history just keeps getting worse." July, said CTV, was probably the "hottest month in 120,000 years." And of course, the CBC is at the vanguard, with daily warnings of heat-driven "climate-related disasters" as we enter the "era of global boiling."

So, that's it then. Climate disasters. Hellhounds. Era of Global Boiling. Hottest in 12 millennia. Nothing left but to grab a beer and wait for spontaneous combustion, right? Or maybe not. For the record, climate change is real, partly humanity's doing, and poses some risks to humanity. But Climageddon? Not buying it. Neither should you.

First, let's deal with this "hottest month in 120,000 years" claim. Does anyone know what the climate was like, in any detailed way, over the last 120,000 years? In short, no.

Mercury thermometers were only invented around 1720. NASA's surface temperature record (arguably one of the world's best) only dates back to 1880. Satellites started recording temperatures in 1979, giving us a better idea about the Earth's average temperatures (at least the temperature at certain heights in the atmosphere). That's about all we have by way of decent-quality measurements of the Earth's average surface temperature.

Any estimate of conditions previous to these dates is based on indirect measures of temperature (like fossil tree ring patterns or latent heat measured in arctic boreholes). But as a landmark report from the U.S. National Academies of Science documented back in 2006 (when claims of historic abnormality of climate first went mainstream), these "proxy" measures are of low resolution — in other words, vague indicators of temperature over centuries and millennia, not decades or years. So, any claim that we're experiencing the "hottest month in 120,000 years" is simply propaganda, not a statement of reality backed by hard evidence.

Now, about those fires. Yes, we're having a lot of them this year. Yes, that's playing havoc with air quality across much of North America and bringing misery in its wake. But once again, real measured data are a stubborn thing. And the data suggest that recent trends in fire patterns around the world are not clearly related to recent climate change. In fact, the trend in the number of wildfires (and area burned) in Canada has been declining over the past three decades as the climate has warmed.

Globally, in its latest climate report, the United Nations' vaunted Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assigns only "medium confidence" to the idea that climate change has actually caused increased "fire weather" in some regions on Earth. In addition, reports by the Royal Society (another fairly authoritative scientific body) have shown that while fire activity is on the rise in some regions, there's not a clear overall increase when considering total areas burned worldwide.

Any sober analysis of the available evidence will deflate all the hot air from the media's climate hysteria. In reality, over the relatively short period of time we've been measuring temperatures at regional scales, the climate seems to be getting hotter. But is it some kind of Earth-shattering historic abnormality that's setting the world on fire? Have we entered the era of global boiling? There's no good evidence to back up those claims.
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/green-no-evidence-to-support-wild-claims-of-global-boiling

[Adolf Oliver Bush]

Anyone remember this panic?

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[Lokmar]

Anyone remember this panic?

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I was 11 and we moved from Palm Springs, CA to Springfield, IL. I thought I'd moved to HELL!!!!!

[Oerdin]

People have a tendency to see current weather and think that means the entire climate has changed.

[DKG]

People have a tendency to see current weather and think that means the entire climate has changed.

When it suits their doom and gloom narrative, they always do.

[Herman]

My buddy Alex Epstein on the fake climate emergency bullshit.


Do Not Declare a "Climate Emergency"
"Climate emergency" declaration = endless dictatorship

   
Do Not Declare a "Climate Emergency"

Rising CO2 levels are:

Not dire: Humans are safer from climate than ever.

Not temporary: They will rise for decades.

Not in our control: We emit 1/7 of CO2—and falling.

"Climate emergency" declaration = endless dictatorship

As many leaders obsess about summer temperatures that are predictably a little warmer than they used to be—given the gradual warming trend and El Nino year—we are hearing more calls for the Biden Admin to declare a "climate emergency."

This would be a catastrophic decision.

A government "emergency" declaration is a temporary increase in power that should only be used if a problem meets 3 criteria:

Dire: Unusually deadly

Temporary: Of limited duration

In our control: Actually solvable by our government


"Climate emergency" is none of these.

1: Rising CO2 levels are not dire

While "climate change"—humans impacting climate—is real, "climate emergency" is not. A world in which far more people die of cold than of heat is slowly becoming warmer—and our ability to master climate danger is rapidly increasing.¹

The truth is that fossil fuels' CO2 emissions have contributed to the warming of the last 170 years, but that warming has been mild—1° C, mostly in the colder parts of the world. And life on Earth thrived (and was far greener) when CO2 levels were at least 5 times higher than today's.²

Fossil fuels actually overall make us far safer from climate by providing low-cost energy for the amazing machines that protect us against storms, protect us against extreme temperatures, and alleviate drought. Climate disaster deaths have decreased 98% over the last century.³


When we are evaluating the threat level of climate impact from our use of fossil fuels, we obviously need to incorporate our climate mastery ability—e.g., fossil-fueled cooling, heating, irrigation—which can potentially neutralize fossil fuels' negative climate impacts.

Even though we obviously need to factor in fossil fuels' climate mastery benefits, many designated experts totally fail to do this.

E.g., the UN IPCC's multi-thousand-page reports totally omit fossil-fueled climate mastery! That's like a polio report omitting the polio vaccine.

With rising CO2 we must be evenhanded, considering both negatives (more heatwaves) and positives (fewer cold deaths). And we must be precise, not equating some impact with huge impact. "Climate emergency" claims are neither evenhanded nor precise when looking at rising CO2.

Even though we obviously need to be evenhanded and precise with rising CO2, most designated experts ignore big positives (e.g., global greening) while catastrophizing negatives (e.g., Gore portrays 20 ft sea level rise as imminent when extreme UN projections are 3ft/100yrs).⁴


What about damage from a changing climate?

The trend of real (inflation-adjusted) weather damage is flat—despite many factors increasing vulnerability, like increasing coastal populations and bad incentives from government bailout policies.

This is the opposite of an emergency.⁵


The number of climate-related disasters also didn't increase during the 21st century, when we have the most complete data coverage, despite factors making disaster declarations more likely, independent of climate change—e.g., population increases in vulnerable spots.⁶


If the world continues using fossil fuels to provide reliable, low-cost energy to billions of people, the result will not be a climate crisis but continued manageable warming, significant greening, and a far better life for billions of people.

We often hear that 97% of climate scientists believe our climate impact is dire—a "climate emergency."

But while most agree on some human climate impact, they certainly do not agree there is an emergency.

The myth that "97% of climate scientists agree" about a climate crisis

The myth that "97% of climate scientists agree" about a climate crisis
ALEX EPSTEIN
·
FEB 23
The myth that "97% of climate scientists agree" about a climate crisis
Myth: 97% of climate scientists agree that we face a climate crisis that requires the rapid elimination of fossil fuels. Truth: Most climate scientists agree that we have some climate impact. This does not at all justify the rapid elimination of fossil fuels

Read full story
Even if the climate impact of rising CO2 levels were a dire threat, the only justification of emergency powers vs. considered legislation would be if the situation were temporary and solvable by our government. Neither is true.

2: Rising CO2 levels are not temporary

Emergency powers are only justified for immediate, temporary issues with short-term solutions. Rising CO2 levels are a multi-decade issue that should be deliberated by legislators, not used as a pretext for unlawful Presidential power.

Rising CO2 levels, the main object of concern of the "climate emergency" movement, will occur so long as human beings emit any significant amount of CO2—because emitted CO2 aggregates in the atmosphere year after year, being sequestered by oceans and plants only very slowly.

Even if 100% net-zero energy is just a few decades away (absurd) that means that rising CO2 levels will be with us for decades—and it'll take even longer for CO2 to return to today's levels. Thus, rising CO2 is a very long-term issue—not at all what emergency powers are for.

According to IPCC projections, even the most aggressive anti-fossil-fuel policies (which would shorten billions of lives)—would take decades to decrease CO2. All this time the "emergency powers" would have to stay in place—which is exactly what such powers aren't supposed to do.⁷


When dealing with a long-term issue of any perceived severity, governments should engage in careful deliberation via the legislative process—just as our Constitution prescribes. Calling a long-term issue an "emergency" is an Unconstitutional seizure of dictatorial power.

As legal scholar Liza Goitein explains: "declaring a national emergency to address climate change... would essentially validate the use of emergency powers to address long-standing policy problems." And "That's not what these powers are for."⁸

Why do "climate emergency" types want to circumvent the Constitutional, deliberative process regarding rising CO2 levels? Probably because they don't like the outcome of real deliberation on this issue, which is that trying to stop CO2 rises near-term is profoundly destructive.

The only reason for a President to declare "emergency" with a long-term issue is if they want unchallenged long-term power. And because no amount of US power can control rising CO2, it's a power grab for power's sake.

3: Rising CO2 levels are not in our control

Emergency powers only apply when our government, and only our government, can control the outcome. But rising CO2 is an issue where the vast majority of control belongs to others—such as China, which is currently building over 100 coal plants.⁹

The US causes less than 1/7 of global CO2 emissions—and falling. The main reason global CO2 emissions are rising is because billions of people in the developing world are bringing themselves out of poverty by using fossil fuels to power factories, farms, vehicles, and appliances.¹⁰


The developing world overwhelmingly uses fossil fuels because that is by far the lowest-cost way for them to get reliable energy. Unreliable solar and wind can't come close. That's why China and India are constructing so many new coal plants (150+) designed to run for decades.¹¹

Because CO2 emissions are overwhelmingly controlled by the rest of the world, it is absurd to treat rising CO2 levels as something the US government can address with emergency powers—unless "climate emergency" types are talking about trying to declare nuclear war on everyone.

The only moral and practical way to reduce CO2 emissions is innovation that makes low-carbon energy globally cost-competitive. So long as fossil fuels are the most cost-competitive option for people, especially in developing nations, they will (rightly) choose to emit CO2.

The only way to make low-carbon energy globally cost-competitive is through political and economic freedom, so that promising technology like low-cost nuclear can develop and proliferate globally. Subsidizing or mandating inferior technologies in the US just punishes Americans.

Climate emergency = Dictatorial powers + energy emergency

Government should not declare a "climate emergency" because rising CO2 levels are not dire, temporary, or under our control.

If it does, the consequence will be endless dictatorial powers that destroy American energy.

While climate catastrophists tell us to fear the future if Biden doesn't declare a "climate emergency," the truth is that we should fear the future if he does.

He has already helped create an energy emergency even without official "emergency" powers!

As a White House spokesman says, Biden has been "crystal clear" in treating climate as "an emergency — the existential threat of our time — since day one." This has led him to repeatedly circumvent Congress to restrict fossil fuel investment, production, refining, and transportation.¹²

Biden has restricted fossil fuel

investment through ESG dictates

production through bans on Federal drilling

refining by opposing a refinery in the Virgin Islands

transportation by killing the Keystone XL pipeline


And this is him without "emergency" powers!

As Senator Capito aptly observes: "The Biden administration has repeatedly governed by executive overreach when it comes to energy and environmental regulations, ignoring the law and doing so without congressional approval." An "emergency" declaration would mean far more of this.¹³

What scale of dictatorial powers would Biden get if he declared a "climate emergency"? Potentially limitless. One of the leading "climate emergency" groups says "If he declares a national emergency, it triggers the ability for him to deploy around 130 different powers"!¹⁴

While calls for a "climate emergency" declaration contain many individual, highly destructive proposals—an enduring ban on drilling on Federal lands, banning oil imports and exports—we know from the Covid experience that "emergency" power can easily equal limitless power.¹⁵

During the height of Covid fear, governments decided that if they declared "emergency" they could indefinitely lock citizens in their homes, prevent them from working, prevent them from socializing, and prevent them from educating their children.

Climate catastrophists felt inspired.

[DKG]

Despite a severe drought that is exacerbating fires and drying up rivers, deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon is still on the decline, according to data released today by INPE, Brazil's national space research institute.

INPE's near-real-time deforestation monitoring system, DETER, detected 629 square kilometers of forest clearing in September. This is 57% less than the 1,455 square kilometers of rainforest cleared in September 2022.

[DKG]

It's very much in it's infancy, but it seems more scientifically plausible than wind, solar and an entirely electrical fleet of vehicles.

Can Rock Dust Soak Up Carbon Emissions? A Giant Experiment Is Set to Find Out
The idea of sprinkling rock dust on farmland to soak up atmospheric carbon will be tested at large scale, thanks to a $57 million purchase from corporations including Stripe and Alphabet.

Lithos Carbon, got a $57.1 million boost for its quest to turn basalt dust into a viable climate solution. It came from Frontier, a benefit corporation backed by a consortium of companies aiming to finance promising approaches to carbon dioxide removal, or CDR. Lithos says it will use the funds to soak up 154,000 tons of CO2 by 2028, by sprinkling basalt dust on thousands of acres of US farmland. The average US car emits about 4 tons of CO2 each year.

The carbon removal purchase is the largest yet by Frontier, which was formed last year with nearly $1 billion from its tech-dominated members. Many of those companies, which include Meta, Alphabet, and payments processor Stripe, which owns Frontier, have made climate pledges that require not only reducing the emissions from their operations and supply chains but also "negative emissions"—sucking up carbon from the atmosphere to cancel out other emissions.

That accounting trick has been easier to prove out on paper than in practice. Many companies would have once turned to buying carbon offsets from activities like protecting forests that would otherwise be felled. But some have been trying to move away from those scandal-plagued and often short-lived approaches and into more durable techniques for carbon removal.

Most Promising' Approach
Lithos, founded in 2022, is developing a technology called enhanced rock weathering. It involves spreading a fine dust of basalt across fields before planting. As the rock further weathers from rainfall, it reacts with CO2 in the air. That forms bicarbonate, which locks away the carbon by combining it with hydrogen and oxygen atoms. Ultimately, the compound is washed into the ocean, where the carbon should stay put.

The strategy has the benefit of piggy-backing on things that humans already do, Yap says. That's in contrast with techniques like direct air capture, which involves building industrial plants that suck carbon out of the atmosphere. It's easy to measure carbon removed that way—it's all captured there onsite—but critics say it will be difficult to scale up because removing enough carbon to make a difference will require thousands of dedicate, resource-intensive facilities.


Using basalt dust to capture carbon should be more easily scaled up. There are plenty of fields to dump rock dust onto, and plenty of water for carbon to end up in. But the distributed nature of the process also makes measuring how much carbon was actually removed from the atmosphere more difficult.
https://web.archive.org/web/20231208163302/https://www.wired.com/story/rock-dust-soak-up-carbon-emissions-climate-experiment/

[Thiel]

In a recent study documented that globally "55.15% of areas are greening at an accelerated rate." Yet, the authors had to bend a knee to the climate establishment by claiming that this was occurring "despite increased drought since 2000." Is that the case? Is drought increasing? The facts say otherwise.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2351989423004262

A summary of land-based weather stations worldwide showing a significant increase in precipitation, hardly what is expected if global drought were increasing.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-precipitation-anomaly