If you are all in on the zero emissions fantasy or the mythology of the green utopia, what will it take to convince you that the people you have allowed to lead it have so entirely f****d it up that it can never happen?
And when will the god-forsaken media warn people about the consequences and impending failure?
- We do not have the physical material even to approach the promises of the politicians pushing this agenda.
- Most available deposits of necessary rare earth metals are in the hands of people who wish us ill or would happily choose them over a weak America.
- Most of the manufacturing of the components needed occurs in China (offshoring emissions not eliminating them).
- America needs to export trillions of dollars to these enemies and their proxies to obtain the material or goods of which there is not enough.
- As such, our “enemies” will have a choke hold on our economy, industry, agriculture, currency, development, and military.
- The mining, processing, and manufacture – especially in these other countries – will do more environmental harm than any good imagined by the end products (there is no such thing as zero emissions).
This project is doomed to fail, and I find it hard to believe that the people pushing it do not understand this. That means they are lying to you about their true intentions, and any media that has not explored these issues is complicit in the fraud and the deception. A problem to which we can now add this.
Related: Biden’s Electric Car Bugaloo – The Single Point of Failure Theory
Sulfur in the form of sulfuric acid is a crucial part of our modern industrial society. It is required for the production of phosphorus fertiliser and manufacturing lightweight electric motors and high-performance lithium-ion batteries. Today over 80% of the global sulfur supply comes from desulfurisation of fossil fuels to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) gas. Decarbonisation of the global economy to deal with climate change will greatly reduce the production of fossil fuels. This will create a shortfall in the annual supply of sulfuric acid of between 100 and 320 million tonnes by 2040. Unless action is taken to reduce the need for sulfuric acid, a massive increase in environmentally damaging mining will be required to fill this resource demand.
Long story short: The goal of ending fossil fuels (once again) makes the so-called goal of zero emissions impossible and exponentially more expensive, directing even more money, resources, and energy at a dead end.
Related: Trying to Replace Fossil Fuels With Solar Will Require Burning a Sh!tload of Coal
How is that not an excellent description of Government in general and run by Democrats more specifically?
The research paper linked goes into great detail, all with what I take as an expectation that reducing GHG emissions is a good thing. The authors are not opposed to the idea. But it concerns them that there is no consideration for the consequences or any clear plan to replace something without which modern life is impossible.
The obvious fix, which they explore, is to physically mine it, but, as they point out, it contradicts the stated goal of a cleaner world. “Unless action is taken to reduce the need for sulfuric acid, a massive increase in environmentally damaging mining will be required to fill this resource demand.” How damaging? And why would the green elites care?
Related: Electric Cars Are Worse For The Environment (Hah Ha!)
An exponential increase in mining is already needed for rare earth metals, whose extraction, delivery, and processing cost in carbonization not only erase any perception of green gain from the finished product but takes us backward. To this, we must add mining sulfur.
More immediately, the sulfur shortfall could be offset by expanding mining of sulfides and elemental sulfur, but at large environmental costs. This could include both conventional mining of sulfur deposits and the Frasch mining process that extracts elemental sulfur from salt domes or bedded evaporite deposits by injecting super-heated water into the deposits (Ober, 2002). This will create environmental problems, such as air, soil, and water pollution, and human rights issues …mining wastes containing sulfide minerals (Chopard et al., 2019) that can acidify local surface and ground waters and increase the levels of numerous toxic elements (As, Bi, Co, Hg, Ni, Tl, Sb, Se, etc.).
There may be solutions if you believe emissions (CO2 or other) require reduction, but less of everything appears to be the endgame no one dares admit. We’re already on the cusp of less electricity, heating fuels, and food.
Sulfur is also a critical component of fertilizer. Deliberately cutting off the supply by reducing the refining of fossil fuels and then hijacking what sulfur is left or mined to advance meaningless green tech will significantly impact food production and cost (food security). And yes, the poor and developing nations (primarily people of color) will be hit hardest.
Is the corporate media interested in the story yet?
