In Iowa and to some extent in Illinois, Nebraska they are proposing to build a co2 capture pipe line. To build this the Republicans in Iowa are using eminent domain which gives state the power to take away the land in which the pipeline is going to built. Not even Trump wants to talk about this. Desantis is quiet because he has been endorsed by Iowa governor and others.
Only Vivek is bring up the issue. It doesn't make any difference China, India and whole bunch of countries will still release the co2 elsewhere and its not like co2 which doesn't have particles will fall to the ground it will all be evenly distributed throught the world, only the particles will settle in their respective countries.
Vivek said if Iowa goes ahead with it in the name of climate, then then can use this eminent domain to come after your gas stove, regular fuel driven vehicles alll in the name of the new climate cult.
Here's just 2 of HUNDREDS of papers that point to the whole CO2/Climate change bullshit as being bogus, a colossal hoax and LIE made for idiots who lack critical thinking skills.
Climate Scientist Says It's 'Unreasonable' To Call Climate Change An Existential Threat
Climate Scientist Says It's 'Unreasonable' To Call Climate Change An Existential Threat | ZeroHedge
The greenhouse effect is primarily caused by water vapor and clouds, said Richard Lindzen, professor emeritus of atmospheric sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).
CO2 reduction is “the dream of a regulator,” Mr. Lindzen said. “If you control CO2, you control breathing; if you control breathing, you control everything. So this always is one temptation.”
“The other temptation is the energy sector. No matter how much you clean fossil fuels, they will always produce water vapor and CO2,” Mr. Lindzen explained.
CO2 is being treated as a poison and most people believe that CO2 is dangerous, the scientist continued, but they forget that CO2 is essential.
“The concentration of CO2 in your mouth is about 40,000 parts per million as opposed to 400 outside,” Mr. Lindzen said. A concentration of “5,000 is permitted on a space station.”
“It's partly poisoned—but worse than that—it's essential.
If you could get rid of 60 percent of the CO2, we'd all be dead.”
“This is a very strange pollutant; it's essential for plant life," Mr. Lindzen said. “Yet, because it is the inevitable product of fossil fuel burning in the energy sector, it's being attacked.”
Princeton, MIT Scientists Say EPA Climate Regulations Based on a ‘Hoax’
Princeton, MIT Scientists Say EPA Climate Regulations Based on a ‘Hoax’
According to Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen’s testimony, “600 million years of CO2 and temperature data contradict the theory that high levels of CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming.”
They present CO2 and temperature data indicating much higher temperatures and levels of CO2 than are observed today,
with little correlation between the two. They also argue that current CO2 levels are at a low point historically
“Increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere create more food for people worldwide, including more food for people in drought-stricken areas,” they wrote. “Increases in carbon dioxide over the past two centuries since the Industrial Revolution, from about 280 parts per million to about 420 ppm, caused an approximate 20 percent increase in the food available to people worldwide, as well as increased greening of the planet and a benign warming in temperature.”
More CO2 in the atmosphere leads to more plant growth and higher farming yields, they said. Synthetic fertilizers, which are derivatives of natural gas, are responsible for nearly half the world’s food production today. “Net zero” goals would reduce CO2 emissions by more than 40 gigatons per year,
reducing the food supply proportionally, according to the scientists.
Mr. Clauser said of the climate consensus, “We are totally awash in pseudoscience.”
Mr. Happer said,
“There is this huge fraction of the population that has been brainwashed into thinking this is an existential threat to the planet. I don’t blame the people; they don’t have the background to know they are being deceived, but they are being deceived.”
The World Bank announced in September 2022 that it paid out a record $31.7 billion that fiscal year to help countries address climate change, a 19 percent increase from the $26.6 billion it paid out over the previous fiscal year. And according to Reuters, the United States is projected to spend about $500 billion to fight climate change over the next decade, including $362 billion from the Inflation Reduction Act, $98 billion from the Infrastructure Act, and $54 billion from the CHIPS law.
“What would happen to sustainable energy, the worthless windmills and solar panels, if suddenly there were no climate change emergency?” Mr. Happer said. “They’re really not very good technology, and they’re doing a lot more harm than good, but nevertheless people are making lots of money.”
Many investors, most notably BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, have cited government regulations and subsidies as a key reason why investments in “green” energies would be profitable.
Research grants to study climate change are offered by many government agencies, including the EPA, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as well as by nonprofits, including Bloomberg Philanthropies and the MacArthur Foundation, which have paid out $458 million since 2014.
“Going back to ’88 to ’90, funding went up by a factor of 15,” Mr. Lindzen said. “You created a whole new community.
“This was a small field in 1990; not a single member of the faculty at MIT called themselves a climate scientist. By 1996, everyone was a climate scientist, and that included impacts. If you’re studying cockroaches and you put in your grant, ‘cockroaches and climate,’ you are a climate scientist.”