Environment
Climate Alarmists Want To Fight The Sun. What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
What should we say when one of America’s pre-eminent media platforms endorses a plan so fraught with unknowns and pitfalls it invites potential global catastrophe?
That’s what the editorial board at the Washington Post did on April 27 in a 1,000-word editorial endorsing plans by radical schemers and billionaires to engage in various efforts at geoengineering.
The Post’s editors engage in an exercise of saying the quiet part out loud in the piece, morphing from referring to monkeying around with the world’s ability to absorb sunlight as “a forbidden subject,” to concluding it is “indispensable” and “urgent” in the course of a single opinion piece. Sure, why not? What could possibly go wrong with such a plan?
What could go wrong with plans to, say, block sunlight with thousands of high-altitude balloons? Or with a plan that involves spraying the upper atmosphere with billions of tons of sulfur particles? Or with a plan to spend trillions of debt-funded dollars to build a gargantuan shield placed in stationary orbit in outer space?
The editors are so cocksure in their arrogance that they even admit some such concepts have already been tried out, writing, “Climate geoengineering is so cheap and potentially game-changing that even private entrepreneurs have tried it out, albeit at small scales.”
The “small scale” experiment to which the editors refer took place in Baja, Mexico, where researchers launched two large balloons filled with sulfur dioxide particles into the stratosphere. The goal was to measure the sun-dimming effects of the sulfur dioxide, a real, actual pollutant that the Environmental Protection Agency and regulators all over the world have spent the last half century attempting to remove from the atmosphere.
It turned out that Luke Eisman, an entrepreneur who financed the experiment, launched the balloons without seeking prior approval. When Mexican officials found out it had been conducted, they quickly moved to ban such geo-engineering projects on the grounds that they violate national sovereignty. Reuters reports that Mexico’s environment ministry statement said it would seek a global moratorium on such geoengineering projects under the Convention on Biological Diversity.
But despite such concerns in Mexico, here come the Post’s editors advocating we simply just have to trust the science. You know, like we trusted the “science” of COVID vaccines and the “science” of locating giant offshore wind farms in the middle of a whale migration corridor off the Northeast coast, right? Sure. After all, what could go wrong?
The editorial writers go on to cite a similar, larger scale project being promoted by climate-engineering scholars David Keith at the University of Chicago and Wake Smith at Yale. These gentlemen propose to try to lower temperatures by spewing out 100,000 tons of sulfur dioxide – again, a real pollutant humanity has worked decades to eliminate – at an annual cost of $500 million (no doubt to be paid for by more taxpayer debt) using what they refer to as “15 souped-up Gulfstream jets” to create what could accurately be called chemtrails.
In a piece published in February at the MIT Technology Review, the scientists say the project could be mounted as soon as five years from now, which we should all probably consider a threat rather than a mere projection.
Talk of mounting similar geoengineering projects has been ramping up in recent years. In 2021, Bill Gates said he was investing in a project based at Harvard University to spray tons of calcium carbonate particles into the stratosphere above Scandinavia, but the project was ultimately cancelled due to understandable outrage from indigenous groups and environmentalists.
Fellow billionaires Jeff Bezos and Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz have also plowed millions into bioengineering projects.
But until recently, the thought of mounting projects designed to block out sunlight was, like the agenda to intentionally reduce the global population, a subset of their agenda that climate alarmists have tried to keep mainly under wraps. The reason is obvious: Whenever such radical and frankly dangerous ideas are made public, people tend to look at one another and ask, “who in the world would want to do that?”
Now come the members of the Washington Post editorial board, joining Gates and Bezos and Moskovitz in answering that question. Way to go, folks.
David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
Energy
Affordable Energy: Everything you need to know about energy and the environment

The Dual Challenge: Energy and Environment
Scott Tinker
The world faces two important and interrelated challenges. Affordable and reliable energy for all, and protecting the environment. The energy-environment challenge is not simple, but it is solvable if we understand and address the complex fabric of energy security, scale of energy demand, physics of energy density, distribution of energy resources, interconnectedness of the land, air, water and atmosphere, and the extreme disparity in global wealth and economic health. The truth is that there are no good and bad, clean and dirty, renewable and nonrenewable energy sources. They all have benefits, and they all have challenges. Climate change is an important issue, but it is not the only environmental issue. Solar and wind are important low carbon solutions, but they are only part of the solution. We must put our best minds to the task of addressing the dual challenge, working together to better the world.
Economy
Canadian Natural Gas Exports Could Significantly Reduce Global Emissions

From the Fraser Institute
By Elmira Aliakbari and Julio Mejía
Doubling Canadian natural gas production and exporting to Asia could reduce global emissions by up to 630 million tonnes—nearly as much as Canada produces in a year
Canada could help significantly reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by increasing natural gas production and exporting the additional supply to Asia in the form of liquefied natural gas (LNG), according to a new study from the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think tank.
“As countries like China and India continue to burn coal for power, Canadian LNG offers a lower-emission alternative with the potential for major global impact,” said Elmira Aliakbari, director of natural resource studies at the Fraser Institute and coauthor of the study, Exporting Canadian LNG to the World: A Practical Solution for Reducing GHG Emissions
The study estimates the impact from Canada doubling its natural gas production and exporting to Asia to replace coal-fired power. In that scenario, global emissions could drop up to 630 million tonnes annually, which is the equivalent of removing approximately 137 million cars from the road. More specifically, replacing coal-fired power in China with Canadian LNG could cut emissions by up to 62 per cent for every unit of power produced.
“Focusing only on domestic emissions ignores Canada’s potential to support global climate goals,” said Aliakbari. “By displacing coal abroad, Canadian LNG can play a critical role in cutting total global emissions even if domestic emissions were to increase.”
However, regulatory uncertainty and a range of federal and provincial policies continue to hinder LNG development in Canada, despite strong global demand.
“Policymakers need to clear a path if Canada is going to play a meaningful role in reducing global emissions,” Aliakbari added.
Exporting Canadian LNG to the World: A Practical Solution for Reducing GHG Emissions
- Coal, a major source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, remains a leading energy source in many Asian countries, especially China and India. Some European countries have also turned back to coal as sanctions on Russian energy intensified following the invasion of Ukraine.
- As the world seeks practical solutions for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, natural gas, with its lower carbon footprint, offers a promising alternative to coal.
- With abundant reserve, Canada is well positioned to help reduce global reliance on coal. By exporting Canadian liquified natural gas (LNG) and helping Asian and European countries reduce their reliance on coal, Canada can lower net global GHG emissions.
- Exporting LNG from Canada to China and substituting LNG for coal in the generation of power there can eliminate between 291 and 687 gCO₂eq per kWh of power generated, a reduction of between 34% and 62%.
- If Canada were to double its current natural gas production and export the additional supply to Asia as LNG to displace an equivalent amount of coal used to generate power, global GHG emissions could be reduced by up to 630 million tonnes annually, a significant reduction equivalent to 89% of Canada’s total GHG emissions.
- Canada enjoys several competitive advantages, including cooler temperatures that reduce liquefaction energy costs and a strategic location that offers shorter shipping routes to Europe and Asia compared to many other suppliers.
- Regulatory challenges and a mix of federal and provincial policies, however, have slowed or blocked LNG developments in Canada.
-
National2 days ago
Carney promotes MP instrumental in freezing Freedom Convoy donors’ bank accounts
-
Business2 days ago
84% of Swiss hospitals and 60% of hospitalizations are in private facilities, and they face much lower wait times
-
Business2 days ago
The carbon tax’s last stand – and what comes after
-
conflict21 hours ago
Iran nuclear talks were ‘coordinated deception’ between US and Israel: report
-
Health2 days ago
RFK Jr. appoints Robert Malone, Martin Kulldorff, other COVID shot critics to overhauled CDC vaccine panel
-
conflict1 day ago
Israel strikes Iran, targeting nuclear sites; U.S. not involved in attack
-
illegal immigration1 day ago
LA protests continue as judge pulls back CA National Guard ahead of ‘No Kings Day’
-
Alberta22 hours ago
Punishing Alberta Oil Production: The Divisive Effect of Policies For Carney’s “Decarbonized Oil”