Surprise: Carbon Capture Is Utterly Absurd

Hey, don’t take my opinion for it, listen to they hyper-climate cult New Scientist

The green solution to climate change isn’t happening – and that’s good

You’ve probably seen those nice graphs showing carbon dioxide levels and temperatures falling towards the end of the century. How is this miracle meant to be achieved? The idea is that we harvest plants, burn them for energy and then capture and store the CO2. Voila, problem solved!

Except bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, or BECCS, as this idea is known, is turning out to be an unmitigated disaster. It isn’t being rolled out on anything like the scale required, in part because it’s ridiculously expensive, would be catastrophic for biodiversity if it was done on this scale and, last but far from least, it doesn’t even work. It actually increases CO2 emissions rather than reducing them on the timescales that matter.

The rest is stuck behind a pretty hard paywall, but, you get the idea: it’s like most of the cult’s ideas, idiot, expensive, and unworkable. And, would make things worse, per cult doctrine on CO2.

Meanwhile, the Montana yutes astroturfed lawsuit is looking for new life

Montana youth argue for 9th Circuit court to allow climate change case to proceed

Attorneys for a coalition of youth who challenged a series of President Donald Trump’s executive orders related to energy and climate change last year argued before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to allow their case to move forward.

The U.S. District Court in Montana, which dismissed the claims in Lighthiser v. Trump, erred by ruling it did not have jurisdiction to offer sweeping relief in reviewing the legality of the executive orders, argued attorney Julia Olsen with Our Children’s Trust, the nonprofit law firm representing the youth.

“Beyond question, the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action,” Olsen said, citing recent circuit court decisions. “And so we think there’s a clear power of Article Three here to provide redress and to remand for the merits.”

Attorneys for the federal government and Montana pushed back against Olsen’s arguments during the April 13 hearing, saying rolling back the three executive orders would not not provide the plaintiffs with any relief and that the court correctly ruled it did not have the power to take up the issue.

Sadly, no one asked the yutes if they had given up their own use of fossil fuels.