Climate alarmists intentionally confuse people to promote their specious theory
Reality is not complex
For the past decade, global CO2 emissions have averaged about 35 Gigatons per year in an atmosphere with a mass of 5.148e18 Kilograms. One part per million of atmosphere by mass is 5.148 Gigatons. One mole of CO2 has 1.52 times the mass of 1 mole of atmosphere (assuming 80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen for simplicity) so the volumetric annual emissions are 35 Gigatons/5.148 Gigatons ppm (by mass) divided by 1.52 to convert to volume, gives annual emissions of 4.47 ppm by volume.
Measurements at Mauna Loa show an average rise in atmospheric concentrations of about 2 ppm (by volume per year) over the past decade indicating that 2.47 ppm of the CO2 emissions released by fossil fuels are removed from atmosphere by other processes (photosynthesis being the most important of those).
In an earlier article, I pointed out that replacing coal with natural gas worldwide would reduce annual global emissions from 35 Gigatons to 19 Gigatons, the equivalent of 2.4 ppm of atmosphere by volume. Simply moving away from coal would stabilize atmospheric CO2 at about current levels or even see them slowly decline. Despite this reality, climate alarmists attack even natural gas as a fuel for electricity generation.
Why?
The answer is the combination of powerful lobbies promoting wind and solar and a lack of common sense among left wing leaders of western democracies. The United States and Canada have vast natural gas reserves, as does Russia and the Middle East. Developing the infrastructure for natural gas development is ordinary technology - pipelines and LNG terminals supported by ocean LNG carriers. The cost would be dramatically lower than the trillions being dedicated wind and solar based on senseless policies like NetZero, a policy which would threaten humanity by causing CO2 levels ultiamtely to fall below the 150 ppm (by volume) needed to support plant life.
But what do our leaders say? Trudeau refuses to support pipelines. Biden refuses to support pipelines. Both promote “renewables” and spout rhetoric about a “transition”.
What do “do-gooders” like Greenpeace or Sierra Club say? They promote “renewables” and vilify fossil fuels including natural gas to generate higher donations to their so-called “charities”. So do Tides Foundation, Rockefeller and a host of other pretend “charities” who attack the oil & gas industry, but hold large investments in “renewables”.
What is passed off as science is little more than propaganda designed to benefit the “renewables” industry at the expense of common sense. Note that conversion of coal to natural gas does not require avoidance of oil, gasoline, diesel or heating oil, since the effect of shifting from coal to natural gas does everything necessary to satisfy even the most deluded climate alarmists desire to curtail the growth of CO2 levels.
Want to know what is really going on? Follow the money.