Climate Change

Biden Will Promise To Cut U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions 50 Percent by 2030

The plan would require a substantial retirement of machines that run on fossil fuels.

|

President Joe Biden has invited the leaders of 40 countries to participate in a virtual Earth Day climate change summit starting tomorrow. To address the problem of man-made climate change caused by burning fossil fuels that load up the atmosphere with heat-trapping carbon dioxide, Biden is reportedly going to announce during the summit that by 2030, the U.S. will cut its carbon dioxide emissions from energy related sources by 50 percent below what the country emitted in 2005.

Back in that year, the U.S. emitted nearly 6 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels, which means that the Biden administration is aiming to reduce emissions to 3 billion metric tons by 2030.

By 2019 U.S. carbon dioxide energy-related emissions had dropped to just over 5.1 billion metric tons, that is, to 14 percent below their 2005 levels. In 2020 carbon dioxide emissions fell steeply to under 4.6 billion metric tons, that is, they dropped by 11 percent, largely as a result of the economic contraction associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. (It is worth noting that U.S. real GDP fell 3.5 percent in 2020.) This means that U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in 2020 were around 24 percent lower than they were in 2005. However, the U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that CO2 emissions will bounce back up to 4.8 and 4.9 billion metric tons in 2021 and 2022 respectively.

In 2015, the Obama administration promised in its intended nationally determined contribution under the Paris Climate Change Agreement to reduce U.S. carbon dioxide emissions 17 percent by 2020, and 26 to 28 percent by 2025. As a result of the pandemic, the U.S. greatly exceeded its 2020 emissions cut pledge.

So, what would it take to meet Biden's goal of cutting U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by 50 percent over the next 10 years? University of Colorado political scientist Roger Pielke, Jr. parses some figures. He notes that getting from 4.6 billion metric tons (2020) to 3 billion metric tons would require emission reductions of more than 4 percent annually. Since 1991, he notes, "The only annual reductions > ~3% occurred during global financial crisis and COVID-19, but some other years have been close, sustained annual reductions have not yet occurred."

To make cuts of this magnitude, Pielke points out, would require annually retiring and replacing 3 to 5 percent of coal- and natural gas-fired electric power generation plants, 3 to 5 percent of fossil-fueled transportation, including cars, trucks, airplanes, and ships; and 3 to 5 percent of industrial emissions from sources such as concrete, petrochemical, and steel plants. Since 80 percent of future global warming is projected to result from carbon dioxide emitted from burning fossil fuels, Pielke cautioned against "accounting games" that include reductions attributed to land use and other offsets.

A recent study commissioned by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) lobbying group and performed by the Rhodium Group energy consultancy traced a pathway toward a 50 percent carbon dioxide emissions reduction by 2030. That study calculates that almost 60 percent of the carbon dioxide cuts would come from electric power generation. In 2020, emissions from that sector fell from 1.62 billion metric tons to 1.45 billion metric tons. A further 60 percent reduction of carbon dioxide emissions would mean that electric power generation would be emitting only about 580 million metric tons of carbon dioxide by 2030. This implies cutting annual carbon dioxide emissions from the electric power sector by around 100 million metric tons annually for the next nine years.

The good news, according to Pielke, is that the timeline implied by Biden's pledge provides solid benchmarks that make his administration accountable, such that observers will know within a year or two if his administration is succeeding or failing to meet its emissions reduction goals.

NEXT: Can Cops Pull You Over for Hanging an Air Freshener From Your Rearview Mirror? You'd Better Check.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Biden has no authority to make such a promise.

    1. And he has no authority to ratify such a treaty.

      Even if they get rid of the filibuster in the Senate, they don’t have two-thirds of the Senate to make this treaty official.

      1. If it wasn’t ratified by the Senate, it’s not a treaty, it’s just “a deal”.

        1. Like the Iran nuclear deal and the Paris climate accord, the next time a Republican is elected to the White House, he’ll just rescind it.

          1. FOR USA Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better SDFD than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
            on this page…..VISIT HERE

          2. FOR USA Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better SDF than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
            on this page…..VISIT HERE

          3. But it will take 3 years to do so because the courts [and it will be taken to court] will find that the repub administration hadn’t dotted all their t(s) and crossed all their i(s) whether real or imaginary….
            and the bureaucrats will slow walk all the steps necessary to make a repeal of such deals impossible

        2. The only effect of a treaty over an agreement is that it binds future governments. That won’t stop them from trying some version of what Obama tried with Iran, tacking it on as an administrative function to a treaty with the long dead Shah of Iran. Didn’t work, but they gave it a shot.

          2020 was an anomaly, so using that figure for any purpose is intellectual dishonesty. Literally nobody was on the road a year ago. I think a tank of gas lasted me about 2 months. Of course I suppose one could get close to that by shoving the economy into free fall, which considering this administration isn’t a stretch other than to wonder whether it will be done intentionally or out of incompetence.

          1. “other than to wonder whether it will be done intentionally or out of incompetence again.”

            FIFY

      2. Don’t call it a treaty; call it a deal or an agreement or an accord. A treaty legally binds the United States, the others are legally meaningless in terms of requiring successive administrations to follow it.

    2. My last paycheck was $2500 for working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 8k for hsj months now and she works about 30 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. The potential with this is endless. This is what I do………….. Visit Here

    3. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple works from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office vcdjob and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
      on this page…. Visit Here

    4. He doesn’t. But the federal government certainly has the authority to base its monetary system on resource sustainability rather than debt-without-limit.

      Course Biden is way too conservative to make that sort of change. But maybe a blockchain crypto can do that – and blow up the dollar in the process

      1. “…But the federal government certainly has the authority to base its monetary system on resource sustainability rather than debt-without-limit…”

        Wave them arms, JFree!!

      2. That is already occurring.

      3. So, LNG and nuclear?

    5. And he can’t make it happen.

  2. Gasoline prices have already skyrocketed. Let’s see what he does with electricity rates.

    1. You will have to pay your “fair share.”

    2. I believe much of the gas increase is related to devaluing the dollar. Happens when you print trillions more and give it away to some of the proletariat.

      1. Combine that with an executive order banning fracking and suddenly halting construction of a major oil pipeline.

  3. A switch to Nuclear Power confirmed!

    1. Works for me!

  4. The plan would require a substantial retirement of machines that run on fossil fuels.

    Or a colossal decline in standard of living and quality of life.

    1. With the increased price of LP gas, everyone will be using wood burning stoves.

      1. That’s actually been a workaround. “Biological CO2” isn’t counted for many purposes, so there has been a massive increase in wood-burning on industrial scales. It looks good on paper for eliminating CO2, but the same amount is getting released, plus all the inefficiencies and heavy pollution associated with wood compared to natural gas.

        If you look at “green energy” breakdowns, “Biomass” is a huge fraction in delivered power, but it’s not environmentally friendly in the slightest.

        1. If you go for a winter morning run in any former East Bloc country you will return from the run feeling ill. Coal is king. They aren’t going change a thing.
          Solar power won’t work in Beijing, they don’t see the sun through the smog that often. They aren’t going to change a thing.
          When I think of the Paris Accords, it conjures up a poker game full of sharks at a a table anxiously awaiting the stupid rich guy that someone invited over to learn how to play cards with “the cool guys”.

      2. I use a wood stove as the primary heat source. Rolling one’s own puts you back about $20/cord. And equates to about 70 gallons of oil/cord.

      3. The local governments have banned wood burners in western blue states, only to have taxpayer funded “controlled burns” and out of control wildfires. We end up with more risk, less economy (tourists don’t like wildfires) and CO2 because Democrats.

        1. and more CO2

    2. You say that like there’s a difference.

    3. Ditchdigger could be a new prime occupation in 2030, when the machines get idled.

  5. “Or a colossal decline in standard of living and quality of life.”

    2 birds one stone..or is it a hand in the bush is better two birds any day?

    1. You mean killing two stones with one bird.

      1. Pardon me, Confucius say, bird in the hand is not better than two in the bush

        1. I think you mean – when a poor man eats a chicken, one of them is sick

          1. Now when a poor man eats tuna…

    2. Or as Biden puts it “a hand in the bush is better than Tara Reid staying employed”

      1. Some things just can’t be unraped.

  6. Remember kids, it’s about “equity”, not CO2.

    1. That was so yesterday and tomorrow. Today it’s about CO2 cuz the fate of Chauvin is not the nation’s most pressing distraction…. er I mean story. We can let the whole equity thing rest for a day while every berg and hovel across the nation sings kumbaya and all the people of Whoville can get a night’s slumber.

  7. Hell, why not? He won’t be here anyways.

  8. “Biden Will Promise To Cut U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions 50 Percent by 2030”

    Go to the link at the following map, slide the year out to 2021, and you’ll quickly see that China and India have more coal plants currently under construction than we could possibly close.

    https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-coal-power-plants

    That’s fairly indicative of the main problem, here.

    While I’m sure Emperor Xi will be happy to sell the U.S. the Chinese manufactured solar and wind components necessary to meet Biden’s goals, I have a hard time believing that Emperor Xi will actually follow through on depriving his own people of cheap and plentiful electricity by closing power plants or cancelling them.

    I don’t see any good reasons to believe that Modi, in India, will even pay lip service to shutting down power plant construction in India. He’s completely relaxed environmental regulation in India. The people of Indonesia, Central Asia, Africa, and South America aren’t about to make sacrifices for the sake of Joe Biden’s political career either.

    The worst possible outcome is the one where we make big sacrifices in our standard of living in order to fight climate change, and it doesn’t really make any difference; and if the rest of the developing world isn’t willing to halt the construction of power plants and tear down some of the ones they already have, then that’s the road Biden has put us on.

    Why would Biden do that?

    This is when it’s important to remind people that the whole purpose of progressivism is to use the coercive power of government to force us to make sacrifices for the common good as they see it. If you’re not willing to sacrifice your livelihood, your standard of living, and the quality of life of your family–so that people in the developing world can live better–then you’re a racist and a nationalist, and if you go to Washington DC to protest against this, you’re probably an insurrectionist, too.

    Now, aren’t you ashamed of yourself?

    1. The GOP isn’t doing nearly enough to investigate Biden’s ties with China.

      1. What do you think is the magic number of hard drives full of emails they would have to find linking him to China or Russia or some other foreign interest in order to get anything done? I bet 7.

        1. Even if they found those 7 hard drives full of emails, who would report it? The MSM picked their side….

          1. With their declining readership/viewership, MSM is doing their part to reduce carbon emissions.

        2. Fair enough, but I think an impeachment trial showing hard evidence that Biden is colluding with China would be probably the only thing that would get some Democrats to cross the aisle. Maybe I’m optimistic

    2. I also enjoy, I believe it is Denmark, that promises to close one of their oil fields by 2030. Note to readers they expect to completely extract all of the oil by 2025.

    3. During the Jurassic period, the CO2 level was 2500 ppm (vs 340 now). What sort of problems did they have? How about triple-canopy rain forests throughout America, reasonable growing season across Canada, and abundance of life and bugs and plants beyond anything we see today. Chlorophyll is 1-3% efficient, and rarely stores more than 0.5% of incoming sunlight in the form of usable produce; remember that the next time one of these morons tells you about biofuels. But why is this efficiency so low? A lot of it is because CO2 is so scarce in the atmosphere. At 350 ppm, the RuBisCO enzyme has to sort through a lot of atmosphere to find the CO2, and the plant uses 20-50% of it’s energy getting rid of mismatched oxygen that leads to ammonia byproducts. More CO2 will lead to more photosynthesis, more plant life, more abundance in the whole ecosystem.

      Sure, there will be sea level rise (where morons shouldn’t be requiring us to insure their properties anyway). There will be disruptions to farming, some species will not be able to adapt or be adapted to the new environment. But whenever these mental midgets like AOC or the Greta try to tell you all life will end if we don’t get this done in 12 years, remember (and tell others) how truly ignorant these moronic mouthpieces really are.

      1. You can only imagine how fast plants had to grow to keep ahead of giant dinosaurs gobbling them down.

      2. Hey, don’t confuse the lefties with facts, their mind (singular, one amongst all of them, a hive mind, such as any good collective requires) is made up.

      3. Remember, though, 250 million years ago, North America was on the equator, and most of present day America was in the tropics.

        We shouldn’t force our fellow Americans to sacrifice their standard of living for the benefit of people in the developing world anyway.

        1. North America is much further north than it was back then.

          1. Plate tectonic gentrification?

      4. Not only that, 200 ppm is about the point where the biosphere starts losing the ability to support higher life, 150 ppm is a no-shit catastrophic threshold (note: this is Patrick Moore, Ph.D. co-founder of Greenpeace, so, hardly a pro-oil, right-wing, science-denying crackpot) below which the question becomes less “How many people will die?” and more “What life, if any, will survive?”. We are more than 10X closer to the catastrophic minimum for CO2 than we are to the optimum.

    4. White Knight pledgesbto cut Hydrogen Dioxide emissions by 99%

  9. To address the problem of man-made climate change caused by burning fossil fuels that load up the atmosphere with heat-trapping carbon dioxide

    Setting aside the fact that the atmosphere can expand: like loading up an 8′ pickup truck bed by putting a single shoe box in it.

  10. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that the people who want to cut C02 emissions also think the world is overpopulated

  11. Appropriate; a promise from basement bunker Biden is as real as global climate warming change.

  12. How about he starts by eliminating all federal government vehicles, and stops federal agencies from using computers and electric lights. Manual typewriters, manual filing cabinets, and hand delivered documents, during daylight only. No cellphones or other battery equipment that need charging.
    Ground the airlines and eliminate the TSA payroll.

  13. Government officials promise. Engineers laugh in incredulity.

    Words are wind.

    1. That’s almost a haiku!

    2. Word powered turbines are the answer!

    3. The simplest way to cut US emissions is to cease all domestic mamufacturing operations, and import everything from Asia on C02 belching ocean liners

  14. I don’t think its even physically possible to do that in nine years with out destroying the planet or you just shut down the economy. this is more hyperbolic than anything Trump ever said and when we are dealing with things that need science this is not possible and every one should call him and his handlers on that. Where are all the truth checkers out there demanding he resign for such flagrant lies

    1. Small example of its infeasability.
      you would have to among other things replace 50% of all cars. ever year Americans by 14 to17 million cars yet there are 284000000 cars just replacing half would take 16 years. you would have to dbl manufacturing in order to do that but then doubling of manufacturing would cause more pollution and resource consumption all down the line which will also raise prices even more. this is stupid because you will also have to shut down 50% of manufacturing, but you said you need to increase manufacturing. this is stupid please scientist out there get off your ass and explain this to Sleepy Joe and all the other climate emergency Karens

      1. No, they want to eliminate 50% of cars. Nobody said anything about replacing them.

    2. The truth checkers BELIEVE what he is proposing is the only way to save the world ™.

  15. You are forgetting the Low-Hanging Fruit phenomenon. Each subsequent reduction becomes harder and harder. Our existing cuts have primarily been fueled by replacing coal with natural gas power plants. Everything else has been more or less trivial. We can’t do that any more, and all future reductions are going to be more and more painful. Increasing wind and solar isn’t going to help much as their inconsistency requires more and more gas power cycling or deliberate cutbacks to avoid surging. Electrifying transportation simply exports the generation. Heavy industry just can’t reduce things.

    Take home furnaces. Going from 80% furnaces to 90% furances was relatively cheap and had a 12% energy savings. However, top-of-the-line is now 97-98%. You can’t get much better than that, even with infinite resources

    1. Then Congress must mandate that all furnaces have an efficiency of at least 120%.

      1. Here is my question: Who is the Environmental Defense Fund (a 503c) and who funds it?

        My guess is that when the answer is known, you’ll know who will make money from Biden’s deals.

        1. Teresa Heinz Kerry, Bill Clinton, et. al.

          From Discover the Networks

  16. Is anybody missing Trump yet?

    1. Since the moment he stopped talking, if I have to be honest.

    2. Everyone on the left. They were bitterly masturbating to his tweets and everything coming out of the White House. Now it’s like they have nothing left in their spank bank.

  17. “So, what would it take to meet Biden’s goal of cutting U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by 50 percent over the next 10 years? University of Colorado political scientist Roger Pielke, Jr. parses some figures.” {Emphasis mine}

    Yeah, this sounds about right for the Bailey the ‘science’ correspondent. When hard science discussion is needed, just talk to the nearest political scientist. Nevermind the STEM people…

    1. They might give you the wrong answer.

    2. Statistics are statistics. When I wrote my peer reviewed article I used an economist to consult on the statistics. He wasn’t a ruminant nutritionist but his lack of knowledge on the time awas not a detriment for his contributing on the statistical modeling we utilized to analyze our work. Political science is very statistical heavy so I would think asking a political scientist to model the likelihood of this occuring to be perfectly acceptable. Since they are so unlike STEM majors, they rely so heavily on modeling complex systems (poorly in my opinion be aide they are modeling to complex a system with little solid controlled experimental data to base their findings on) asking them to do statistical analysis is about all they are good for.

  18. Aw that senile old man is so adorable. I mean he’ll be in the grave of old age by that point and nobody will ever remember he said it, but it sure does give the lefties a tingle down their leg right now.

  19. “…a tingle down their leg right now.”

    For the incontinent ones at least.

  20. No surprise all you pretend market advocates don’t give a shit about actual market solutions that you clowns have been yapping and handwaving about for 60 years or so.

    This is all an externality. It can be priced. The nanosecond it is priced, markets will deal with it pretty efficiently.

    Easier said than done of course. But – guaranteed – it can’t and won’t be done until the discussion starts. And as usual you clowns are really in favor of political imposition of something (preferably that ignores everything so you can deny an externality even exists)

    1. You are so full of shit, it isn’t even funny anymore.

    2. Fact is that there are not enough materials or electrical capacity to meet this goal. It is a scam exactly like the subprime mortgages were before 2008. Lowering emissions sounds like a great idea, just like everyone owning a home, but when there are not the resources e
      To meet that goal, it’s fraud.

      1. The metals needed to replace gas engines with batteries are n short supply already and China controls most of them.

        1. People are finally becoming aware of that.

    3. If it were feasible the market would be doing it already, without a discussion. No discussion was needed to switch from horses to automobiles. Horses in cities causes huge health issues, sanitation issues and standard of living issues, as well as environmental issues. Public officials knew this and automobiles drastically reduced this impacts but no one had a discussion, automobiles just proved more efficient and reliable so the market embraced them. The market will embrace wind, solar, e vehicles etc as they become more practical than fossil fuel alternatives, if they ever do. There is nothing market driven about the government making a promise and forcing the market to fulfill that promise. Additionally, it is highly unlikely the market will be even able to fulfill that promise. The reasons have been laid out by a number of commenters that you dismiss. The give the practical reasons why this is unlikely to be achievable and Bailey laid out why it would require something extradorinary and unique to be even close to being achievable.

      1. If it were feasible the market would be doing it already, without a discussion.

        Markets need prices or they do not function. That does not mean markets necessarily create prices. A good example is the Clean Water Act and Cleveland/Cuyahoga River/Lake Erie.

        There was no cost to dump flammables and toxins into those watersheds. And Cleveland couldn’t impose a municipal level cost because Ohio prohibited the municipality from doing that. So crap got dumped and rivers caught on fire.

        Impose a cost – via legislation – at the federal level and the market now has a price for certain things so that that water pollution could be reduced to avert those costs as efficiently as the market could do it.

        1. “Markets need prices or they do not function. That does not mean markets necessarily create prices. A good example is the Clean Water Act and Cleveland/Cuyahoga River/Lake Erie.”
          Which, only to a lefty ignoramus like JFree, has anything to do with “markets”, lefty shit.

          “There was no cost to dump flammables and toxins into those watersheds. And Cleveland couldn’t impose a municipal level cost because Ohio prohibited the municipality from doing that. So crap got dumped and rivers caught on fire. ”
          Looks like a golden opportunity for tort law to be enforced, but out lefty ignoramus assume his imbecilic ‘solution’ is appropriate.

          “Impose a cost – via legislation – at the federal level and the market now has a price for certain things so that that water pollution could be reduced to avert those costs as efficiently as the market could do it.”
          Fuck off and die, imbecilic asshole lefty slaver.

          1. Looks like a golden opportunity for tort law to be enforced

            hahaha. hahaha. You dishonest moronic Mises/propertarian crowd. Lawsuits are not how markets function or resources are actually allocated. They are how courts function and courts are – drumroll – government. That would require legislation for a court to get standing and would require the titling of CO2 to INDIVIDUALS. That’ll be a breeze. Happens all the time in Somalia. Golden opportunity. Bunch of horse’s asses.

          2. has anything to do with “markets”

            The reduction of water pollution since 1970 had a lot to do with markets. The imposition of prices for water pollution had nothing to do with markets and would never have happened purely with markets. You people do not remotely comprehend that markets REQUIRE government. Anarchy does not lead to capitalism you fucking twits. Everyone from Adam Smith to Hayek understood that.

    4. “No surprise all you pretend market advocates don’t give a shit about actual market solutions that you clowns have been yapping and handwaving about for 60 years or so…”

      This from the fucking lefty ignoramus who opposes nuclear power (on that thread) since we can’t solve some issue which might be a problem 1,000 years hence.
      This asshole doesn’t even rise the the level of “stupid”.

    5. How much tax per exhale?

    6. It’s a market solution just like Obamacare was a market solution.

      And carbon dioxide isn’t a fucking externality.

  21. China cheers! China has agreed to a non-committal date of 2050. By then the US economy will be on of the smallest in the world!

  22. Doesn’t matter. China, India, and the Developing World will continue to double their carbon emissions every decade, and nothing will stop them.

    If we can make reasonable reductions in energy use, that’d be a good thing economically, but we shouldn’t kill our economy for an illusionary goal.

    1. troll flag; Reason pays Welsh far too much to get filters.

  23. “Dear Biden, F!U! for cutting of our breathing supply…”, Plant life.

    That’s right folks; plant’s consume CO2. Of course lefty B.S. is never about an actual situation. It’s about GLOBAL CONTROL! Power-Mad idiots, liars and drama queens screaming “Wolf” just to see how many Gov-Guns they can use to DICTATE other peoples lives.

  24. The good Dr. Jeckyll promises to cut carbon dioxide while the evil Mr. Hyde promises to piss away $80 billion on Amtrak. Both professional and armchair environmentalists look the other way.

  25. Pandering Joe Biden is completely clueless. There is no replacement for the power of hydrocarbon fuels. In order to get to his and the fanatical left’s fantasy of all electric would require the building of hundreds if not thousands of nuclear power plants. Under the left’s and his current and proposed regulatory scheme it would take decades to build those nuclear power plants. That is if they decide nuclear is the answer. I doubt it, his and the left’s base would have an apoplectic fit.

    There is no replacement for diesel to fuel agricultural production or the transportation logistics for getting food to the markets and consumers. So is he proposing people go hungry and or starve to death?

    In the 21st century Orwell’s 1984 came true, Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 became truth, Dr Who, the Matrix, all literally becoming realities and now stumbling bumbling Joe’s “green energy” plan will bring us Soylent Green.

  26. The heck with policy, let’s talk physics, thermodynamics and material limitations. Eliminating 5% of electrical generation a year means replacing it with something. Wind and solar, while they sound nice, are inefficient, expensive and unreliable. Just ask Texas about their January winter storm. Frozen windmills and snow covered solar panels don’t produce much electricity – and just when people need it to heat their homes. What about at night? No solar then. “We can use batteries!” Such batteries do not exist. “We can use pump storage!” Sure, but that requires more than twice the power generation. First you need enough solar to replace the base generation and even more to fill your pump storage system for night. You’d better pray it’s not cloudy. And as for all those electric cars? They need to be charged from something. More solar I guess. Those cars require batteries and that means lithium, cobalt, etc. Lots more mining in poor countries. Yippee! No environmental problems there. Oh, and by the way, there is not enough lithium and cobalt mined in the world for the electric cars the UK would need let alone the US, China, India or Brazil. So the solution is to pave the world with solar cells. America the beautiful no more. I can hardly wait. I love it when politicians try to do engineering.

  27. ????Many binary operations are rippers. I invested about $320,000 then i decided to withdraw after several week but the withdrawal wasn’t successful, then I tried to contact the binary operation email and phone number, but got no response from them that was when everything started looking weird. Some weeks later I got a mail from them insisting I should invest more money if I want to withdraw my money which I rejected, and I never hear from them again that was when I knew I had been scammed. I was really devastated at those moment and felt so bad that my hard earn money is gone. After some month I came across a lot of testimonies on many bitcoin site how HACKSOLUTION7 AT gmail dot com had helped many people recovered there stolen, scammed or duped money on bitcoin or any other form on digital currency. I contact them and they promised to help me get my money back, asked me some personal details of the scammer which I provided. The result was amazing I recovered all my stolen money back within 72 hours I was so happy as I never believe I could get my money back. Thanks HackSolution you restore Joy into my life after several pain I’m so indebted!!!????

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.