American Chemical Society Incorrectly Promotes Global Warming Fear from CO2

E-Mail to Congress:

Stephen K. Ritter has a four-page article entitled, "Carbon Dioxide's Unsettled Future" in the July 26 Issue C&EN.

The first part of the article is a claim on the global-warming consequences of carbon-based energy. There is no explanation of why we should believe that hypothesis. In the mind of Stephen Ritter, it appears to be an accepted fact.

He goes on to quote the position of Frank Zhu, an employee of UOP/Honeywell. Zhu picks up the ball as the "unquestionable fact" carbon dioxide is a culprit in global warming. His discourse covers three attitudes; those who want to reduce CO2 emissions through more efficient use of energy, those who want to eliminate CO2 emissions by capturing CO2, and those who will dilute CO2 emissions by using more solar and wind energy. Notice that all of this involves an assumption that CO2 emissions must be reduced. Notice also that Frank Zhu is in the business of applying UOP/Honeywell technology to CO2 capture.

Another person referred to in Ritter's article is Joseph Powell of Shell Global Solutions. One would think that Shell would be opposed to reducing oil production for a reduction in CO2 emission. However, there is some confusion in the collective Shell mind. It may be that Shell is being swayed by general public opinion, but they also may consider this an opportunity to "overly complex" the technology to Shell's economic advantage. The confusion arises from the difference between their apparently stated position versus what they're actually doing. For example, they have an arrangement with Iogen to produce ethanol. May I remind you that when you burn ethanol, you produce CO2? Shell also has a joint venture with Cellana to produce triglycerides for Diesel use. May I remind you that when you burn Diesel fuel, you produce CO2? Shell is working with Codexis to develop enzymes that convert biomass into fuels. May I remind you that when these fuels are burned, you produce CO2?

Another person referred to in Ritter's article is George Richards of the US Department of Energy. Notice that even before we begin his comments, he is likely to be biased because he works for Pres. Obama, who has many times clearly indicated his strong position for equalizing world incomes, and that would include hamstringing the United States by fostering economic growth to less developed countries. He would do this by a carbon dioxide tax on US energy users in the United States and sending a substantial portion of that income to less developed countries under the guise of decreasing their CO2 emissions for a worldwide benefit of reduced global warming. Again, there is no mention anywhere of a scientifically developed connection between carbon dioxide emissions and global warming. Richards says that less developed countries are going to use fossil fuel resources with elimination of CO2, and implies that we must supply them with the technology for CO2 capture. The Department of Energy is developing and testing capture, storage, and use technologies in collaboration with academic and industrial partners, including power producers and petrochemical companies. All of this is being done at taxpayer expense for a project on which there is a substantial disbelief in its necessity.

All of the above comes from the first page of Ritter's article. The other three pages involve explanations of all of the work being done on CO2 capture. This makes interesting reading for scientists and engineers, and especially those having a "financial special interest". However, the question is "why?". Comic books are also interesting reading, but at least they do no significant damage to the economy.