G7 Leaders Agree to Plan to Decarbonize World Economy This Century (LENR Should help)

The New York Times is reporting that German chancellor Angela Merkel has said that the leaders of the G-7 group of wealthy democracies (United States, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom) have committed to eliminating the use of carbon-producing fuels by the end of the 21st century.

From the article:

German Chancellor Angela Merkel says the Group of Seven wealthy democracies have agreed that the world should phase out the use of fossil fuels by the end of this century.

Merkel said Monday that the G-7 leaders committed themselves to the need to “decarbonize the global economy in the course of this century”.

This agreement has been reached ahead of a climate summit that will be held in Paris later this year where there is a push to reach a binding global agreement on the reduction of carbon emissions. Full decarbonization would require the elimination of using fossil fuels for the production of energy (except maybe if carbon capture and storage systems are used), and would be a massive task.

Without a “magic bullet” technology that would make it easy and desirable to move away from fossil fuels, it has been an uphill battle to reduce the use of fossil fuels, which still provide the vast majority of energy used around the world. Use of current alternatives is growing, but it would take a monumental effort to move fully away from carbon producing fuels with technologies like wind and solar, especially if nuclear fission was off the table.

Now, let’s suppose that LENR enters the marketplace and is shown to be able to produce energy in quantities needed to power the world economy, without any carbon emissions, and with a tiny fraction of the fuel currently used in the world’s energy production. That prospect could make these climate conferences a LENR-fest where global leaders from large and small countries could celebrate a viable solution to what is currently an extremely thorny problem, and where agreements have been notoriously difficult to reach and enforce.

The Paris conference runs from November 30th -December 15th which might be too soon to have results of Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat plant testing published. So this conference might be as difficult previous ones. However, I feel it is just a matter of time before word gets out that LENR can meet the goals of these climate summits, and that it is entirely possible that decarbonization could be realized well before the end of the century.

  • oldrolledgold

    Good point but I think the GW alarmists are liars and shysters

    • mcloki

      This has more to do with solar than anything else. Solar is poised to make huge inroads over the next decade. Especially if urban solar farms catch on. LENR when it matures will help.

      • Observer

        What always bothered me about the life cycle from plant to herbivore to predictor to bacteria and back to plant is that no system is 100% efficient and that the total amount of carbon available to create bio-mass should be constantly decreasing. With the releasing of sequestered carbon trapped in fossil fuels, this trend has, temporarily, been reversed. If you look at the data, you will see that during periods of abundant life, there is higher levels of CO2 (and O2) in the atmosphere. So the main concern about “climate change” is not a reduction in living things, but a change in the current nature of things. Our religious devotion has gone from not changing anything to making sure nothing changes. This concept is perverse considering the continually changing natural history of life on earth.

        • builditnow

          Ok, all good if you are happy to have lots of wars, starvation etc for humanity.
          Life will indeed go on even if we create massive climate change.
          Are you happy that your children are going to have a really rough time and likely not to survive?
          If so, your view is correct as it does seem that plant life extracted the carbon from the atmosphere and buried it and will likely do so again in the future. We humans are dispensable in the scheme you propose.

          • Omega Z

            LENR will not stop Wars. Not even a world of plenty will do that.
            Although it could make War cheaper to wage & more convenient for those who have limited energy sources.

            The more crowded society gets, the more issues that lead to war arise. Makes you wonder why Governments are so bent on crowding as many as possible into Mega Cities.

          • Observer

            We are the most adaptable creature to ever inhabit this planet. We can live on any content and in any climate. We can even survive on the moon! The number of people on earth is solely dependent on how much food we can grow to feed them. Rising CO2 levels will increase, not decrease our ability to grow food. Climates change and cities rise and fall. This is our history and our future. We will survive: no one does it better than us.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      I think the major point here is that the CO2 climate movement has an agenda. So “self interest” is at work here.

      Recall that the French government had a LENR program about a dozen years ago. (and that also where Toyota funded P&F’s lab). (P&F = Fleischmann–Pons).

      Note France is one of the LARGEST users of nuclear energy (over 80% of their energy is nuclear). The French nuclear group eventually concluded that LENR could well be a great source of energy, but then they ALSO concluded why do this and decimate their existing and VERY lucrative nuclear industry they have now?

      Even at the time of P&F, we saw some universities “circle” the wagons so to speak since they had VERY lucrative funding for hot fusion. Again, not really a “grand” conspiracy, but one of self interest.

      Sperry Univac, Digital, Honeywell and a host of mini and “mainframe” vendors (that no longer exist by the way) did not invest nor really “dabble” in the new personal computer industry that was starting out in the 1980’s. Why invest in a technology that would eventually make your existing products obsolete? Again, no real conspiracy here, but simply such companies were NOT in a position to take advantage of personal computers and keep their CURRENT business alive and competitive.

      The exception to the above was IBM – they held off entering into that PC market, but then realized they better invest and become a player. (hence the IBM pc was born). And such systems really did start to “eat” into their bottom line. All of a sudden a $30,000 computer system could be had for $5000. Those other vendors were used of charging CLOSE to $5000 per month JUST to use their hardware! And in nearly every city, the offices of Sperry Univac, Honeywell, Digital etc. are ALL GONE!

      And the same self interest concept applies to governments. When the BC government (in Canada) wanted to raise taxes, then the people were on the legislative grounds with pitch forks screaming at the government. So the government turned around and said we need a carbon tax on gas – people “happy” opened up their wallets and did not complain. After all the whole “guilt” trip and making you pay for your sins of driving your car is a VERY easy sell! Thus global warming is a simple and effective means for the governments to raise taxes. Most governments figured this out in a very short time!).

      As the wonderful quote from the IPCC official above shows, they really don’t care much about CO2 and the science, but only that it is a means to an end (more taxation and wealth re-distribution).

      When the wall came down in Europe, the left and socialist movement jumped onto the environmental movement. CO2 taxation is simply an ends to their means.

      So like much of the existing computer industry did not really want the PC to come along (or they simply could not re-invest into using PC’s), much the same exists now for LENR.

      Remember, today a nuclear power plant is much like a cell phone or selling a razor – you make all the money in re-processing the waste products and fuel (billions). Or you make all the money selling “air” time with a cell phone, or having customers purchase replacement blades for the razor.

      LENR will remove the MOST lucrative part of the nuclear industry (the re-processing and handling of that nasty waste). The big money in nuclear is NOT the plant, but dealing with the waste issue. So they really cannot adopt and pursue LENR.

      So like the PC computer industry – it sprung up SEPARATE from the existing “mini” and “mainframe” computer industry.

      LENR is much in the same boat – it is occurring SEPARATE from the existing sources of energy, since those existing companies don’t have a cost structure that works for LENR. However, like the PC computer industry – the results created more jobs then the technology it replaced!

      So while “lots” of resistance to the computer industry existed, it eventually received the investment and money for it to flourish.

      Rossi is just coming out of the Apple garage so to speak. While the Apple I was a curiosity, the Apple II was a REAL commercial product.

      Rossi’s first 1MW plant was really a crude prototype. The current model looks to be VERY impressive, and is such a shattering and game changing device that mankind REALLY badly needs at this point in time.

      The arrival of LENR from a point of pollution, and the ability of such a device to help the needy of the world is an event of historic proportions. LENR is bigger then the wheel, the steam engine, electricity, and even that of the computer revolution.

      In many ways this discovery by P&F is something that likely to serve as our main means of power for the next 500+ years. And like the discovery of penicillin, LENR also was a fluke accident. Had that small hunk of palladium not melted through that metal lab table and several inches into the cement lab floor, we likely would not be here posting about LENR!

      We had the Bronze Age, the industrial revolution age, Jet aircraft age, the computer age, and now we are entering into the LENR age.

      LENR will EASY surpass all of these “ages” in terms of impact and what such an amazing source of energy can achieve for mankind.

      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • malkom700

        This post has been written probably already sober and is one of the most valuable contributions generally …

  • Gerard McEk

    Maybe we can ask Andrea to speed-up his test and get the final word before this summit. Would is customer be pleased if Andrea would make 2 MW instead of 1 MW? Then the customer can produce twice as much tomatos or whatever he is producing, or maybe cooked tomatos… 🙂

  • GordonDocherty

    I know Andrea Rossi’s stated position, but a “report ahead of the final report” aimed at the Paris conference would be essential to stop governments (and especially the bureaucratic machines they oversee) from heading off in the wrong direction: like supertankers, governments find it very hard to stop and turn once they are underway.

    • GreenWin

      These climate junkets are meant only to spout climate fear and establish taxes on the 190+ countries not in G7.

  • pg

    85 years looks like a reasonable dead_line…

  • bfast

    I love understatement — LENR should help. When this darn technology gets out the door, it will eliminate the need to burn fossil fuels in 20 years.

  • Observer

    Did it ever occur to you that we are part of the mechanism by which the life on earth is maintaining balance? All living things on earth can be considered part of one macro-organism. Before the arrival of humans, life had already changed the atmosphere and climate of this planet to suite its purpose (more living things). We and what we do are not separate from the whole. From the development of agriculture, to the concept of terraforming, what we do promotes the perpetuation of living things. We and what we do are “natural”. We are suppose to be here.

    You can drown in water. Breathing pure oxygen can kill you. You can suffocate in pure CO2. All are required for life to exist. None of these things are pollution.

    Carbon sequestration by fossilization is a natural and on going process.

    • bachcole


      But carbon sequestration by hideous monster factories that don’t produce anything useful cost me and everyone I care about money and lowers our standard of living. (:->)

      • Observer

        In terms of happiness and satisfaction, who has the better standard of living, you or your dog?

        Why do we care about how well other beings live?

        Why is our empathy only reserved for living things?

        • bachcole

          Excuse me for waxing serious, because I appreciate you humor.

          But, caring about others IS happiness. Loving others is an honour and a privilege, not a burden. I used to be a little ashamed that I loved dogs so much because I felt that it was because I was so socially retarded that I couldn’t have human friends. Now, I feel extremely blessed and honoured to have two silly gooses who I can pour my love into.

      • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

        people tend to overestimate what can be accomplished in a year, and underestimate what can be accomplished in 10 years.

    • Omega Z

      I’m sorry Observer,
      Apparently, Like myself you never got the Memo.

      I have been informed that when we venture outside our cities & are attacked by Lions, Tigers or Bears, It is because we are invading their habitat. We are getting what we deserve. We should stay where we belong in our spaceship cities.

      Personally, I thought we had always shared habitat. I never thought we were encroaching on theirs. Apparently, we must have come from some other world. We’re the Alien invaders. Of course, many of these people will tell you we don’t need to farm or raise animals Etc, as we have all the food we need in our local Grocery store.

      Apparently all this food is shipped in from Alpha Centauri or somewhere. I can only conclude that this was all explained that 1 day I skipped History class. So now you know. We are not a part of Nature.

      • we want LENR Fusione Fredda
        • Agaricus

          Probably. Nice thought though – especially the head-exploding bit.

        • bachcole

          Thank you for that.

          • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

            It was an inspiration cherry plucked from that other exquisite tree, the Lenr-Forum…

      • Observer

        Indigenous species are the species that colonized an area before we arrived. Invading species are the species that colonized after we arrived. Are war on the legitimacy of invading species is just another vain attempt to prevent anything from changing.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Wow – so they managed to come to an agreement that when there is no fossil carbon based energy resources with a net positive EROEI left, they’ll commit to not using them.

    Clap . Clap

    < These guys really care
    < These guys know that their populations don't have a clue that this has to happen

    • Omega Z

      Don’t you get it Bob. It’s always been about justification of applying carbon taxes. Sucking up 50% of the world GDP isn’t enough for world governments. They want more.

      There are only enough oil reserves for the next 40 years. Obviously we will find more but it will not match the rate of depletion & will be economically depleted on about 40 years. The masses can’t afford what will remain. Coal is estimated at 100 years, but with the depletion of oil, coal will become a feed stock for oil conversion. It to will deplete much faster.

      This considered, Both Oil & Coal will no longer be serious contributors to CO2 long before the year 2100. This is based on present consumption. Any increase in that consumption will greatly impact the economic depletion time line.

      That leaves Natural Gas. Estimated reserves exceed 1000 years. Most of that is locked in methane hydrate that we don’t yet have the technology to recover. And as oil & coal deplete, N-gas will need to provide an offset. So, Economically speaking, Things will get very interesting by 2050, Let alone worrying about 2100.

      I consider LENR to be arriving just in the nick of time. Contrary to what many think, Even it will require about 50 years to transition from most fossil fuel use. Society just doesn’t have the resources to transition any faster. Resources including raw materials, qualified skilled people & most of all, the cash resources required.

      The current system will require about 100 trillion$ to replace. If you want to bring the other half of society into the modern age, you can double that figure. To accomplish a 50 year transition from fossil energy to LENR energy will require a major increase in present energy expenditures for at least 2 decades. At that point, Some of this increase will be offset in savings.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Hi Omega,

        You are adding some of the facts that are behind my succinct comment. I’ll give a medium length comment for additional clarity of my short statement above.

        In 2006, I was one of 300 delegates at the peak oil conference in Cork. In conventional terms, oil peaked in 2005 – yes there have been all sorts of non-conventional oils made, but the EROEI (Energy Returned On Energy Invested) is lower.


        At that conference – there was a german report that was talking about coal. They first went into the fact that in many parts of the world, all of the cleaner, more energy dense (and therefore bigger EROEI) anthracite version of coal has been mined out and sometimes they are down to burning Lignite, which is terrible- to understand what this means look here:


        Secondly they had done a study on the claims that world coal reserves would last 300 years. What they found out there was an accelerating rate of depletion of reserves over time, in a large part due to the rate of power plant construction in countries that use that power to make all the trappings of our modern lives, like processed materials, machinery for making stuff and end products. In the years preceding the conference, they found that for every year passed, 6 years of reserves were used.

        Let’s assume no one wants to raise their standard of living and the population ceases to grow. That 300 years is going to last 50. Coal currently produces 41% of all electricity globally.

        We know that there are going to be more people and I am pretty certain that the 1.3 billion citizens of India for instance are not satisfied with seeing the typical westerner use 5X the energy they do. Just raising their standard of living to that of the west would nearly double world energy needs.

        The whole debt based monetary system is predicated on “growth” that’s why you hear so much panic when their isn’t growth. Why do they need growth? Well, because only growth will allow debt to be paid back with interest. Every economy in the last 160 years that has grown has done so in lock-step with its increase in use of total energy (either directly or imported through the consumption of products made elsewhere). So the WHOLE financial system demands more energy available. Unless we change our financial system, the need for energy will increase. If you have 7% growth for 10 years, that constitutes over 100% change in the size of the economy and a massive increase in the use of energy even accounting for efficiency.

        Energy price is set on the margin. i.e. a little over supply, very low prices – a little under supply, very high prices.

        Traditional Uranium based fission has about enough fissile material to last to 2050 (from the nuclear guys research at the ASPO conference 2006) and much of that is coming from decommissioning old warheads. 2050 assumes no more reactors are built – but they are being built rapidly, in China, India etc.

        So, if traditional nuclear is out by 2050, oil (including unconventional) and coal basically out of the picture by around 2040-2060, the population is going to be larger, their demands for life will be more intense and the monetary system demands growth – what chance is their that gas will last 1000 years? Gas may need to account for the 41% of electricity that is made by coal, and 11.5% made by nuclear – in fact the whole lot. Since it accounts for 20% now, that effectively makes 1000 years 200, and that does not account for the growth. Then what happens when it is needed for transportation also?

        All of this assumes that we can extract from gas hydrates!

        Lastly, there is the issue of IF we should burn all this…

        As temperature rises – Yesterday it was 40.7 in Milan and has been over 45 for many days in large swathes of India and Asia – People will use far more incredibly energy intensive AC, more water will evaporate, requiring desalination, Forests will die, releasing carbon, and the permafrost will melt releasing Methane in unimaginable quantities. Now you can debate what effect this will have on the environment. My father was a farmer with many acres under glass, we used paraffin burners to raise the CO2 content in the green houses to help trap the suns heat and provide a better environment for the plants – go figure.

        • Agaricus

          Possibly ‘weather’ rather than ‘climate’. This morning in the SW UK the air temperature is currently 16C, against a seasonal norm 4C higher than that. Temperatures here have been generally quite a lot lower than average for some time.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Well – Worthing, UK, where I am from is meant to be 17-19-22-24-20-20-18 this week, which averages out to 20 – right on the average.

            It is not the average that is the problem, it is the extremes.

          • Allan Kiik

            But, as even IPCC-s AR5 concluded, there is no statistically significant changes in extreme weather events and 1930’s are still the hottest decade with most extreme temperatures –

          • Bob Greenyer

            As I said “Now you can debate what effect this will have on the environment.” – these discussions are away from the main point about access to abundant affordable energy.

            Doesn’t affect the other point of my argument, that we will effectively be out of Carbon fuels before these politicians “phase out” Carbon.

          • Omega Z

            Is that the Lottery numbers. 🙂

          • Bob Greenyer


          • bachcole

            In Colorado Springs, it is so much wetter that I am seeing weeds that I have never seen before. Thanks to the increased moisture, the spiders are big and hairy; no, not Discovery Channel “big and hairy”, but big and hairy for us. And the mosquitoes are dreadful; my very clever son tried a mixture of essential oils and water and sprays himself with it to keep the mosquitoes away (which works), something that we have never had to worry about before. This is the wettest and coolest year since 1996 that we have ever had.

          • Mytakeis

            Is that brown cloud still hanging around Denver? Was always there in ’84-’88 when I was stationed there. Thinking moisture might have ‘dampened’ it.

          • bachcole

            I didn’t get there until November ’96, and it didn’t seem to be enough of a problem that I recall any problem. The US has improved greatly with air quality since the mid 1960’s when my swimming team hated competing in Los Angeles because of the chest pain caused by smog.

        • Omega Z

          I agree with most of your post in principle. Not necessarily in all the time lines or details..
          I believe there is by far, more fossil fuels in the ground then we have extracted. The true limits to that extraction is the amount of Energy in verses the amount Energy returned. If it requires the energy of a ton of coal to extract that ton of coal your done. Beyond that is just a matter of economics. Fossil energy will eventually be uneconomical. Exageration- $100 a gallon for gas doesn’t work. Might as well be out.

          What I would say is Fossil energy is it’s just a step along the way. Without it, the world we know wouldn’t exist. If LENR proves out, it is a product of today’s world. It wouldn’t even be a possibility in the past. Possibly in time, people will be saying similar things about LENR as we’re about to move on to something else. It’s just 1 more step.

          Some Debt is a necessity. If I want a home that costs 200K, I need to make payments if I don’t have the cash. I also expect to pay interest. Within reason. 2% above inflation sounds reasonable. One needs to pay his way & for what he receives.

          As to debt for economic growth. Not necessary, but I agree there are those who believe & promote it. All that’s needed is people who need, want & have a means to earn a living. Capitalism works. It’s the economic theory that has major flaws. You primarily need a way to inject more cash flow in without disrupting value of the current system or destabilizing the economy. There is a way to do that. You just need people of Integrity to manage it. Therein lies the problem. That & those who game the system.

      • Agaricus

        The Japanese have begun mining methane hydrates, but the technical challenges are steep:


        Although some argue that these reserves should never be touched:


        As the problems are solved though, IMO this energy source will become the benchmark against which other technologies such as LENR, and for that matter, nuclear fission, will have to compete. Apart from anything else, if methane is released into the atmosphere it acts as a far more powerful ‘greenhouse gas’ than CO2, so it could be argued that burning the stuff instead is actually a positive ‘green’ activity, as this will reduce both the intensity and duration of any warming effects due to methane.

        • US_Citizen71

          LENR may be responsible for making methane hydrates recoverable in a meaningful way. Heat energy is one of the things needed in large quantities to recover the methane. A submerged dredge with suctions hoses would benefit greatly from a multi-megawatt LENR plant to heat the sand and hydrates it pulls in to release the methane as well as provide power for the rig. Mining the ocean floor for all sorts of minerals may become a reality due to LENR and no longer just be a work of science fiction.

  • Mytakeis

    Best to keep sounding the trumpet call that LENR/Rossi/e-Cat/IH is real and producing. Repeating this fact will soon make the fact a ‘fact,’ and no longer have the fact be a ‘fantasy’ in public view. Nil public awareness leads leaders like the G7 to state renewables are so important, and not even think about mentioning, much less acknowledging LENR’s near free energy production, without pollution!

  • Omega Z

    Correct. Rossi says all energies will be integrated. I try & keep up with what he posts on JONP. In 1 of them he included a qualifier that basically said for the foreseeable future. In short. It’s going to be a long transition. Most don’t realize how big a task it will be.

    25 years of major mass production & there are still 90 million landline phones in the U.S.

  • tobalt

    I want to urge the users of this site not to embark in different fields than the LENR and e-cat in this forum simply to preserve the integrity of this place.

    topics like climate change, as well as other “free energy devices” all have a highly decided consensus in science.

    lenr has to cope already by itself with this heavy burden and it does absolutely not help this forum in its effort to lend credibility to LENR, when other such topics are discusses. Im sure there are other forums for these purposes.

    • Agaricus

      I suppose the relevance is in how LENR fits with the new anti-carbon energy politics (which tend to be more about ‘carbon tax’ agendas and nuclear power propaganda than anything else), but possibly the ‘Always Open’ thread is the place for spin-offs such as discussion of so-called climate change. Personally I consider Interested’s contribution a little way below to be pretty much definitive on the latter topic.

    • bachcole

      I agree, except of course for subjects that I want to talk about. Then that’s different.


  • Omega Z

    Actually bachcole, I listen to there proposed policies & they are aimed to encourage people to move to the big cities. As to all the problems in the big cities- That is my point. I think this has much to do with control. A scattered population is hard for them to manage, control & manipulate.

    They are much more outspoken in China about this. They have much control over the cities. In outlaying areas, it is a big issue. Policies are very hard to enforce & sometimes near impossible. For instance, there are about 500 coal power plants that were not authorized & hundreds of unofficial coal mines.

    As to the Climate. I get tired of them clubbing us over the head with things like- it’s 10` degrees above average. What do they not understand about average. Do they think it should always be the average number. Do they not understand variables & averages. They must of had a bad math teacher. AND Why do they not say- It’s 10` degrees below average. Oh My. We’re heading for an Ice Age.

  • malkom700

    I personally do not distance themselves from to any topic. Agree to Plan to Decarbonize World Economy This Century is interesting because we all know that it needs to be done by 2020.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    At the end of the day, this CO2 taxing issue has always been about taxation.

    We have output record amounts of CO2 in the last 18 years. In fact about the SAME amount as the previous 75 years COMBINED! That means the two world wars, and the huge post industrial boom that occurred, but we very recent output MORE CO2.

    Yet in the last 18 years, we not seen any global warming (none, zero nada!!!!!!).


    There is not even a “basic” math relationship between our output of CO2 and that of warming. Imagine that, you cannot even show a basic math correlation between the output of our CO2 and that of global warming.

    The best quote and definitive statement on this matter comes RIGHT from the horses mouth (the IPPCC).

    Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official:

    “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate
    policy…Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy
    separately from the major themes of globalization…One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”

    Like, wow!!

    So really, this issue has “always” been about taxation and taking money from the west. I mean why should some government body like the UN be given the right to tax and take money from countries based on their CO2 output?

    The second “big” issue of the environmental movement is of course to de-industrialize the west. This short video clip also explains this “connection” between the socialist movement, and that of pushing global warming.


    So this is really about people who don’t like the industrial might of the west, and also that of governments wanting to tax and control industry. In fact, even with SAFE nuclear power, such people would be AGAINST such power – the reason being their anti-west and anti-industrial view of the world. Such people want us to go back to living off the land in caves.

    These governments actually do NOT WANT LENR!!! The reason being is LENR does not allow one to prevent industrialization, and also means freedom for you!

    If you have your own car, then you NOT beholding to the government provided transportation system. Freedom means you can drive anywhere you want. This is why so many cities and governments push use of public transportation EVEN when it does not make sense. It ALSO means your spending significant parts of your paycheck paying for government run transportation, not your own!

    And the same goes for energy consumption – it has become a MAJOR FORM of taxation! In fact the WHOLE CO2 tax is really is LIMITED to that of your consumption of carbon based fuels. (this is why such people don’t even support SAFE nuclear – which is what LENR is).

    So make no mistake here, governments ARE DEAD SET against LENR because it loosens the government grip on you. Exactly HOW is a government going to GUILT TRIP you into paying more taxes (CO2) when the energy you are using is not “imaginary” destroying the planet?

    Without the huge “moral” justification of you destroying the planet, then how they going to tax you more? (we already have way too many taxes now – the only way for government to get MORE taxes is to show that your behavior is killing the planet, and thus they must TAKE EVEN MORE money from you.

    LENR is the VERY LAST THING that governments want.

    One more time:

    LENR is the VERY LAST THING that governments want.

    The issue really centers on your energy use – carbon fuels can be taxed, and centralized energy systems have become a centralized means to tax you.

    Of course all governments want to reduce pollution, but they DO NOT want to give up their means to tax you, and have control over your energy use. Remember, the MORE energy you use, the HIGHER standard of living you can obtain (and more freedom from governments).

    This is really a simple socialist vs conservative type of issue. If you believe in more government control, and more taxes, then you need + want a CO2 tax. A non polluting non centralized energy source means that this rather large source of wealth producing energy cannot be taxed. People don’t realize that energy use produces wealth for each person. You can drive a car and deliver 35 pizzas easy in a day – but without a car, – not likely. The whole industrial revolution (and resulting HUGE wealth) was a result of harnessing this energy. And the governments seek to take more and more of that wealth and energy from you. What govern is pushing less taxes these days???

    The simple matter is the government’s stance on carbon based fuels is not REALLY about getting you off carbon fuels, but JUSTIFYING the taxes based on your fuel consumption and your resulting CO2 output!!!

    LENR screws this government course of action. (of which they spend near 20 years attempting to archive massive new CO2 taxes).

    Those IPPC climate summits are NOT really about getting us off of CO2, but in fact justifying the taxes on CO2.

    Given the CURRENT government stances on CO2, you WILL NOT SEE ANY major government pushing LENR in any way at all – unless they find a way to tax this energy source.

    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • malkom700

      I note in this context that local changes are much more important to the global values you mentioned, because this can lead to chain reaction, for example, in the case of termafrost and the Arctic.

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.