The Key to Fighting Climate Change is Direct Carbon Removal from the Atmosphere

The Time Has Come to Focus on Direct Carbon Removal in Reducing Global Warming Global warming is an intensifying global problem. No individual city, state, or country can unilaterally reduce the rise in global temperatures. Countries have reached agreements to reduce CO2 emissions. However, the international agreements have failed. The Paris Accords, signed by 195 nations on Earth Day 2016, set a goal of limiting global warning to 1.50C above pre-industrial levels by 2050. It contained detailed steps in reducing CO2 emissions. 2024 averaged the highest recorded temperatures in history. The World Meteorological Society said it reached 1.550C in the past year. Dr. Charles Keeling of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography devised an infrared gas analyzer to measure CO2 atmospheric levels. He set it up on the Moana Loa Observatory on the Big Island of Hawaii. The continuous readings form the Keeling Curve. The pre-industrial level was 280. The initial 1958 reading was 313. Earlier this year, it reached 424.81, up 3.53 in one year. The Keeling Curve warns us global warming will continue to rise. The Paris Accords failed, as did the earlier 1992 Rio Convention, 1997 Kyoto Protocol, and 2009 Copenhagen Accords, all with the same internal flaw. None are self-executing. No penalties or sanctions are imposed against violators. None of the 195 signees surrendered their sovereignty. Countries are thus free to violate the accords. China and India are the largest violators. China leads the world in alternative energy, but its insatiable demand for electricity is unsatisfied by alternative energy and EV’s. China and India are increasing their emissions at a greater rate than the United States is decreasing its emissions. For example, the United States’ emissions dropped 12% from 2020 to 5,007 metric tons in 2021 while China’s rose 33% to 11,472 metric tons. India announced it had to postpone the Paris Accords’ 2050 deadline to 2070. The International Court of Justice unanimously held on July 23, 2025 that the urgent and existential treat of climate change exists. All nations have the obligation to limit global warming to the 1.5oC increase of the Paris Accords. The failure to act constitutes intentional wrongdoing. The decision will not reverse global warming, but will unleash a further global flurry of climate change litigation. H.L. Mencken, the great columnist and humorist, wrote in 1920 this pithy comment: “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong.” Once CO2 was recognized as the primary cause of global warming, the simple solution was to drastically reduce CO2 emissions on the assumption that cutting CO2 emissions will reverse global warming. Fossil fuels were identified as the primary source of CO2 emissions. Fossil fuels, whether from oil and its derivatives, coal, and natural gas, were to be replaced by alternative fuels. Clean energy became the apparent solution. California jumped aboard the anti-carbon bandwagon. New cars by 2035 would be all electric, gas appliances, hot water heaters and home furnaces eliminated, and diesel locomotives converted to electric. Solar installations are required on new homes while fireplaces are banned in new construction. The forest is a CO2 sink. Wildfires release millions of metric tons of stored CO2 in the trees and other vegetation. For example, California’s CO2 emission cuts are offset by California’s wildfires. A UCLA and University of Chicago 2022 study of the large 2020 California wildfires found California generated 127mmt (million metric tons) in the 2020 wildfires, roughly double California savings of 65mmt between 2003 and 2019. Wildfires are a global problem. Some nations imposed draconian restrictions, which increasingly ignored reality. The world is dependent on fossil fuels for the generation of electricity. Natural gas is the cleanest burning, but coal is plentiful, accessible and economical in much of the world. Underdeveloped countries are turning to coal. The reality is that even if the global community achieved NetZero, global temperatures would continue to rise because of the rising atmospheric CO2 levels. Nature removes about 20-80% of the CO2 emissions through ocean absorption and photosynthesis in 20-200 years. It gives back large amounts of CO2 through wildfires. The remaining CO2 molecules can remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years. The normal inclination now will be to unsuccessfully double down on failure. The reaction will be increased political resistance and litigation, The United States since 1970 has created a legal and regulatory regime of resistance to infrastructure improvements. Reducing CO2 emissions and capturing emissions at the source and injecting into the ground may reduce CO2 emissions entering the atmosphere, but not the CO2 levels currently in the atmosphere and rising. Clean energy has several environmental attributes, but it is not a panacea for global warming. The subsidies and regulations, the ICJ, green architecture and building codes, compensatory and regulatory litigation and regulation, EV’s, clean energy, alternative fuels, and NetZero will not lower global temperatures. Only refocusing on direct carbon removal can temper the rising climate change. The key to controlling global warming is degasification of the atmosphere, direct carbon removal. The moneys to be spent on research and subsidies on the way to NetZero can better be invested, redirected and focused on degasification. The technology exists, but is not commercially viable today. The Paris Accords failed, as did the earlier 1992 Rio Convention, 1997 Kyoto Protocol, and 2009 Copenhagen Accords, all with the same internal flaw. None are self-executing. No penalties or sanctions are imposed against violators. None of the 195 signees surrendered their sovereignty. Countries are thus free to violate the accords. China and India are the largest violators. China leads the world in alternative energy, but its insatiable demand for electricity is unsatisfied by alternative energy and EV’s. China and India are increasing their emissions at a greater rate than the United States is decreasing its emissions. For example, the United States’ emissions dropped 12% from 2020 to 5,007 metric tons in 2021 while China’s rose 33% to 11,472 metric tons. India announced it had to postpone the Paris Accords’ 2050 deadline to 2070. The International Court of Justice unanimously held on July 23, 2025 that the urgent and existential treat of climate change exists. All nations have the obligation to limit global warming to the 1.5oC increase of the Paris Accords. The failure to act constitutes intentional wrongdoing. The decision will not reverse global warming, but will unleash a further global flurry of climate change litigation. H.L. Mencken, the great columnist and humorist, wrote in 1920 this pithy comment: “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong.” Once CO2 was recognized as the primary cause of global warming, the simple solution was to drastically reduce CO2 emissions on the assumption that cutting CO2 emissions will reverse global warming. Fossil fuels were identified as the primary source of CO2 emissions. Fossil fuels, whether from oil and its derivatives, coal, and natural gas, were to be replaced by alternative fuels. Clean energy became the apparent solution. California jumped aboard the anti-carbon bandwagon. New cars by 2035 would be all electric, gas appliances, hot water heaters and home furnaces eliminated, and diesel locomotives converted to electric. Solar installations are required on new homes while fireplaces are banned in new construction. The forest is a CO2 sink. Wildfires release millions of metric tons of stored CO2 in the trees and other vegetation. For example, California’s CO2 emission cuts are offset by California’s wildfires. A UCLA and University of Chicago 2022 study of the large 2020 California wildfires found California generated 127mmt (million metric tons) in the 2020 wildfires, roughly double California savings of 65mmt between 2003 and 2019. Wildfires are a global problem. Some nations imposed draconian restrictions, which increasingly ignored reality. The world is dependent on fossil fuels for the generation of electricity. Natural gas is the cleanest burning, but coal is plentiful, accessible and economical in much of the world. Underdeveloped countries are turning to coal. The reality is that even if the global community achieved NetZero, global temperatures would continue to rise because of the rising atmospheric CO2 levels. Nature removes about 20-80% of the CO2 emissions through ocean absorption and photosynthesis in 20-200 years. It gives back large amounts of CO2 through wildfires. The remaining CO2 molecules can remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years. The normal inclination now will be to unsuccessfully double down on failure. The reaction will be increased political resistance and litigation, The United States since 1970 has created a legal and regulatory regime of resistance to infrastructure improvements. Reducing CO2 emissions and capturing emissions at the source and injecting into the ground may reduce CO2 emissions entering the atmosphere, but not the CO2 levels currently in the atmosphere and rising. Clean energy has several environmental attributes, but it is not a panacea for global warming. The subsidies and regulations, the ICJ, green architecture and building codes, compensatory and regulatory litigation and regulation, EV’s, clean energy, alternative fuels, and NetZero will not lower global temperatures. Only refocusing on direct carbon removal can temper the rising climate change. The key to controlling global warming is degasification of the atmosphere, direct carbon removal. The moneys to be spent on research and subsidies on the way to NetZero can better be invested, redirected and focused on degasification. The technology exists, but is not commercially viable today.

The California Supreme Court May Save California Solar

The Trump Administration’s ending solar and wind subsidies Is generating criticism. It substantially discourages solar installations by making them less economical without the tax credits. However, the three large California public utilities, Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric, and San Diego Gas & Electric, through the California Public Utilities Commission two years ago, threw cold water on the California solar industry. California strongly supports solar energy, except when it doesn’t. All new residential buildings up to three stories must include solar. Developers are building four story multi-unit housing. Solar energy generated on the grid is sold and transmitted to the utility. The customer then repurchases electricity from the grid at the designated price at that time. California originally favored solar energy through a favorable credit program. California’s Net Energy Metering (NEM) plan sets the rates the three large public utilities will pay per kwh (kilowatt hour) for solar and the billing rate for energy from the grid. NEM applies to both retail and commercial customers. The first plan, NEM I, was effective in 1996. It allowed a 1:1 tradeoff. A unit of solar could be applied to any KWH drawn from the grid. For example, solar generated at 3:00pm could offset a draw from the grid at the peak time, such as 8:00pm. Consumers with positive balances at the end of the year receive a cash payment for the balance. NEM 2 from 2016-2023 partially changed the payout. The utilities will continue to purchase excess electricity at the going rate, but resell at peak time at the higher peak time rate. The 1:1 tradeoff no longer exists. This is the NEM 2 current rate schedule: Summer Weekdays Weekends Mid Peak: 4-9 PM .60 .48 Off-Peak: 9PM-8 AM .37 .37 Super Off-Peak: 8AM-4PM .37 .37 Winter Weekdays Weekends Mid-Peak: 4-9PM. .53 .53 Off-Peak: 9PM-8AM .40 .40 Super Off-Peak: 8AM-4PM .36 .36 Solar panels applied for after April 14, 2023 are placed in the new NEM 3, the “Net Billing Tariff,” under which new solar owners will no longer receive the retail price for that time, but the utilities’ avoided costs; i.e. what the utilities could pay in the wholesale market for electricity, which could be 75-80% lower than the retail price. The owners then pay the retail price for any electricity they consume during the peak period of 4-9pm offset by the discounted credit. In short, they are selling low and buying high. The result is that newer solar customers will probably owe a balance, perhaps high, to the utility at the end of the year. Consumers understand the basic economics. One goal of the new plan is to encourage solar users to install batteries to store the excess solar generated during the day, but the subsidies for batteries have also ended. Californians currently generate more energy in the warm afternoons than the utilities can store in their increasing battery capacity. Customers in NEM 1 and NEM 2 are grand parented into their existing plans. If they find their existing solar installation is inadequate, their ability to add more panels is limited. If they add 1KW or 10% or over of the original capacity, they will then be moved into NEM 3. The effect of NEM 3.0 is a substantial reduction in solar installations. Solar installations under way reached record levels before the new rates went into effect April 15, 2023. Then they plunged in the first quarter of 2024 to about 8,000/month, the lowest since May 2020. On the other hand, 60% of the new installations also installed batteries. The utilities claim the two earlier NEMs gave an unfair advantage to solar users because the non-solar customers had to pay more to cover maintenance on the grid. The PUC and the utilities ignore the fact that the solar users invested a large sum into the solar panels and set-up. The payback period has substantially increased, making solar less attractive. A spokesperson for the twice bankrupt Pacific Gas & Electric Company said PG&E is “a strong advocate for solar energy and the deployment of solar energy that uses the sun in ways that are cost-effective for all of our customers.” Solar installations are limited to 115% of peak capacity. We could only install 10 panels because we now had an empty nest and were electrically frugal. We would like to add a few more panels today, which the new rules effectively preclude. We would move into NEM3. The three utilities want consumers to install storage batteries on their residences, another still high cost to be imposed on solar owners. The Center for Biological Diversity, Environmental Working Group, and Protect Our Communities Foundation filed against the NEM 3. The California Court of Appeals tossed the lawsuit, looking to a 1911 statute which barred lawsuits so long as the PUC had “regularly pursued its authority.” It barred any further reviews of the PUC’s action. The California Supreme Court had interpreted the statute to mean the PUC’s “interpretation of the Public Utilities Code should not be disturbed unless it fails to bear a reasonable relation to statutory purposes and language.” The Court of Appeals applied a “uniquely deferential” analysis. The California Supreme Court on August 7, 2025 unanimously reversed the Court of Appeals. The Court looked to more recent enactments that adopted an abuse of discretion standard. It reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded the case. The Court of Appeals will now have to look at the merits, but may still decide for the utilities.