Mack, the premise of your article is actually incorrect. Certain old cars emit vast quantities of e.g. particulates (soot that causes health problems) and vast quantities of NO2 gas (the reddish brown molecule that causes smog and asthma) in addition to large amounts of CO2 (the molecule most commonly associated with…

Renewables and nuclear are each at 20% of US energy production. Summed together, 40% of electricity is low carbon. Renewables are often the cheapest option for utility scale implementation in the US. We ARE around the corner from meeting this demand.

The major issues with biodiesel and ethanol are efficiency (of producing it) and cost (of producing it). However, they make sense as part of larger carbon neutral portfolio.

Hydrogen fuel cells are nice. We need a better way to split water to produce hydrogen. Ideally directly using light from the sun. Just not efficient enough yet. A few thousand scientists around the world are working on it for you.

I have no idea whether what you said is true, but I will agree that science reporting is pretty abysmal across the board. I totally wouldn’t put it past a non-scientist to claim something absurd, and then claim that a scientist had said said it.*

Crazy. But that’s how numbers work.

I’m not sure what you mean when you say climate scientists have been wrong or what you mean when you refer to doomsday predictions. The affect of CO2 on the climate has been known since the 19th century. At the time CO2 emissions were small, and scientists thought it might have a small positive effect of nice weather…