EPA faces scientific backlash: Climate skeptics challenge 40-year consensus

 On June 11, climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT and Princeton physicist Dr. William Happer delivered a 45-page critique to the EPA opposing proposed carbon capture regulations for power plants. 

Their blunt assertions—that climate policies rest on dubious science, wasted subsidies and a biased process—mark a critical moment in a decades-long debate. 

Their challenge reverberates with historical context: the first Senate hearing on global warming was in 1988, and is now widely criticized by skeptics as a setup. As the Biden administration accelerates climate regulations, Happer and Lindzen argue that trillions in subsidies and emission targets lack scientific grounding, urging a return to empirical rigor...<<<Read More>>>...

“The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism”: A bold challenge to climate change orthodoxy

 Goreham, a speaker and researcher with a background in engineering and climate science, presents a compelling argument that challenges the mainstream view of anthropogenic global warming. His exploration begins with a fundamental question: Are the current temperature increases truly the result of human activity, or are they part of a natural cycle? Goreham points out that temperatures have been rising by about one degree Celsius every century since the end of the Little Ice Age 350 years ago. This raises the possibility that the current warming trend might be a continuation of this natural cycle rather than a direct consequence of human actions.

One of the central pillars of Goreham's argument is the role of carbon dioxide (CO2) in climate change. While CO2 is often demonized as the primary driver of global warming, Goreham argues that it is, in fact, an essential component of life on Earth. He highlights the fact that higher levels of CO2 have been shown to increase plant growth and food production, suggesting that the gas's impact on the environment is not entirely negative. Furthermore, Goreham challenges the simplistic correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures. He cites ice core data indicating that increases in CO2 historically follow temperature rises, not the other way around. This, he argues, suggests that other factors, such as solar activity and ocean cycles, may be more significant drivers of climate change.

Goreham does not shy away from addressing the politicization of climate science. He contends that the debate has been hijacked by ideologues more interested in pushing a political agenda than in pursuing objective truth. This is evident in the way dissenting voices are often ridiculed and marginalized. Goreham references the work of realist climate scientists, such as Dennis Avery, Bob Carter and Richard Lindzen, who have faced significant backlash for challenging the prevailing narrative. He emphasizes the importance of open scientific debate and the need to question assumptions and scrutinize evidence, regardless of the prevailing consensus...<<<Read More>>>...

Carbon Dioxide is Good for the Planet

 Kemi Badenoch, the Tory leader of the Opposition, has stated that the quest to reach Net Zero by 2050 is in fact “impossible”. This has of course brought condemnation from officialdom. 

Without showing any evidence of self-awareness, Ed Miliband, the Labour Government’s Energy Secretary, accused her leadership of being “off to the Wacky Races” because of the statement. 

It would seem that here in the UK the official narrative, which leads towards a self-flagellating zero carbon future, must be upheld. This is despite many global players, including the USA, China and India, rejecting the unrealisable goal. Internationally, there isn’t the political will to seriously stop carbon fuel use, and the UKs sack-cloth-and-ashes approach is very damaging to both public finances and the environment, by industrialising countryside. As Ben Pile points out climatism maybe dying in parts of the world, but not here in the UK and EU.

The fear-narrative is also promoted by governmental institutions. Professor Stephen Belcher, the Met Office Chief Scientist, recently said: “The latest planetary health check tells us that earth is profoundly ill” – a statement which is based upon the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide allegedly being at the highest level in the last 800,000 years. The Chief Scientist here is not just reporting facts, but passing a value judgement on what level of carbon dioxide is good for the health of the planet....<<<Read More>>>...

Green energy’s dark side: bird deaths, graveyards of broken blades, and other ecological harms

 In the Mojave Desert, the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System stands as a stark reminder of the unintended consequences of green energy projects. Built in 2014 with significant taxpayer backing, the plant was designed to harness solar power using thousands of mirrors to concentrate sunlight onto towers. Instead, it became infamous for its lethal impact on wildlife.

Federal wildlife officials described Ivanpah as a “mega-trap” for birds, with its intense light rays attracting insects and, in turn, birds that were incinerated mid-flight. Workers dubbed these tragic incidents “streamers,” referring to the smoke plumes left behind. At its peak, the plant was estimated to kill one bird every two minutes, totaling over 130,000 avian deaths annually.

Despite its ecological toll, Ivanpah struggled to meet energy production targets. Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), one of its primary customers, announced in 2025 that it would no longer purchase power from the plant. Two of its three towers will shut down next year, with the third likely to follow.

“It might have functioned merely as the world’s most expensive backyard bug zapper,”...<<<Read More>>>...

Warning to workers: you are the carbon that your trade unions want to reduce

 As Donald Trump crashes like a bull in a china shop through the Woke and Green edifices of progressive governance, here in the UK we are heading in the wrong direction. Ed Miliband, architect of the Climate Change Act 2008, is back and pushing Net Zero as fast as he can. But this is not enough for the climate cult. Driven by their apocalyptic fears for the planet, and perhaps the promise of some great reward, backbench MPs have presented the Climate & Nature Bill, for debate in parliament tomorrow.

Although few private members’ bills become law, this has a higher likelihood of success. About two hundred MPs are backing it, and opposition to this green-leftist move is weakened in a chamber dominated by Labour and like-thinking parties.

If passed by the House of Commons, the consequences will be severe for ordinary British citizens, already struggling with the cost of living, punitive taxes and the pressures caused by uncontrolled immigration. Food shortages will be threatened by the Net Zero attack on farmers. Motorists will face local charging schemes that target older vehicles, just as many poor Londoners were forced off the road by Sadiq Khan’s ULEZ.  And millions of jobs are at risk from the decarbonising wrecking ball....<<<Read More>>>....

UK consumers have paid £1 billion this year to turn off wind farms and start-up gas plants

 The UK is on track to waste a record amount of wind power in 2024. The grid can’t cope with the increase in the number of wind farms and blustery weather and so wind farms are being paid to turn off.

“So far this year, the UK has spent more than £1 billion ($1.3 billion) in ‘congestion costs’ to turn off plants that can’t deliver electricity because of grid constraints, and switch on others,” Bloomberg reports. A cost that is ultimately borne by consumers.

The UK has boosted its offshore wind fleet by 50% in the past five years and plans to double it in the next five years, but the grid hasn’t expanded at the same pace, resulting in the operator paying wind farms to turn off.

So far in 2024, the UK has spent over £1 billion in “congestion costs” to turn off wind farms that can’t deliver electricity due to grid constraints and switch on others, with Scotland’s offshore wind farms being particularly affected.

The problem of curtailed generation has become increasingly common, with this year’s congestion costs exceeding last year’s total and second only to 2022 when power prices were almost three times as high...<<<Read More>>>...

Gas Boilers Banned in New Homes From 2027

Gas boilers are to be banned in most new homes by 2027 as part of legislation being brought forward by the Government. The Telegraph has the story.

Under the so-called Future Homes Standard, which aims to slash carbon emissions across households, developers must ensure that new-builds are only fitted out with electric heat pumps or non-gas alternatives.

Rules regarding the gas boiler ban are expected to be announced as early as May next year, although they are unlikely to be enforced until the relevant legislation takes effect in 2026.

That would be followed by a 12-month delay to ensure housebuilders are prepared for the switchover, as first reported by the Financial Times.

The proposed ban comes after the previous Tory Government launched a consultation on the Future Homes Standard policy last year.

The new legislation aims to reduce carbon emissions across all new homes by up to 80%.

However, the decision to outlaw gas boilers has raised concerns over whether the heat pump supply chain can grow quickly enough to match Sir Keir Starmer’s bid to build 300,000 new homes a year....<<<Read More>>>...

Another study shows low-frequency vibrations from wind turbines can harm human health

Wind turbines are known to disrupt wildlife and severely damage the surrounding biotope, And, despite being inaudible, it is known that low-frequency vibrations from wind turbines can be harmful to human health.

Humans can only perceive sound waves over a range of approximately between 20 and 20,000 Hertz. Sound waves below 20 Hz cannot be heard by humans and are called infrasound.

Natural infrasound emitted by nature is harmless but it is increasingly being understood that infra-sound generated by wind turbines pulsates and make people who are subjected to them over extended time periods sick.

The rotating blades of wind turbines cause air pressure changes, which in turn can cause pressure on the ears and chest and lead to health issues and even serious problems like arrhythmia and vision impairment, according to a German Medical Journal.

The study's abstract states: "Noise-exposed citizens, who live near infrastructures such as biogas installations, heat pumps, block-type thermal power stations, and bigger industrial wind turbines (IWT's), show worldwide mainly a symptomatology associated with microcirculatory disorder."...<<<Read More>>>...

Worlds largest vacuum to suck carbon out of the sky (and money out of wallets)

The big machine in Iceland and will soon start pulling carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere each year and turning it into calcium carbonate rock underground.

In a world where humans make 37 billion tons of carbon dioxide annually the project will be able to remove 36,000 tons of CO2 each year, which is approximately one millionth of human annual emissions.

Cost estimates are said to be "closer to $1,000 a ton" to remove the CO2. Effectively, we're spending 36 million dollars US to convert one millionth of human annual emissions of a fertilizing gas into limestone rock we don't need.

Flagrant Big Government wastage doesn't get much more pointless than this.

The process is called Direct Air Capture (DAC) and supposedly the Mammoth plant achieves something equivalent to taking "8,000 cars off the road" each year, as if that was a useful thing.

The problem for the Swiss Company (Climaworks) is that the most efficient machines for capturing carbon are plants, and they're cheap and out of patent.

Climeworks built this project in Iceland, of course, so they can use "clean" geothermal energy. But that raises the question of how much electricity it takes to turn CO2 into limestone. If we ran it off coal fired power would it ever be carbon neutral? ...<<<Read More>>>...

Cost of Driving Jumps 50% in Three Years as Net Zero War on Motorist Heats Up

 The cost of running a car has soared by £700 to £2,100 a year in the last three years – a 50% rise – as a result of the Net Zero war on motorists and rising inflation. The Telegraph has more.

There has never been a worse time to own a car, as motorists are “assaulted from all sides” by spiralling costs, analysis shows.

The yearly cost of running a car has soared by £700 to £2,100 in the last three years – a 50% rise – as the Net Zero war on motorists and rising inflation takes its toll.

Households are spending over £500 more a year on insurance than in 2021 and have been hit by substantial hikes in the price of repairs, parking and fuel.

At the same time, low-emission zones have expanded across the country, saddling motorists with additional charges to drive in urban areas.

Edmund King, President of motoring body the AA, said the burden on drivers has never been so high.

He said: “There have been times in the past when certain elements have been more expensive, like fuel. But this is the first time when the cost of motoring as a whole has been so high. It’s an incredibly expensive time to be a driver. They are being assaulted from all sides.”

King added that motorists are getting a “rubbish return on investment” after drivers reported one million potholes on the nation’s roads last year, a post-pandemic high.

“Drivers are paying more but in return they get terrible infrastructure, with roads in a record poor state. It’s a bitter pill to swallow.

“For many millions of people, their car is not a luxury – it’s essential. Many people can’t cut back on driving, and so they cut back on other household expenditure. They buy less food, go out less. It affects their lifestyle quite considerably.”...<<<Read More>>>...

The Case Against Net Zero

 In October 2008, Parliament passed the Climate Change Act requiring the U.K. Government to ensure that by 2050 “the net U.K. carbon account” was reduced to a level at least 80% lower than that of 1990. (“Carbon account’ refers to CO2 emissions and “other targeted greenhouse gas emissions”.) Only five MPs voted against it. Then in 2019, by secondary legislation and without serious debate, Parliament increased the 80% reduction requirement to 100% – thereby creating the Net Zero policy.

Unfortunately, it’s a policy that’s unachievable, disastrous and in any case pointless – and, importantly, that’s the case even if you accept that human carbon dioxide emissions are contributing to a rise in global temperature.

1. It’s unachievable.

Many vehicles and machines (used for example in mining, mineral processing, agriculture, construction, heavy transportation, commercial shipping and aviation, the military and emergency services) and products (for example concrete, steel, plastics – all needed for the construction of renewables – fertilisers, pharmaceuticals, anaesthetics, lubricants, solvents, paints, adhesives, insecticides, insulation, tyres and asphalt) essential to life and wellbeing require the combustion of fossil fuels or are made from oil derivatives. There are no easily deployable, commercially viable alternatives. Our civilisation is based on fossil fuels, something that’s unlikely to change for a long time.

Wind is the most effective source of renewable electricity in the U.K., but: (i) the substantial costs of building the huge numbers of turbines needed for Net Zero; (ii) the complex engineering and cost challenges of establishing a stable, reliable non-fossil fuel grid by 2035 (2030 for Labour) – not least the need to cope with a vast increase in high voltage grid capacity and local distribution; (iii) the enormous scale of what’s involved (immense amounts of space and of increasingly unavailable and expensive raw materials, such as so-called ‘rare earths’, required because, unlike fossil fuels, the ‘energy density’ of wind is so low); and (iv) the intermittency of renewable energy (see point 2 below), make it most unlikely that the U.K. will be able to generate sufficient electricity for current needs let alone for the mandated EVs and heat pumps plus industry’s requirements and other demands such as huge data centres the predicted growth of AI....<<<Read More>>>...

All UK Airports will close by 2029 & Beef and Lamb will be banned for Human Consumption to meet Climate Scam Targets according to UK Gov. Report

 All aboard the Skylark! Folks, welcome to the ongoing pantomime. This WAS the globalist script. Wakey, wakey and smell the real flowers .... sleepers need to wake up and now! Remember Professor Doom and his crazy predictions about Covid deaths? He was from Imperial College London and here is another wacky report from that establishment!!!!

++++++++++++++++++++++

A report produced by Oxford University and Imperial College London for the UK Government reveals that all airports will be ordered to close, eating beef and lamb will be made illegal, and construction of new buildings will not be permitted to meet the legal commitment of zero emissions by 2050.

The report states that all airports must close between 2020 and 2029 excluding Heathrow, Glasgow and Belfast airports, which can only stay open on the condition that transfers to and from the airport are done via rail.

All remaining airports must then close between 2030 and 2049 because to meet the legal commitment of zero emissions by 2050 every citizen of the United Kingdom must “stop using aeroplanes” for a significant period of time.

In addition, the report states that to obey the law of the Climate Change Act the public will be required to stop doing anything that causes emissions regardless of its energy source. According to the report, this will require the public to never eat beef or lamb ever again.

To do this national consumption of beef and lamb will drop by 50% between 2020 and 2029. Then between 2030 and 2049 beef and lamb will be “phased out”....<<<Read More>>>...

Australians are facing a new “climate criminal” – soil

 A study published in the Nature Portfolio Journal warns that Australia’s soil is becoming a net carbon emitter and threatens to ruin the country’s net zero goals.

“They claim that over the next 80 years, Australian soil … will release up to 100 megatons of CO2 into the atmosphere,” Sky News host James Macpherson said.

“There you have it … dirt is now a major threat to the future of planet Earth.

“I reckon some greenie councillor is going to make you concrete everything now that they know dirt is a climate criminal.”

Macpherson was referring to an article published by The Guardian yesterday about a study published on 26 March 2024 titled ‘A warming climate will make Australian soil a net emitter of atmospheric CO2’.

The study’s lead author, Professor Raphael Viscarra Rossel, said the “concerning” findings showed the substantial threat soil carbon losses posed to Australia’s emissions reduction targets.

“If Australia wants to achieve its emissions reductions targets … that’s a significant amount of emissions that we’re not accounting for,” he said.

“The climate change problem is so large and so wicked that soil is not going to solve the problem,” he said. “But it can play a part by mitigating the [soil carbon] losses we are projecting.”

As if the whole affair wasn’t peculiar enough, the study said there was well-documented “uncertainty” in modelling future soil carbon levels and that “our understanding of the sources of this uncertainty is evolving....<<<Read More>>>...

Carbon credits, as pushed by Elon Musk, could stop people from growing their own food

The latest bizarre claim from the Cult of Climate Change says that growing food at home is bad for the planet and must be stopped.

New research out of the University of Michigan alleges that home-grown food, as opposed to store-bought industrial food, produces five times more carbon emissions. It concludes by basically warning that private gardens are a threat to the environment.

Billionaire electric vehicle (EV) guru Elon Musk, by the way, is pushing this same kind of nonsense. In a February 3 post to X, Musk wrote that "The only action needed to solve climate change is is [sic] a carbon tax"

When pressed on this by his followers, Musk responded that he believes a carbon tax is necessary "to tax what is probably bad (CO2), just like alcohol & cigarettes are taxed more than fruits & vegetables."...<<<Read More>>>....

Green cult destroying farmland to reduce population – that’s what going “carbon zero” actually means

The (INSANE & MENTALLY UNSTABLE) climate cult has set its sights on arable farmland and the food supply at large, which they claim is overheating the planet because there are simply too many people eating.

We know they hate earth-based "fossil" fuels like oil and natural gas, which is why they want to remove these fuels from the global economy. In their place, the "greenies" want so-called "renewable" energy technologies like wind and solar to fulfill the world's energy needs.

However, in order to generate a comparable amount of energy, there has to be a lot of windmills and solar panels installed pretty much everywhere. Wind and solar require a lot of land, in other words, which means a whole lot less land available for agriculture.

In his past work, Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) warned that one day the world's population would exceed humanity's ability to grow enough food to sustain everyone. What Malthus did not know is that the green energy revolution would make it happen a whole lot sooner than it otherwise would have.

"Wind generators or solar panels consume one-third of the farmland worldwide," writes Martin Armstrong for Armstrong Economic. "This is what has inspired this thinking that we MUST reduce the population. War is a great tool for that, which is one reason they are pushing World War."

"They insist that industrial agriculture, which is employed by the majority of the developed world, is creating climate change. The U.S. food system contributes nearly 20 percent of the nation's carbon dioxide emissions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that agricultural land use contributes 12 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Then, they add the embodied energy required for industrial agriculture, and they claim this gets worse."...<<<Read More>>>....

After 30 years of climate alarmism, a new book challenges the climate catastrophe doctrine

At a time when the United Nations (“UN”), its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) and the world’s governments are demanding that trillions of dollars be invested in their “Net Zero” project, Joanne Marcotte believes that it is perfectly legitimate to press scientists and governments to provide more explanations on uncertainties and risks, and to challenge corporate media to offer more balanced coverage surrounding the UN, the IPCC and UNFCCC’s Conference of the Parties (“COP”) events.

In a book published in November 2023 titled ‘Inconvenient Doubts – Climate Change Apocalypse: Really?’ Marcotte introduces readers to the work of scientists, humanists and economists who call on us to tone it down, reject apocalyptic alarmism and opt for more realistic, pragmatic solutions.

Canadian Marcotte has been commenting on and analysing political news on her blog and in selected media since 2009. She holds a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering from Université Laval and worked for several years in the field of computer systems architecture. In 2006 she directed the political documentary ‘The Quiet Illusion’ (L’Illusion tranquille) was and co-author of the Castonguay Report.

In an email to the Western Standard, Marcotte said the book was the culmination of two years of reading and podcasts from those who provided a “counterweight” to the “apocalyptic narrative of climate change.” This included authors such as Steven E. Koonin’s ‘Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells us, What it Doesn’t, and Why It Matters’, Michael Shellenberger’s ‘Apocalypse Never: Why Environmentalism Hurts Us All’, Bjorn Lomborg’s ‘False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet’ and Judith Curry’s ‘Climate Uncertainty and Risk’ as well as Roger Pielke.

In a press release, Marcotte said her book “offers a counterweight to the climate change doctrine which claims that we are witnessing through our own fault an imminent planetary and humanitarian catastrophe. It is aimed at people who understand that science is a process of observation and discovery, not a religion.”

The book takes a look at questions alarmist doctrines insist is settled such as: What exactly is the consensus shared by the scientific community and the state of climate science? Is it warming or not? Are man-made CO2 emissions really the sole responsible of climate change? Are extreme meteorological events really more frequent and intense? How about the IPCC’s climate models and scenarios? Are they that reliable? And is Net Zero even realistic?...<<<Read More>>>...

Three Graphs That Show There Is No ‘Climate Crisis’

 As the West fitfully weakens industrial civilisation by trying to eliminate oil, coal and natural gas as energy sources, the scientific basis for Net Zero is based more on ‘general agreement’ than hard data. Climate scientists nevertheless sound optimistic about the progress that’s being made in destroying society’s carbon energy base.

There are of course criticisms of the idea of a carbon-dioxide-induced apocalypse, largely supported as it is by general circulation (i.e., whole-earth) planetary models. There are too many different GCMs all with too many free parameters (aka ‘fudge factors’), as well as wildly divergent readings of historical climate records: Are violent climate events really more frequent, and how does weather actually relate to climate? The popular press cries havoc, but the data are not so clear. The looming economic costs of a Net Zero target are leading to some political pushback. Nevertheless, the recent jury acquittal of nine Extinction Rebellion vandals shows that passionate belief in the imminent dangers of CO2 is not limited to activists....<<<Read More>>>...

Net Zero Electricity Fantasies to Cost British Consumers £100 Billion Over Next Six Years

 Net Zero electricity taxes and levies are set to cost British consumers almost £100 billion over the next six years, according to the latest official figures from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR). The ‘environmental levies’ total includes a variety of green rackets from paying suppliers to produce uneconomic energy to persuading consumers to install inferior technologies. As the insane dash towards Net Zero continues in elite political circles, the costs have started to spiral out of control.

Almost all green technologies seem to require huge amounts of public subsidy with no end in sight to constant demands for cash. Recently, offshore wind generators refused to take further Government licences in the North Sea unless the U.K. Government complied with their demands for higher guaranteed prices. In real terms the Government is now prepared to pay over £100 per megawatt hour, a price more than the current estimated cost of gas-powered electricity.

The investigative climate journalist Paul Homewood has been digging into the figures for years, and notes the offshore wind business is already being subsided to the annual tune of £4.8 billion. This despite the fact that we have been promised ‘rapidly falling’ wind power costs that would bring our bills tumbling down. “Now we know that was always a lie,” observes Homewood. Looking at the financial accounts, Homewood concludes that there is “no prospect” that costs will decline in future. On the contrary, he continues, they are likely to continue increasing as supply chain and manufacturing problems mount....<<<Read More>>>>.....

Achieving “Net Zero” will be so expensive no Government will even attempt to Estimate the Total Cost

Net Zero emissions by 2050. Have you heard this line? It is increasingly hard to miss. Every trendy business, bank, corporation and government boasts about their commitment to it. But what exactly do they mean by it?

In short, Net Zero by 2050 means our country either emits no greenhouse gases or offsets whatever it does emit through measures such as buying carbon credits or investing in carbon capture technology.

Net Zero has been a central project of groups such as the World Economic Forum, the United Nations and other globalist institutions. They’ve spent the past several years pressuring governments around the world to commit to Net Zero and to make those commitments legally binding, so it will be difficult for elected officials to roll them back in the future.

That’s what’s happening here in Canada. This has been a major priority for Justin Trudeau. The Liberals have spent years championing the push to Net Zero, mandating it by law in 2021.

But law or not, Net Zero isn’t actually going to happen.

It is a ludicrous goal, in part because achieving it would be unimaginably expensive. So expensive, in fact, governments the world over don’t even attempt to estimate the total cost. Whenever they’re asked, they just say: “The cost of doing nothing will be higher.” But if they don’t know how expensive their own plan is, how on earth could they know that it would be cheaper than not doing it?

External estimates place the cost for Canada alone somewhere in the neighbourhood of $2 trillion. That number is so staggering it is impossible to fully comprehend it. It is more than our nation’s entire Gross Domestic Product! Look at it this way – that is the equivalent of spending $1 a second for 63,417 years.

But the fact Net Zero will ultimately fail doesn’t mean attempting it isn’t going to negatively affect your daily life. It will....<<<Read More>>>...

Hypocrite: Bill Gates is funding 70 million acres of Deforestation in North America

 Bill Gates and other investors are betting Kodama Systems can reduce carbon dioxide in the air by chopping down and burying trees. The move will see 70 million acres of forests, mostly in the Western United States, cut down over the next decade.

After cutting down the trees, Kodama plans to bury them – to reduce global warming.  However, “global warming” is a scam to enable the rich to become richer and the real reason for the destruction of forests is to reap saleable carbon offsets.

The following text in this section is extracted from National Geographic’s encyclopaedia intended for children aged 10 to 13.

Carbon is in a constant state of movement from place to place. It is stored in what are known as reservoirs, and it moves between these reservoirs through a variety of processes, including photosynthesis, burning fossil fuels, and simply releasing breath from the lungs. The movement of carbon from reservoir to reservoir is known as the carbon cycle.

Carbon can be stored in a variety of reservoirs, including plants and animals, which is why they are considered carbon life forms. Carbon is used by plants to build leaves and stems, which are then digested by animals and used for cellular growth.

In the atmosphere, carbon is stored in the form of gases, such as carbon dioxide. It is also stored in oceans, captured by many types of marine organisms. Some organisms, such as clams or coral, use the carbon to form shells and skeletons.

Most of the carbon on the planet is contained within rocks, minerals, and other sediment buried beneath the surface of the planet.

Because Earth is a closed system, the amount of carbon on the planet never changes.

The carbon cycle is vital to life on Earth. Nature tends to keep carbon levels balanced, meaning that the amount of carbon naturally released from reservoirs is equal to the amount that is naturally absorbed by reservoirs. Maintaining this carbon balance allows the planet to remain hospitable for life....<<<Read More>>>...