This Gasoline Is Made of Carbon Sucked From the Air
A Harvard-affiliated Canadian company is making a liquid fuel that is carbon neutral, and they hope the economics will be in their favor.
BY STEPHEN LEAHY
Imagine driving up to your local gas station and being able to choose between regular, premium, or carbon-free gasoline.
Carbon Engineering, a Canadian company, is already making a liquid fuel by sucking carbon dioxide (CO2) out of the atmosphere and combining it with hydrogen from water. This is an engineering breakthrough on two fronts: A potentially cost-effective way to take CO2 out of the atmosphere to fight climate change and a potentially cost-competitive way to make gasoline, diesel, or jet fuel that doesn’t add any additional CO2 to the atmosphere.
“This isn’t going to save the world from the impacts of climate change, but it’s going to be a big step on the path to a low-carbon economy,” said David Keith, a Harvard Professor of Applied Physics and founder of Carbon Engineering. Keith said capturing CO2 from the air and making fuel didn’t require scientific breakthroughs per se as much as $30 million, eight years of engineering, and a “million little details” to get the process right.
That the Board will be run by such a preposterous and laughable figure as Nina Jankowicz — a liberal cartoon, a caricature of a #Resistance Twitter fanatic who spent 2016 posting adolescent partisan tripe such as: “Maybe @HillaryClinton's most important point so far: ‘A @realDonaldTrump presidency would embolden ISIS.’ #ImWithHer” — has, in some sense, made this board seem more benign and harmless. After all, how nefarious and dangerous can a board be when it is governed by a person as frivolous and banal as this, calling herself “the Mary Poppins of disinformation”?
But just as banality can be a vehicle for evil, it can also be a vehicle for repression and tyrannical control. Jankowicz, reacting with horror to Elon Musk's vow to restore a modicum of free speech to the internet, just last week on NPR touted the virtues of censorship: "I shudder to think about if free speech absolutists were taking over more platforms, what that would look like for the marginalized communities ... which are already shouldering ... disproportionate amounts of this abuse," she said.
Her just-released book, entitled “How to Be A Woman Online: Surviving Abuse and Harassment, and How to Fight Back,” is full of justifications for online censorship. Last year, she condemned me and Fox News host Tucker Carlson as “disgusting” for the crime of criticizing the fabrications of then-New York Times front-page reporter Taylor Lorenz, on the ground that powerful professional women (with the right political ideology) must not be criticized because such accountability results in harassment.
When controversy over this new Disinformation Board erupted, CNN claimed that Jankowicz was “a disinformation expert with experience working on Ukraine and Russia issues.” Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas appeared on CNN to exalt her as “eminently qualified, a renowned expert in the field of disinformation." What does that even mean? What is the “field of disinformation,” and how does one become an “eminently qualified renowned expert” in it? Is there some graduate program or new field of discipline one must study? Is there a licensing board that certifies one as a "disinformation expert" or scholarship one demonstrates? Which credentials constitute "expertise” in disinformation?
This is all a sham: the whole industry. The very idea that Jankowicz — draping herself in #Resistance cliches, agitating for online censorship, and neurotically posting liberal Twitter hashtags — is an expert in anything, let alone one who identifies and combats disinformation, is laughable on its face. And that is true of everyone who is claiming this pompous, fictitious expertise for themselves.
Far worse than Jankowicz's fixation on censoring those with whom she disagrees — now a staple of liberal politics — is the fact that this new Disinformation Czar has herself ratified and helped spread virtually every disinformation campaign concocted by the union of the Democratic Party and corporate media over the last five years. Indeed, the only valid basis for calling her a "disinformation expert” is that she has spread disinformation with such gusto. The most notorious of those was the pre-election lie that the authentic Hunter Biden laptop was “disinformation.” She also decreed falsely that the origins of COVID were definitively proven to be zoonotic and could not have come from a lab leak, was a frequent and vocal advocate of the fraudulent Steele Dossier, and repeatedly pronounced as true all sorts of Trump/Russia collusion conspiracy theories which Robert Mueller, after conducting an intense 18-month investigation, rejected as lacking evidence to establish their truth.
That nobody should want the U.S. Government let alone Homeland Security arrogating unto itself the power to declare truth and falsity seems self-evident, particularly when run by this uniquely ill-suited Democratic Party operative. But beyond the abstract creepiness of the government assuming this role, is there anything concretely dangerous about it, or is it an overreaction, a form of fear-mongering, to depict this as some uniquely threatening development?
Integrating this fraudulent "disinformation" industry into the U.S. security state is indeed pernicious in concrete and serious ways. If anything, the dangers of this development have been under-appreciated, not exaggerated.
The purpose of empowering the Department of Homeland Security to decree what is and is not “disinformation” is to bestow all government assertions with a pretense of authoritative expertise and official sanction and, conversely, to officially decree dissent from government claims to be false and deceitful. Once Homeland Security declares a view to be "disinformation,” then many corporate media outlets, deferential to the claims of the U.S. Security State, will uncritically cite that pronouncement as dispositive, while Big Tech platforms will be pressured to ban views deemed by DHS to be "disinformation” — exactly the way they accepted the lie that the Biden archive was "disinformation” because this lie emanated from official government “experts.”
For the last eighteen months, Democrats have used their majority power in Washington to summon tech CEOs before them and demand of them — upon pain of suffering legal and regulatory reprisals if they disobey — that more censorship be imposed in the name of banning “disinformation.” Large majorities of Democrats believe that Big Tech (76%) and the government (65%) should take steps to limit freedom of information online if doing so is necessary to stop “disinformation.”
One problem which emerges with this censorship regime is the question of how “disinformation” is determined or, more aptly, who determines it? This new Disinformation Board is intended to place that immense power in the hands of the U.S. Security State, such that it can now place an official “disinformation” designation over any idea or view it wishes to discredit. That, in turn, will make it very difficult for corporate media outlets to allow it to be aired without deferring to the official Homeland Security decree and, more importantly, will constitute enormous pressure on Big Tech to prohibit that idea from being defended on the ground that such ideas have now been officially declared by DHS's “experts” to constitute “disinformation.”
The potential ramifications of spreading what Homeland Security decrees to be “disinformation” could extend far beyond being censored. Countries around the world are rapidly adopting laws that would outlaw or even criminalize the publication of disinformation. “A criminal code provision that Greece’s parliament adopted on November 11, 2021, makes it a criminal offense to spread 'fake news,’” noted Human Rights Watch in November. In 2020, the Canadian government, citing COVID, proposed legislation “to make it an offence to knowingly spread misinformation that could harm people.” Authorities throughout the EU and in the UK have proposed or passed laws and regulations designed to force social media platforms to ban “disinformation,” and carry stiff fines and other penalties for failing to do so. Numerous countries now have laws making it a crime to host or spread “disinformation.”
While the First Amendment's free speech guarantee makes enactment of such a criminal scheme in the U.S. more difficult, there is clearly momentum for far greater government action to restrict and punish whatever is deemed to be “disinformation.” Barack Obama delivered a speech about disinformation on April 21 at Stanford University. While heralding himself as “pretty close to a First Amendment absolutist,” he nonetheless insisted that the current censorship regime imposed by Big Tech is insufficient, and that not only must they do more to solve the problem of what he calls "harmful content,” so, too, must the state:
But while content moderation can limit the distribution of clearly dangerous content, it doesn’t go far enough. Users who want to spread disinformation have become experts at pushing right up to the line of what at least published company policies allow….
These decisions affect all of us, and just like every other industry that has a big impact in our society, that means these big platforms need to be subject to some level of public oversight and regulation…. A regulatory structure, a smart one, needs to be in place, designed in consultation with tech companies, and experts and communities that are affected, including communities of color and others that sometimes are not well represented here in Silicon Valley, that will allow these companies to operate effectively while also slowing the spread of harmful content.
That is an explicit call for the U.S. Government to take steps to require more censorship of the internet in the name of fighting “disinformation.” On the exact same day the former president delivered that speech, Hillary Clinton took to Twitter to announce: “For too long, tech platforms have amplified disinformation and extremism with no accountability. The EU is poised to do something about it. I urge our transatlantic allies to push the Digital Services Act across the finish line and bolster global democracy before it's too late.” Four days later, she returned to Twitter to celebrate the enactment by the EU of what The New York Times called “landmark legislation that would force Facebook, YouTube and other internet services to combat misinformation.” In particular, the new legal framework forces social media companies to remove any content which the state deems harmful:
The law, called the Digital Services Act, is intended to address social media’s societal harms by requiring companies to more aggressively police their platforms for illicit content or risk billions of dollars in fines. Tech companies would be compelled to set up new policies and procedures to remove flagged hate speech, terrorist propaganda and other material defined as illegal by countries within the European Union.
It was just one week after both Obama and Clinton called for greater government action against online disinformation that Homeland Security announced it is “standing up a new Disinformation Governance Board to coordinate countering misinformation related to homeland security.” The trend here could not be clearer: Western governments are seeking greater and greater control of what information is and is not allowed on the internet, and are using both formal power (the force of law) and informal power (threats of legal and regulatory reprisals) to force tech companies to censor the internet in the name of fighting “disinformation.”
For that reason, whoever wields the authority to decree what does and does not fall into the scope of that elastic, vague and ill-defined term has immense power to control what information populations around the world can access, and conversely what information is barred. That is what makes it so disturbing that Homeland Security has just seized this power for itself. An agency with a long history of lying, run by life-long disinformation agents, has just created a board to issue these official decrees, all overseen by a person who is so partisan and ideologically motivated that it is hard to take her seriously. Whether or not you take her seriously, the power that Homeland Security has just secured for itself is anything but a joke.