I’m currently reading a series of books, collectively known as the Iron Druid Chronicles They are tales of, you guessed it, a “druid,” in this case a worshiper of the Earth aka Gaia, set in present-day.
CO2 surged from 0.028% of the earth's atmosphere to 0.042% in 60 years - an increase of 0.014%. And we can't even define how much of that increase (if it's real) is due to manmade processes, or what other "greenhouse gases" may be offset by the "gain" in CO2. The "scientists" are using ice core samples to define the "baseline" for how much CO2 is "usually" there, but if CO2 increased as a percent, then what decreased as a percent? Until a great deal more is understood - and explained - I am not getting worked up over this.
The problem lies in the embrace of a particular set of policies - not only by the government, but by the cultural dominants. Green is now chic in Corporate America, everyone's racing to build battery powered cars, and they're all marketing their climate bona fides. Meanwhile, the government is engaging in fantasies about net-zero, ignoring both the outlandish cost and the impossibility of it all, given the storage problem, the resource problem, and countless lesser issues (including NIMBYism).
The most obvious remedy - nuclear power - isn't even being discussed, or when it is, dolts say "Fukushima!" as if that's a substantive rebuttal.
The next remedy - doing some research on geo-engineering just in case it turns out, decades from now, some remediation is necessary - is being actively opposed by the greens, because as some of them say, it might let people keep living as they have been.
No matter that nothing we do as far as carbon reduction will make the slightest difference, when China, India, Brazil, Russia, most of Africa, etc aren't going to do the same. It's infuriating.
CO2 surged from 0.028% of the earth's atmosphere to 0.042% in 60 years - an increase of 0.014%. And we can't even define how much of that increase (if it's real) is due to manmade processes, or what other "greenhouse gases" may be offset by the "gain" in CO2. The "scientists" are using ice core samples to define the "baseline" for how much CO2 is "usually" there, but if CO2 increased as a percent, then what decreased as a percent? Until a great deal more is understood - and explained - I am not getting worked up over this.
The problem lies in the embrace of a particular set of policies - not only by the government, but by the cultural dominants. Green is now chic in Corporate America, everyone's racing to build battery powered cars, and they're all marketing their climate bona fides. Meanwhile, the government is engaging in fantasies about net-zero, ignoring both the outlandish cost and the impossibility of it all, given the storage problem, the resource problem, and countless lesser issues (including NIMBYism).
The most obvious remedy - nuclear power - isn't even being discussed, or when it is, dolts say "Fukushima!" as if that's a substantive rebuttal.
The next remedy - doing some research on geo-engineering just in case it turns out, decades from now, some remediation is necessary - is being actively opposed by the greens, because as some of them say, it might let people keep living as they have been.
No matter that nothing we do as far as carbon reduction will make the slightest difference, when China, India, Brazil, Russia, most of Africa, etc aren't going to do the same. It's infuriating.