In article <***@ue.ph>, ***@orcon.net.nz
says...
Post by TonyPost by David Goodwinsays...
Post by TonyPost by David Goodwinsays...
Post by BRPost by Rich80105We do however still have a way to go in reducing total CO2 emissions.
Why do we need to reduce CO2 emissions?
Because CO2 absorbs and re-emits infrared energy rather than allowing it
to escape into space.
That is not really the topic.
WIth respect to Bill I believe the issue is simply that the amount of CO2
produced by mankind (directly and indirectly) is dwarfed by the amount produced
by nature. My recollection is we are responsible for about 4% only. So why do
we want to reduce it particularly when it has been higher in the past and a
slightly higher percentage of CO2 will enhance, not degrade growth.
All of those are matters posted here regularly and by experts for decades now.
Nature, for the most part, isn't producing CO2. Its just recycling it.
Gas to tree to gas its just changing form over the decades or centuries.
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere isn't increasing over time from
this.
Humans are producing *new* CO2. The carbon we're emitting has been
buried for hundreds of millions of years in deposits that took thousands
or millions of years to form. The carbon coming out coal power plants
hasn't been in the atmosphere since before dinosaurs walked the earth.
And we're not planting an equivalent amount of forestry to take all that
CO2 back out of the air and store it. Instead in recent centuries we've
been felling forests and draining swamps decreasing the environments
ability to pull CO2 from the air. So all that new carbon we're
introducing is just staying in the air or ending up in the ocean as
carbonic acid which threatens marine life that people depend on for food
and income.
All well and good but we are contributing a tiny percentage of CO2 and there is
no definitive evidence, let alone any proof, that an increase of that level of
CO2 is a problem.
We've almost doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere since the
industrial revolution. To claim this should have no effect is to claim
CO2 has no effect at all.
Post by TonyIt is just another one of the exaggerations produced by the
climate emergency folk. That emergency has not, ever, been demonstrated as fact.
Its been demonstrated plenty which is why *most* governments and people
accept it as fact. The reason you don't think it hasn't been
demonstrated is an entirely different issue.
Post by TonyI am all for smartening up our act with the obvious things like better waste
management etc. But I do not support the extreme acts that are being suggested
like reducing llivestock farming, and I will not do so until I see proof that
an emergency or anything approaching one is provided, it has not been provided
to date.
Climate emergency is an industry driven by money and political extremism and
not by evidence.
The oil and gas industry generates a couple trillion in revenue every
year. The coal industry is another couple trillion. Entire economies are
built on these industries.
Surely if money were a motivation, it would be the fossil fuel industry
pushing climate change denialism to protect their vast revenues, not the
~100bn solar panel industry or whatever trivial money the wind turbine
manufacturers make trying to put one of the largest industries in the
planet out of business by claiming CO2 is a problem when it isn't. CO2
has been held up as the problem since before those industries even
really existed.
And as for politics, what motivation do you think there is? Why would a
politician choose to push for this when doing nothing is surely easier?
What is there to gain when there are so many other issues they could be
campaigning to fix?
It seems pretty bold to claim money and political "extremism" is behind
the climate emergency while ignoring the very strong motivation the
vastly wealthy fossil fuel industry has to convince people of the
opposite.