Slashdot Mirror
Trees vs. Atmospheric Carbon: A Fight That Makes Sense?
StartsWithABang writes Yes, carbon levels in our atmosphere are rising, it's causing the Earth to warm and the climate to change, and our dependence on fossil fuels isn't going away anytime soon. Yet even if we ceased all carbon emissions today, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is already high enough that it is likely to result in long-term catastrophic effects. But getting that carbon that's already in the atmosphere out of it isn't a pie-in-the-sky dream, it's a solvable problem that's as easy as planting a tree, something every one of us can help do with very little time, money and effort.
No, that problem is not solvable in this infantile fashion. Either you are a moron or you are doing propaganda for the CO2 industry.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
"the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is already high enough that it is likely to result in long-term catastrophic effects"
Like the shrinking of deserts and increased biodiversity? A true disaster.
We all know that glaciers are biological hotspots which is why every one that calves into the ocean is another death-knell for life on Earth.
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
Because the CO2 problem has become tied to traditional "green" environmentalists, many of whom are anti-human Luddites. They really don't want to solve the problem any way other than less - less energy, less consumption.....less people. If someone invented a commercially viable fusion reactor tomorrow that could replace the world's current energy production in 5 years they would find a reason to protest that.
Riddle me this? Why don't you see AGW alarmists protesting every nuclear reactor that's shut down or hydroelectric damn that is destroyed? Because these are part of the green agenda, which is far more important than actually solving the problem.