Slashdot Mirror
Hoping That Sucking CO2 From the Air Will Fix the Climate? Good Luck (easac.eu)
From a study published on Thursday by scientists on the European Academies Science Advisory Council: Senior scientists from across Europe have evaluated the potential contribution of negative emission technologies (NETs) to allow humanity to meet the Paris Agreement's targets of avoiding dangerous climate change. They find that NETs have "limited realistic potential" to halt increases in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at the scale envisioned in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scenarios. This new report finds that none of the NETs has the potential to deliver carbon removals at the gigaton (Gt) scale and at the rate of deployment envisaged by the IPCC, including reforestation, afforestation, carbon-friendly agriculture, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCs), enhanced weathering, ocean fertilisation, or direct air capture and carbon storage (DACCs).
Use salt-waterable plants to turn the Sahara desert green and you'll reach gigaton absorption. For perspective, the Sahara is about the size of the United States.
If one wants to help directly with helping reducing CO2 production then donating to solar and wind charities is the best bet. For solar, the best two seem to be Everybody Solar https://www.everybodysolar.org/ (which gets solar panels for non-profits like museums and homeless shelters), and the Solar Electric Light Fund https://self.org/ which gets solar panels for people in developing countries. Right now, I haven't seen a specific wind charity that seems to be absolutely ideal, but of those in the US, the best one seems to be the New England Wind Fund https://www.massenergy.org/the-wind-fund.
Most Americans care about and are concerned about climate change https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/most-americans-want-climate-change-policies/, but right now, the federal government isn't doing much. In the long-run, actually solving this is, as with the ozone hole problem and as with acid rain going to take a combination of government, market forces, charity, and new research. Until the current US administration is removed, the best most of us can do is focus on the charity aspect.
Just because these technologies and actions might not work well enough does not mean they will not help, and that they should not be pursued, unless there are viable options into which we should put our available resources.
Reforestation / afforestation is the best option, from what I understand. That and cutting down trees at a furious rate so we can bury them in abandoned mines and plant more.
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
They forgot to mention using a giant vacuum with a charcoal filter attached.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Fact: there is no global warming. The world is getting cooler, and as sunspot activity ceases, we enter another Maunder Minimum.
First I thought that you are clueless denialist, but seeing that you stated that there is no global warming in bold totally convinced me.
Care to share you opinions about vaccines, HAARP, 9/11 or landing on Moon?
...but humans are lazy. To which end, note the following:
I read somewhere recently, that - since the big campaigns for CO2 reduction started - humanity has increased CO2 output at an average rate of 1.6%. Before all this attention was focused on climate change, CO2 output was increased at an averate rate of... 1.6%. Even granting that reducing CO2 output is a good thing to do, it is quite apparent that we are not going to do so. None of the sequestration technologies make much sense, none of them (other than possibly reforestation) scale, and frankly some of them are hugely dangerous in their own right.
tl;dr: There's no point in fighting the inevitable. CO2 is going to continue to increase. Fortunately, this also means that there is no longer any reason to continue making exaggerated end-of-the world claims. The planet is warming, some anthropogenic, some natural. it will probably warm by a degree or even two in the next 80 years. Figure out what impact that's going to have, and deal with it.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
CO2 emissions from rotting plant matter are minimal. Most of the carbon is gobbled up by the bacteria, mold and bugs that are eating the dead plants. A tree will take in far more CO2 during it's lifespan than it will emit after dying.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
...by the Scientific calisthenics required derive a working AGW theory, that hasn't been show to be true by any empirical evidence.
The basic global circulation model incorporating the effect of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (what you call "AGW theory") has been around for fifty years now (the peer-reviewed publication was in two papers by Manabe and Wetherald, in 1967). That's long enough for the predictions to be compared with measurements.
Guess what? Over fifty years, the theory is pretty well matching measurements.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/15/the-first-climate-model-turns-50-and-predicted-global-warming-almost-perfectly/
https://climategraphs.wordpress.com/2017/11/06/evaluating-the-prediction-of-manabe-and-wetherald-1967/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/mar/19/global-warming-accurate-prediction-1972
Anytime some authority insist that you give up freedom or money and the best they can do to justify it is to say, "It's complicated and you wouldn't understand, Trust Us", you know that something isn't right.
As it turns out, climate scientists have published extensive explanations of what they do, how they do it, how the models work, and all of the source code for their models. They don't say "trust us", they say "here's all the work we did, take a look at it."
As a starting point, look here: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1 and then for the actual details, start reading some of the thousand references cited.
I'm pretty sure that blurb is not from the report. The conclusions of the report are
There's a lot of text around those bullets, but it doesn't read as doom and gloom to me.
From the introduction
Anyone who spends five minutes thinking about how carbon capture would work should understand that that's a pretty self evident statement.
Then why bother trying?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
There is two fundemental fallacies in your argument.
1) because climate changed without humans, then humans can't cause climate change.
So, if lung cancer occurred before cigarettes, then cigarettes don't cause lung cancer.
2) changing human behavior is not the same as tinkering with nature. The tinkering/manipulation comes from emitting CO2, not from stopping CO2 emissions. So, limiting CO2 emissions is more analogous to NOT interfering with fires.
Now Slashdot has become a mouthpiece for Leftist Luddites. It is now the handmaiden to a New World Order of oligarchs and bureucrats enriching themselves thourgh manipulatioin of the truth and scare tatics. Fact: there is no global warming. The world is getting cooler, and as sunspot activity ceases, we enter another Maunder Minimum.
Scientists have been searching for a correlation between sunspot activity and climate for over a hundred years, and not found one. It's one of the most heavily researched topics in climate science. (And do note, that the Maunder minimum occurred well after the beginning of the so-called "little ice age".)
We measure the solar output from satellites, and have been doing so for many decades. One thing that measurements tell us with certainty is that the global temperature rise is not due to increases in solar output.
Next time Al Gore or Hillary Clinton tell you about "Global Warming", remember cui bono? Who benefits?
Al Gore is not a climate scientist, and, you know what? He isn't even cited by climate scientists. In fact, the only people I ever hear mention him are people trying to deny climate science.
In answer to your "cui bono" question, fossil fuels are a trillion dollar per year industry. Who do you think benefits?
Co2 will continue to rise until ALL nations are made to lower their emissions together. China is building out 700 GW of new coal plants, while the entire west has less than 700 GW .
Due to America's consumption of goods, esp. from China, all that is needed is for America, if not the west, to tax ALL consumed goods/services based on where the worst part/service comes from. This will get nations to either clean up, choose clean energy for the future (i.e. no more buying of coal plants from china), lose exported parts/service sales, or have local manufacturers/services leave those nations and move to others which choose to lower their emissions.
Use satellites to get the same precision (though accuracy can be argued), and then normalize based on emissions / $GDP. This later is because it is businesses and govs that choose the dirty routes, not citizens. How many citizens in china will vote to nearly DOUBLE their coal plants over the next 8 years, and yet, that is CHina's plan?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Never heard of them!
When erosion was a problem in the American South, we brought in kudzu as a solution, and look how marvelously that turned out. We quenched forest fires in Yellowstone for a century and look how well that went. Gosh.
Yep. That's an argument against geoengineering proposals to "fix" the climate; you have to examine the side-effects of the proposed solutions. The proposals that say "why worry about global warming, we'll just fix it with engineering" need to be very very carefully examined.
Gosh. It's almost as if Mother Nature is unpredictable, as if the climate has been changing since the beginning
Climate has been changing since the beginning. The human contribution isn't instead of natural variations, it is in addition to natural variations. It turns out that this human contribution is somewhat faster than historical climate changes we see in the fossil record, so right now it's the driver. But that doesn't mean that in the long term there aren't other effects as well.
, as if we are barely impacting and certainly not in control of things...
Two different things. We are definitely changing the average temperature, by about 1C so far (with more to come if we keep burning fossil fuels); the basic science of that is really very well understood at this point, although there is still quite a bit of uncertainty in the exact figure. Whether you call 1C "barely impacting" or not is a judgement call.
Overall, we are not "in control of things." We are, however, in control of some things, such as how much fossil fuel we burn.
For the millionth time:
I'm happy to assume we're right about human-created global warming based on CO2 etc. emissions. Let's take that as a given and run it to the logical conclusion.
The important thing is: If we were to stop ALL emissions today, immediately, completely, globally... what happens? Does the situation fix itself? Over how long? What's the impact on, say, sea-level rises or whatever in even the BEST case scenario?
Because if those BEST POSSIBLE impact is, say, displace a million people, but the impact of cutting emissions to those amounts is people dying of... what? Starvation, energy shortage for heating, increased taxation, etc etc. then we can use that as a baseline to decide if we even SHOULD be cutting emissions or whether we're too far gone.
It's quite possible, still, today, that the best course of action - even if ALL the accepted science is not only right but under/over-stating the problem, that we still should let it happen and deal with the consequences rather than the actions we'd need to take to fix it (i.e. somehow find the energy and technology to clean gigatons of air quickly).
Everybody seems to still be working on the scare-mongering and the "just cut back" mantras without actually looking at where the trade-off of actual effects lies. Are you honestly telling me that if we cut all CO2 emissions tomorrow, put all our spare energy into cleaning the air, that somehow all the predictions of doom would never come to fruition? I can't say that I buy that line without some evidence of that. And that evidence - past the point where people actually perform all these actions, globally, co-operatively, perfectly and immediately - is severely lacking.
There's not even any suggestion that we could "fix" anything properly, more than just "limit the amount of further damage". It may well even be that we've already reached a point of no return, which means... well... does it matter what we do? We don't seem to have the models extending past that point to work out "is the cure worse than the disease" (and, yes, WE were the disease).
It's not that I don't believe their predictions are true, but they don't go far enough into the contrary side to look at what that means in terms of trade-off. We're just told to stop CO2 etc. and things will magically be better, but there's no evidence of that versus "not quite making it as bad as it would otherwise be".
Heading towards the precipice at 1000mph, it doesn't really matter if you ditch a bit of dead-weight en-route or not, it's still gonna hurt when you impact. Maybe not technically quite so much as if you had that extra weight, but it's really not even worth the effort to bail it out.
I'm honestly concerned that we'll sink billions into trying to fix an already runaway problem, and have nothing prepared for the real consequences, which will basically have the same dire impact as the worst of predictions anyway but we're still sitting there trying to limit people's energy use etc., which will - overall - have a worse impact than if we'd just ploughed through and used the money to deal with the inevitable consequences.
I'm not saying that is WHAT will happen, but I don't see that anyone has ever eliminated that as a possibility, or even classed it as unlikely, with any kind of rigour that approaches the science that warns of the dire consequences in the first place.
I'd honestly like to be proven wrong... but everything I've ever seen, read, heard about all say "Do 'this'... Because we say... Don't worry, it'll fix everything... but nobody has checked that's actually true... and nobody has weighed the cost of 'this' against the cost of what would have gone wrong anyway". That may be because it's too uncertain, of course, which only makes me wonder even more if we should actually be changing course if we don't know where we're headed anyway.
God you're dumb. It's not "impossible", but we can't do it fast enough to undo the warming cycle that we've started.
That's what I was wondering, too.
#DeleteFacebook
One of the most media avoided topics is that the seas are becoming more acidic, which harms shellfish production. Recent UW research shows you can intersperse shellfish beds with seagrass and other seaweeds to fix carbon. You can then eat the shellfish (carbon negative food intake) and the seagrass (carbon negative food intake), replacing higher level seafood or beef (which you should replace with bison, as they use less water and other resources for 1/20th the carbon impact).
Things like that are good. Shipping the resulting food by air, however, is bad and creates more emissions, so it should be shipped by rail or boat. Modern boats have lower emissions, and some rail systems run on wind power stored in either biofuel or cracked water (hydrogen/oxygen). Modern turboprop planes use 1/4 the emissions per mile travelled and modern jets can use 1/2 the emissions. But trains are a better choice on land, if not near a seaport.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I will believe global warming is a real threat when the governments of the world deploy nuclear power in large numbers. Presumably these government officials have more information on the threat than any one reading this forum. The zero CO2 output of nuclear power is undeniable, or rather it's as close to zero as any other energy source that's being called "zero carbon".
I'm sure someone is going to claim that nuclear power is too expensive. Well, how much does the extinction of humanity cost? Also, this isn't saying that we can't also deploy wind and solar too, only that we'd get to zero CO2 output faster if nuclear power was part of the solution.
Then there are those that claim nuclear power would cause the spread of nuclear weapons. Tell me, what better way to dispose of fissile material do we have other than destroying it in a nuclear reactor? We'd encourage the destruction of weapons by showing that while we destroy the weapon material that bountiful and CO2 free energy can be produced.
What about the waste? Well, we can figure that out. We're talking about the extinction of humanity from too much CO2, aren't we? What's a greater threat? Global warming, or running out of holes to bury nuclear waste. Burying nuclear waste is a perfectly viable solution. An even better solution is processing the waste into more fuel, nuclear reactors, and so on, so we have more energy. Oh, but that costs a lot of money? How much is it worth to save humanity?
It seems the governments of the world fear nuclear power more than global warming. This just proves to me that global warming is nothing to fear. Oh, but nuclear power is unsafe. What's "safe" about inevitable global warming? We can use nuclear power and run the very small risk of some nuclear power accident, or we have the certainty of the end of civilization by global warming.
As much as the people in government talk about the threat of global warming they don't seem to be doing anything about it. If it is such a threat, and this threat so obvious, then "all the above" would include nuclear power.
The other option is that nuclear power is an actual and real threat to humanity. If that is the case then we'd see the governments of the world shutting down the existing 400+ reactors around the world. Those reactors must be safe or they'd be shut down already. We've proven nuclear power is safe, or "safe enough", to use. Let's have more nuclear power or you'll eventually have a lot of people calling bullshit on the global warming scare.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
CO2 levels were much higher in the past
We need to get back to the normal conditions on Earth - nice and warm and full of charismatic megafauna like the Cretaceous period. Ban hybrids I say, and impose federal maximum miles per rating for cars. Otherwise we might end up in an ice age!
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
It's not CO2, it's you. They won't tell you this outright but you're taking up space, resources and just you being here is causing damage to the planet. Until we have reasonable population controls in place it won't matter if the temps go up 20C, we'll have the four horseman of the apocalypse sooner.
In the words of George Carlin: The planet will be fine, the people will be fucked.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Use salt-waterable plants to turn the Sahara desert green and you'll reach gigaton absorption. For perspective, the Sahara is about the size of the United States.
And where exactly are you planning to get the massive amounts of energy needed to somehow turn the Sahara green? What you think it's a matter of digging a few ditches and planting some ground cover? How do you think that is going to work economically and who is going to pay for it? What makes you think that even if you by some miracle succeed that there wouldn't be severe unintended consequences?
I love it when slashdotters propose ridiculous one sentence solutions to massive problems as if it's the most trivial thing in the world.
Perhaps some armchair environuts might, but climatologists are quite well versed with the fact that Earth has been warmer (and colder) in the past. The problem is that most past warming cycles were quite gradual, taking tens of thousands to millions of years giving life time to adapt/migrate. The warming cycle caused by our activities is much more pronounced. Put in simplest terms, imagine a community downstream of a failing dam. In scenario one the dams gates are opened, the community is slowly flooded but over hours/days and people are able to evacuate to higher ground and can even collect valuables (natural climate change). Scenario two has the idiots maintaining the dam just ignore the fact it's failing so when it does go it goes all at once, washing away the community and anyone in it (man made climate change). In either scenario the biosphere survives (most likely) but how bad it is on the little creatures clinging to the paper thin habitable zone can vary greatly.
But the costs are indirectly imposed on consumers, so they'll never figure it out. See also the Long Beach port going zero emissions (but you can pay if you aren't at zero), and California's cap and trade law (being used to fund a rail line from LA to SF that may or may not get built).
Engineer #1: "Look at our amazing CO2 scrubbing system!"
Engineer #2: "What's powering it?"
Engineer #1: "That very large diesel generator right over there!"
Engineer #2: Looks at floor... "You know..."
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
One unnoticed thing is that China, and to a lesser extent India and Germany, have been converting their old coal power plants (which were very dirty), to both cogeneration (where you recycle the waste heat for home heating and other purposes) and CO2 scrubbing. It's really 1970s tech, but it's cut their coal emissions (especially components of acid rain like N02 and S04) by about 30 percent. They had to decommission around 20 percent of the coal plants that couldn't be converted, and replaced those, but it's had a major impact on their emissions.
The only problems are: most CO2 scrubbers use water. This does not work very well in about half of China, and you have to collect the water and filtrate out the chemicals, but they're concentrated, so they do have some commercial uses. In desert areas you have to use things like underground wind trap systems, and they're very inefficient. But most of the coal plants are near water, so it's not as much of an impact as you'd think.
Right now, bicycle sharing and electric bike/transit/car/truck usage would have more of an impact on the rest of their emissions, when you look at the total picture, however. The low hanging fruit has been picked already.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
the climate isn't broken
Yet.
I will believe global warming is a real threat when the governments of the world deploy nuclear power in large numbers. Presumably these government officials have more information on the threat than any one reading this forum. The zero CO2 output of nuclear power is undeniable, or rather it's as close to zero as any other energy source that's being called "zero carbon".
There are a lot of climate activists who agree with you.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2017/08/03/the-real-climate-consensus-nuclear-power/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/03/climate-scientists-support-nuclear-power
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/189068-climate-scientists-to-green-activists-embrace-nuke-power
https://www.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists/index.html
https://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/nuclear-power-and-global-warming
We're not entering the "Diamond Age", we are entering the graphene age; it's one of the most useful materials ever. Graphene is 100% carbon, and we are just beginning to learn how to use it at a time we have a YUGE surplus of carbon. The costs may be prohibitive now, but hopefully soon we will be making everything out of carbon, as soon as we can figure out how to lower the amount of energy input required. So the old adage about problems actually being opportunities MIGHT turn out to be true in this case. (Currently, graphene is made from methane, not C02. Methane is an even worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.)
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Congratulations, you've just re-invented the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Movement). My only response: You first!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Large volcanic eruptions have much the same effect as a nuclear winter. Global warming increases the probably of a large volcanic eruption happening. That's my theory for how the Earth has managed to regulate it's temperature in the long term for billions of years. It's sort of Gaia-like self-regulation. Of course, climate regulation by catastrophic events may have side effects like mass extinction, but that has certainly already happened several times.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Trees, plants, and algae only sequester carbon for a short period of time, until they decompose and the carbon is released back into the atmosphere... unless you bury them at the bottom of the ocean, which is basically where all that fossil fuel we're been burning comes from in the first place! I suspect oil is pretty much ancient marine algae, unlike the cliche about it being dinosaurs.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Chemtrails?
You mean with like trees, and grass, and plants, and stuff? I'm thinking it might form some kind of cycle or something...
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
You should maybe have thought of that one *before* liberating all the energy in those hydrocarbon chains. How about some nice algae instead? We can make some massive algal blooms, laying down lots of carbon-rich sediments, and then come back in a few million years for more oil!
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
FYI, Chinese and Indian industries are currently the biggest polluters.
"Realistically, carbon taxes won't even discourage the production of more CO2. As we've seen time and time again, when taxes or other economic distortions are imposed on an industry, the cost is just passed down to the end users, who just suck it up and pay more for the product/service in question."
Ah, yes, ordinary people don't count as free market decision makers, only the glorious captains of industry? Or perhaps those suppliers who deliver economic value while emitting less pollution will thrive, and those who do not will fail. Which is the point---reductions in emissions are essential, and technological absorption is not feasible.
"It's like those on the left go out of their way to deny and belittle any approach to this problem that will make a real, measurable, physical impact"
(In this case, it was scientists, who looked at the physical and economic feasibility of the methods, not the political left. And no doubt that if it were tried, the 'right' would complain).
Funny, I remember the right complaining endlessly about the economic and job impacts of taxation---clearly it does make a difference. The 'left' recognizes that monetary, not ethical decisions, run the world.
"They say "NO!" to extraordinarily clean, relative to the amount of power obtained, energy sources like nuclear power."
Right now, it's conservative money-focused boards of utilities who are turning off nuclear plants prematurely, and the reason is $$$---fossil fuel, in particular, natural gas, is cheap (right now). Carbon and greenhouse taxes would change this decision far more than anything liberals have to say.
By the way, pollution taxes and 'cap and trade' were originally conservative economic ideas to deal with the externalities in the most economically efficient way instead of by regulatory force. The cap and trade program for sulphate emissions was instituted by the US Reagan & GHWB administrations and was and is highly successful. When's the last time you heard about major acid rain problems?
"Re-greening the desert is actually one of the most effective ways to sequester CO2"
Until the plants live their lifespan at which time they die and re-release the carbon to the atmosphere. It's like stuffing the credit card bill in the drawer, instead of paying it off.
Actual sequestration means removing the carbon from the biosphere nearly permanently----making new coal and stuffing it somewhere geologically isolated, uncombustible and undigestible.
Why can't MULTIPLE avenues of sequestration be pursued?
Sure, any given one might not be a silver bullet.
But, all together?
Hell, simply moving over from Coal/Oil/Gas to Nuclear, Geothermal, Hydro and other renewables (Wind, Wave and Solar (multiple types)) globally would crater production.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
I'm not sure if you're kidding or not, but the concentration of CO2 isn't nearly as important as the rate of change. A small change every year over a couple of hundred thousands of years leaves ample time for species to adapt as the oceans rise and climate zones shift. A change as rapid as we see today is going to change them quite a bit faster, possibly faster than most species can migrate or evolve adaptations to.
So while it is true that CO2 levels have been higher in the past, the suddenness of the change is potentially very damaging.
Not per-capita.
That's like saying "everybody but the United States combined pollutes more than the United States- everybody else should pay for it!"
Not per-capita
Irrelevant. What matters is the grand total at the end of the day. Not the nit picky BS that comes before it.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Irrelevant
I don't think that word means what you think it means... Or did you mean irrelevant to your uninformed opinion?
No. It means your option is irrelevant, pointless, unimportant, pointless, and or immaterial. It doesn't matter if the average American releases more greenhouse gases than your average Indian or Chinese. What is important is the grand totals of all that green house gasses together. Understand?
Now here is something that is relevant. The average American carbon foot print is decreasing. Slowly but it is going down. While your average Indian and Chinese footprint is increasing. What do you think will happen when 1.2 billion Indians and 1.4 billion Chinese have the same foot print as the average American today?
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Now here is something that is relevant. The average American carbon foot print is decreasing. Slowly but it is going down. While your average Indian and Chinese footprint is increasing. What do you think will happen when 1.2 billion Indians and 1.4 billion Chinese have the same foot print as the average American today?
What do I think will happen? Then you'll actually have a leg to stand on that they are the problem.
As you pointed out, what's important is all of the green house gasses together. Which means Americans are the ones who are the problem, not the Indians. We may meet them in the middle somewhere, but all you've done for now is toss your own argument into the shitter. So thank you.
Not only is your argument irrelevant, is is also incorrect.
Depending on what propaganda site you visit ether China or Russia emits more green house gases than the United States. While the United States is still in the top percentage its over all emissions is going down. Where as China is already more than the United States, their over all emissions is going up.
According to this graph the United States isn't the top emitter per capita ether. Get ready for it.
http://www.wri.org/sites/defau...
Interesting. Of course during this little research project I also found graphs that show Russia at the top, Japan, China, India and several others. So basically what ever spin you want to believe you can find a graph for it.
But what I did find is that China is emitting more than US and is scheduled to rise. India is not quiet there yet but is also scheduled to rise eventually surpassing the United States. Where as the United States over all emissions are down and continuing to decrease over time.
But never let the facts get in the way of your anti American rant. Continue to believe whatever you want to, the facts will not change your mind.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Not only is your argument irrelevant, is is also incorrect.
You make this assertion while providing evidence to support my argument? Fascinating arguing tactic.
Depending on what propaganda site you visit ether China or Russia emits more green house gases than the United States. While the United States is still in the top percentage its over all emissions is going down. Where as China is already more than the United States, their over all emissions is going up.
I already addressed this. At some point, perhaps we will meet them in the middle, and your argument will be able to hold water. For now, it doesn't.
But what I did find is that China is emitting more than US and is scheduled to rise. India is not quiet there yet but is also scheduled to rise eventually surpassing the United States. Where as the United States over all emissions are down and continuing to decrease over time.
Of course China emits more. They have 4 times our population. India has 3. Per capita, they're still better world citizens than we are in the GHG respect. They also live less energy-intensive lifestyles (not necessarily a good thing) but for the sake of my argument, it is beyond stupid to claim *they* are the ones who are tipping the scale. Bitch at them when they reach our per-capita GHG emissions. Until then, as world citizens, *we* (and the Canadians/Russians) are the shitheads.
But never let the facts get in the way of your anti American rant. Continue to believe whatever you want to, the facts will not change your mind.
Literally the only facts you gave in that entire post supported my position perfectly. Anti-American? No, I'm just not a fucking dumbshit with American Flag boxer briefs.
Woosh. No one cares about CO2 levels at a point on Earth. We only care about average levels of the entire Earth. There has not been such a dramatic change on CO2 levels over the past many tens of millions of years. The last time there was even remotely such a change, it was along side a mass extinction event, and even that change was quite mild compared to what is going on now.
Yea, we disagree. Trump just in the State of the Union Address outlined his thoughts on immigration, including a proposal to give DACA recipients a path to citizenship in his 4 pillars proposal. This is pretty much what the democrats had been saying they wanted. He even upped the total number allowed from 800K to 1.6 Million people. It was resoundingly rejected.
And I don't think opposing Trump will be a problem for the partisan democrats in the party. I understand you have to somehow whip up enthusiasm in your base to drive turn out to have a hope of getting elected. I'm saying that this bashing Trump and being obstructionist doesn't play well with the middle, a group you ALSO must appeal to because they are the actual selectors of who governs us. The republicans can keep making public attempts to compromise and appeal to the middle in the process.
But I get that you guys are between a rock and a hard place. Your opposition to Trump is the only way to keep the base united, but being obstructionists also alienates you from the moderate middle. Republicans may have their factions, but they also can claim that democrats are saying "no" to any legislation supported by Trump and rightfully call you obstructionists. The only other option is to compromise with Trump and give him legislative victories which your base is loathed to support, so that option is off the table.
Think about how this plays out in the long term. The tables have turned on you. The economy is going gangbusters, republicans are being seen as the moderates who made it happen and democrats are only able to say "no" and bash Trump. That may be the only hand you can play, but it's a losing one.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Woosh yourself. People use the Mauna Loa value as a proxy for the average level over earth because the records go back to 1958 and have very high resolution.
My point wasn't about the values at one point, it was that you don't have high resolution records for the distant past - they're not even accurate to one year. So you wouldn't be able to spot a change like the one that happened in the last 56 years. I doubt you could even get records accurate to 50 years for more than a few thousand years ago. So you've really got no idea if the 86 ppmv rise over the last 56 years is unprecedented or not.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
gas has gone from being "clean energy future" (pushed by the gas companies and not the people who are trying to fight climate change)
My Transformation Website
Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
£19.6 billion and 9 years so for Hinkly point C.
http://www.renewablesfirst.co....
£3.1 million for 2MW wind turbine.
* 6000 to get 12GW (about equivalent to 3GW)
Nuclear is expensive and slow.
My Transformation Website
Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
And water is plant drink. But a flood can still happen.
My Transformation Website
Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st