I think the comments on this thread show the answer to the question. There are entirely too many people who are ignorant of the science of climate change. When they don't grasp the science they defend their ignorance.
its not the scince not grasp,its the terror from helplesness.people look at the social structures they live in,and see all the people that have power over them,gives a fuck about them.helplesness is dealt with denial. metacrisis roots are spiritual.beliving in a nihilist violent human,gives birth to that.
Speak for you own knoledge which is nothing more than belief in scientists and science. You accept claims of evidence and rarely do any fact checking or you would not claim others are ignorant. Science is in fact your religion.
It's all conditioning. I keep ending up at the conclusion that we need to have empathy for them. They do not know how much they do not know and reacting appropriately to that conditioning. Most of us suffer from this in one way or another.
@@georgelinker2408 Proving the OP's point very nicely. Well done for taking one for the team. A few words you should look up the meanings for belief, claims, science, evidence, and religion. because your showing your ignorance, and I'd hate it if others, in the future, find you as funny as I did.
Science is in fact a belief system, belief is required for there to be knowledge. Without beliefs nothing can be known. Many athiests believe they have no beliefs when in truth thier life is dominated by belief. Science in not based in evidence as most believers in science think. There can be no valid evidence for the big bang theory, yet it is called part of science. Science has in fact became the dominant world religion, the religion of the masses. Most athiests think the definition of religion must include god when in the world there are many religions that have no god. God and religion are not one and the same. Atheists have materilaism as there world religion. Here are a few definitions of religion that many overlook. 1) a set of beleifs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe 2) a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons 3) the body of persons adhering to a paticular set of beliefs and practices 4) something one believes in and follows devotedly, a point of matter or ethics or conscience. A man named Emile Durkheim placed emphasis on the sacred instead of the supernatural or transcendent in religion, meaning that anything deemed highly valuable by a group can be considered sacred, and it is exactly this sacredness that can take on a religious character without necessarily being related to supernatural phenomena. Science is considered sacred by most. “This whole reductive programme - this mindless materialism, this belief in something called ‘matter’ as the answer to all questions - is not really science at all. It is, and always has been, just an image, a myth, a vision, an enormous act of faith. As Karl Popper said, it is ‘promissory materialism’, an offer of future explanations based on boundless confidence in physical methods of enquiry. It is a quite general belief in ‘matter’, which is conceived in a new way as able to answer all possible questions. And that belief has flowed much more from the past glories of science than from any suitability for the job in hand. In reality, not all questions are physical questions or can be usefully fitted to physical answers.”
I was born in 1978, and my education made me aware that we had problems in the world, so when I was old enough to make my own decisions, I became a vegetarian, I grow my own organic food now, and I own a native plant nursery. The science has been clear since I was a child, and yet here we are with a climate changed denying president of the most powerful nation on earth.
There is no climate change that requres anyone to act. It is nothing but the religion of science demanding to have their voice above all others claiming they are the experts and the only ones who know. One must do what they believe is right and allow other people to believe what they chose to believe. They have no right to push their beliefs on others using government and laws. You canno even accept someone who does not believe in climate change proving that you have became intolerant of other opinions.
I agree with everything you say because it's what I already believed 😌 Jk. Be critical (not a contrarian) of everything, except when there's overwhelming evidence. And even then, consider every possible point of view. Thank you, very well made.
You can "ask" people to consume less of certain foods and products, and hope that this will work. Or you can heavily tax the foods and products that urgently need to be less consumed, like cow meat. Which way do you think is more effectlive?
Cow meat produced from CAFOs is definitely bad for the planet, the animals involved, and the people who eat that meat. However, naturally grass fed cattle managed holistically are actually good for the planet. They mimic the environmental role of wild large ruminants that grasslands evolved to have eating the grass. Herbivores and grass evolved together and mutually support each other in a grassland ecosystem. Properly managed, mainly by moving the cattle frequently, grazing animals help sequester large amounts of carbon in the soil where it belongs and will keep it there long term. Much of the available agricultural land in the world is not suitable for row crops such as corn and soybeans, but can grow pasture and thus cattle, sheep,goats, etc. This helps reduce atmospheric carbon. Eating meat from holistically raised animals on pasture is a good thing.
Greenpeace co-founder, Dr. Patrick Moore, on the absolute lack of any correlation between temperature and human CO2 emissions: “Temperature has risen at a steady slow rate since before 1700, while human CO2 emissions were not relevant until 1850, and then began an exponential rise after 1950. This is not indicative of a direct causal relationship between the two.” Full talk: th-cam.com/video/d0Z5FdwWw_c/w-d-xo.html
People would inevitably change their opinions. Why? Because if you loose your home to floods or you or your loved ones ends up in hospital of heat stroke or smoke inhalation because of extreme heat and wild fires or you experience almost day zero like Cape Town you will end up with the right conclusions. The Afrikaans people say: " Die wat nie wil hoor nie, moet voel.( Those who refuse to listen to advice have to suffer the consequences before they change their minds) It is sad that most people are over optimistic and many people have died because they believe nothing bad will ever happen to them. A good example is that people still don't wash their hands and still litter after hundreds of years of education.
I'd support something like 'carbon fee and dividend' which puts a carbon tax on the sale of fossil fuels, and distributes the revenue over the entire population as a regular payment, or tax cut.
Then you've fallen for the deception....your already paying massive amounts of tax to subsidies the fossil fuel industries.....and you want to pay even more.
The only time a carbon tax works is if it's high enough that poor people literally can't pay it. If you just give them the money back they'll go buy gas with it. They already can't afford electric cars or heat pumps or solar panels. Your only choices are to buy the cleaner stuff for them (and hopefully maintain it for them forever too, because they also can't afford that) or force them to go without energy entirely. And good luck getting them to vote for that.
@@jonovens7974 Alaska residents get a regular dividend funded by oil and mining revenues. Carbon Fee and Dividend is similar but would be for the whole country. It helps families, the economy and it's a market solution. I also agree that subsidies to fossil fuels should stop.
@@garysarela4431 Canada has a carbon tax and it's a failure. When you raise the price of energy you raise the price of everything. Energy is the fundamental cost of all goods and services. There's also a bureaucratic nightmare, collecting the money and then handing it back out. The same amount doesn't come out because you have to pay for the bureaucratic process. This also just makes people more dependent on government which is what governments love. Fossil fuel subsidies are not synonymous with green subsidies. Green products get subsidized and mandated because they wouldn't survive the free market. Fossil fuel subsidies come in the way of interest free loans and grants. Governments receive royalties from all extraction industries so the subsidies are investments. Governments use these royalty payments for social programs. They benefit society. Green subsidies just tax hard working people.
@@garysarela4431 So getting paid off. Because that's what they are doing. "OK, pay us a bribe and we'll keep quiet while you keep destroying the planet" Ah yes, good for the economy. Which economy is that exactly ? Would it happen to be your local and countries economy ? And said economy, would that be the one that is unfettered capitalism for the masses and subsidised socialism for the few....cause that the economy that's got us into this mess. Mind you it's just a rebranding of the same economy we've had for 1000's of years. 90% do the work and get 10% of the result. 10% do nothing and get 90% of the result. Always been the same....and like many, many things follows the 10% rule.
After following the science for 40 years, my conclusion is we need to become more like humans. We master our voices by learning overtone singing, then form the enormous choir that will inspire us to build the best future. th-cam.com/video/BX01-IU0qKo/w-d-xo.htmlsi=MyVTab7EaYpkQ-tg
I start to get physically ill when I think about something like checking a picture of a polar bear to see if you're showering right. What kind of person does that?! I just want to get the damn shower done. Sue me.
Until you open the tap and there is no water. (Day zero, Cape Town.) That is why unfortunately people like you, must live a few days without water. You don't appreciate what you have until you loose it.
@@KristelViljoen Yes, we should be aware of those things. We should think about them. But there seem to be those who constantly obsess about such matters. You sound like one of those. If that is not the case, please tell me. That is not sensible. That's frank mental illness. And to spread such ideas around even has a criminal component. I cannot, and will not, go there with you.
I recently sold half my tech stock holdings due to all-time highs, leaving me with $400k. Should I invest in ETFs now or wait for a market correction considering potential inflation?
From $37K to $45K that's the minimum range of profit return every week I thinks it's not a bad one for me, now I have enough to pay bills and take care of my family.
Im with the kids who see their family buying into things that are destroying our world. we mindlessly buy buy buy things without a thought besides our immediate "gratification". Too often those items bought are not our choices at all but the products of all kinds of industries that decide for us and we are made to feel some kind of individual satisfaction in our "personal" choice. Too many of the things we buy we dont need. But we are caught up in the ritual for our "standard of living". Something we should all stop and consider. What is this "standard of living"? where did this concept come from? Too often a lot of what we hear is made to coerce behavior. Culture by its nature is about manipulation. I have lived my life looking closely at my own behavior and how is it ive come to believe in what it is i do. It was shocking to realise how much of what it is i thought i believed was not of my own choosing but that of culture family and education. To undo that requires a great effort. I believe that if we gave more valued emotional intelligence and taught that from birth we might have a greater capacity to thinking more broadly and we would have had profoundly different world.
I call them brainless breeders, CAFO raised humans obsessed with their cults. No care for the life their children will endure or any other cost on the environment of producing another generation of consumers who want to be vegan, homeschool and live off grid. The cult of humanity.
So funny, the guy who talks about boiling the frog. He says "we humans have no place to jump to" when it gets too hot. Well, what I see is north Europeans (eg. from UK) migrating to the much warmer southern Europe (eg. Spain) to retire!. We see no humans living at the poles (except a few Inuit), no-one in Antarctic without modern technology and buildings, but the population around the equator is increasing! NIgeria is near the equator. It's population has ballooned to 230 million and increasing! The migrations from North Africa to Europe and from Mexico to USA are for economic reasons, not climate. Most Africans remain economically and energy poor while rich countries are refusing to lend money to develop fossil fuels and their cheap abudant energy. We are choosing to keep Africans poor in order 'tp proect them from cliamte'! Crazy.
Your being human centric, only thinking how it directly effects us. Plus renewables are far cheaper than fossil alternatives. Have been for at least 2 decades. The fossil fuels get massive subsidies from your taxes to keep them 'affordable'.
@@jonovens7974 Why wouldn't humans be "human centric"? Life flourishes under warming. The greatest diversity of life on this planet resides in the tropics not Greenland. Renewables will never be cheaper than fossil fuels. They are unreliable and require backup from fossil fuels. You cannot run a modern economy on unreliable energy. Fossil fuel subsidies are not synonymous with green subsidies. Green products get subsidized and mandated because they wouldn't survive the free market. Fossil fuel subsidies come in the way of interest free loans and grants. Governments receive royalties from all extraction industries so the subsidies are investments. Governments use these royalty payments for social programs. They benefit society. Green subsidies just tax hard working people.
They should do some studies about how much climate change would go up or down if the rich nations would start eliminating all vehicles and houses, roads, and small buildings, by building only 40-50 story Tower cities (each one with all things, as much as possible). And then continue that by getting all nations to build only T&T worldwide. And then see if people will want those changes.
You could eliminate all vehicles, houses, roads, and building, and CO2 will continue to climb. CO2 does not drive warming, the Earth has warmed little since the "Little Ice Age" and there is no crisis. If there is, then prove it.
40 years to late for that....40 years to late for anything we do making any difference now, apart from increasing the maximum possible temp. 1.5 wasn't just a nice number, picked out of thin air. It was the absolute maximum before the planet takes over. And it didn't last more than 20 years before it was 'changed' from 1700 to 1850..which took off 0.45 degrees of warming. The Cliff we were heading for....left the edge 10 years ago.....freefall from here.
Rich nations are still flying private jets and burning gas in lawn mowers, jet-skis, and racing cars, let alone essential things like home heating. We're barely even discussing the possibility of restricting what people do.
@@alanj9978 And you don't believe that the supposed elite of poor countries, aren't doing the same thing? We can stop all CO2 emissions from hydrocarbons, this second, and CO2 will continue to increase.
The planet isn't your legacy to leave to anyone. How about preserving as much of it as possible for the sake of all the non-human lifeforms we share it with?
snake oil sales men everywhere... *_when I think you are a liar on purpose to harm me_*_ - I giveF on any next word. Have you never been cheated on? LOL_ === Our communication is broken. We have putted a lot of effort in this project.
I think the comments on this thread show the answer to the question. There are entirely too many people who are ignorant of the science of climate change. When they don't grasp the science they defend their ignorance.
its not the scince not grasp,its the terror from helplesness.people look at the social structures they live in,and see all the people that have power over them,gives a fuck about them.helplesness is dealt with denial.
metacrisis roots are spiritual.beliving in a nihilist violent human,gives birth to that.
Speak for you own knoledge which is nothing more than belief in scientists and science. You accept claims of evidence and rarely do any fact checking or you would not claim others are ignorant. Science is in fact your religion.
It's all conditioning. I keep ending up at the conclusion that we need to have empathy for them. They do not know how much they do not know and reacting appropriately to that conditioning. Most of us suffer from this in one way or another.
@@georgelinker2408 Proving the OP's point very nicely. Well done for taking one for the team.
A few words you should look up the meanings for
belief, claims, science, evidence, and religion.
because your showing your ignorance, and I'd hate it if others, in the future, find you as funny as I did.
Science is in fact a belief system, belief is required for there to be knowledge. Without beliefs nothing can be known. Many athiests believe they have no beliefs when in truth thier life is dominated by belief. Science in not based in evidence as most believers in science think. There can be no valid evidence for the big bang theory, yet it is called part of science. Science has in fact became the dominant world religion, the religion of the masses.
Most athiests think the definition of religion must include god when in the world there are many religions that have no god. God and religion are not one and the same. Atheists have materilaism as there world religion.
Here are a few definitions of religion that many overlook.
1) a set of beleifs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe
2) a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons
3) the body of persons adhering to a paticular set of beliefs and practices
4) something one believes in and follows devotedly, a point of matter or ethics or conscience.
A man named Emile Durkheim placed emphasis on the sacred instead of the supernatural or transcendent in religion, meaning that anything deemed highly valuable by a group can be considered sacred, and it is exactly this sacredness that can take on a religious character without necessarily being related to supernatural phenomena. Science is considered sacred by most.
“This whole reductive programme - this mindless materialism, this belief
in something called ‘matter’ as the answer to all questions - is not really
science at all. It is, and always has been, just an image, a myth, a vision, an
enormous act of faith. As Karl Popper said, it is ‘promissory materialism’,
an offer of future explanations based on boundless confidence in physical
methods of enquiry. It is a quite general belief in ‘matter’, which is
conceived in a new way as able to answer all possible questions. And that
belief has flowed much more from the past glories of science than from
any suitability for the job in hand. In reality, not all questions are physical
questions or can be usefully fitted to physical answers.”
I was born in 1978, and my education made me aware that we had problems in the world, so when I was old enough to make my own decisions, I became a vegetarian, I grow my own organic food now, and I own a native plant nursery. The science has been clear since I was a child, and yet here we are with a climate changed denying president of the most powerful nation on earth.
There is no climate change that requres anyone to act. It is nothing but the religion of science demanding to have their voice above all others claiming they are the experts and the only ones who know. One must do what they believe is right and allow other people to believe what they chose to believe. They have no right to push their beliefs on others using government and laws. You canno even accept someone who does not believe in climate change proving that you have became intolerant of other opinions.
What if what is necessary to preserve civilization and human life is not easy, not comfortable, not profitable, and includes sacrifice?
I agree with everything you say because it's what I already believed 😌 Jk. Be critical (not a contrarian) of everything, except when there's overwhelming evidence. And even then, consider every possible point of view.
Thank you, very well made.
You can "ask" people to consume less of certain foods and products, and hope that this will work.
Or you can heavily tax the foods and products that urgently need to be less consumed, like cow meat. Which way do you think is more effectlive?
Cow meat produced from CAFOs is definitely bad for the planet, the animals involved, and the people who eat that meat. However, naturally grass fed cattle managed holistically are actually good for the planet. They mimic the environmental role of wild large ruminants that grasslands evolved to have eating the grass. Herbivores and grass evolved together and mutually support each other in a grassland ecosystem. Properly managed, mainly by moving the cattle frequently, grazing animals help sequester large amounts of carbon in the soil where it belongs and will keep it there long term. Much of the available agricultural land in the world is not suitable for row crops such as corn and soybeans, but can grow pasture and thus cattle, sheep,goats, etc. This helps reduce atmospheric carbon. Eating meat from holistically raised animals on pasture is a good thing.
@@maryyett4637 But how is that scaleable to a global population of 8 billion?
We're hopeless
Thank you for your excellent report.
Excellent documentary
Why change feels impossible,? Because is it is.
from india ... india needs most on climate change awareness ... equatorial country affects more
psychedelics in a high enough dose,once a week,is stopping you in your track.that enables reality penetrate through social habitual lies.
Greenpeace co-founder, Dr. Patrick Moore, on the absolute lack of any correlation between temperature and human CO2 emissions:
“Temperature has risen at a steady slow rate since before 1700, while human CO2 emissions were not relevant until 1850, and then began an exponential rise after 1950. This is not indicative of a direct causal relationship between the two.”
Full talk: th-cam.com/video/d0Z5FdwWw_c/w-d-xo.html
父母和孩子可以在空闲的当儿，参加慈善活动，培养自己和孩子的爱心和善心，爱心的社会是和谐社会根基。
People would inevitably change their opinions. Why? Because if you loose your home to floods or you or your loved ones ends up in hospital of heat stroke or smoke inhalation because of extreme heat and wild fires or you experience almost day zero like Cape Town you will end up with the right conclusions. The Afrikaans people say: " Die wat nie wil hoor nie, moet voel.( Those who refuse to listen to advice have to suffer the consequences before they change their minds) It is sad that most people are over optimistic and many people have died because they believe nothing bad will ever happen to them. A good example is that people still don't wash their hands and still litter after hundreds of years of education.
💀hold my beer! watch this! I'm going to boil all the black gold into the air and see what happens! yeeeehaaaaaw!💀
Thanks a lot. It takes time to change habits, but everey emission you can avoid is an emission which doesn't heat the climate any longer.
Why keep using that frog story?? It's been debunked sometime ago already.
I'd support something like 'carbon fee and dividend' which puts a carbon tax on the sale of fossil fuels, and distributes the revenue over the entire population as a regular payment, or tax cut.
Then you've fallen for the deception....your already paying massive amounts of tax to subsidies the fossil fuel industries.....and you want to pay even more.
The only time a carbon tax works is if it's high enough that poor people literally can't pay it. If you just give them the money back they'll go buy gas with it. They already can't afford electric cars or heat pumps or solar panels. Your only choices are to buy the cleaner stuff for them (and hopefully maintain it for them forever too, because they also can't afford that) or force them to go without energy entirely. And good luck getting them to vote for that.
@@jonovens7974 Alaska residents get a regular dividend funded by oil and mining revenues. Carbon Fee and Dividend is similar but would be for the whole country. It helps families, the economy and it's a market solution. I also agree that subsidies to fossil fuels should stop.
@@garysarela4431 Canada has a carbon tax and it's a failure. When you raise the price of energy you raise the price of everything. Energy is the fundamental cost of all goods and services.
There's also a bureaucratic nightmare, collecting the money and then handing it back out. The same amount doesn't come out because you have to pay for the bureaucratic process. This also just makes people more dependent on government which is what governments love.
Fossil fuel subsidies are not synonymous with green subsidies. Green products get subsidized and mandated because they wouldn't survive the free market. Fossil fuel subsidies come in the way of interest free loans and grants. Governments receive royalties from all extraction industries so the subsidies are investments. Governments use these royalty payments for social programs. They benefit society. Green subsidies just tax hard working people.
@@garysarela4431 So getting paid off. Because that's what they are doing.
"OK, pay us a bribe and we'll keep quiet while you keep destroying the planet"
Ah yes, good for the economy. Which economy is that exactly ? Would it happen to be your local and countries economy ?
And said economy, would that be the one that is unfettered capitalism for the masses and subsidised socialism for the few....cause that the economy that's got us into this mess. Mind you it's just a rebranding of the same economy we've had for 1000's of years. 90% do the work and get 10% of the result. 10% do nothing and get 90% of the result. Always been the same....and like many, many things follows the 10% rule.
After following the science for 40 years, my conclusion is we need to become more like humans. We master our voices by learning overtone singing, then form the enormous choir that will inspire us to build the best future. th-cam.com/video/BX01-IU0qKo/w-d-xo.htmlsi=MyVTab7EaYpkQ-tg
I start to get physically ill when I think about something like checking a picture of a polar bear to see if you're showering right. What kind of person does that?! I just want to get the damn shower done. Sue me.
Until you open the tap and there is no water. (Day zero, Cape Town.) That is why unfortunately people like you, must live a few days without water. You don't appreciate what you have until you loose it.
@@KristelViljoen Yes, we should be aware of those things. We should think about them. But there seem to be those who constantly obsess about such matters. You sound like one of those. If that is not the case, please tell me. That is not sensible. That's frank mental illness. And to spread such ideas around even has a criminal component. I cannot, and will not, go there with you.
Don't work for money; make money work for you. Invest wisely today to create the freedom you desire tomorrow.
Many new tra-ders face challenges without proper guidance. I found success by learning from James Clark's expertise.
@@korkyketexactly that's why I always seek Mr J Clark's guidance in all I do 😊
I recently sold half my tech stock holdings due to all-time highs, leaving me with $400k. Should I invest in ETFs now or wait for a market correction considering potential inflation?
Celebrating a $30k stock portfolio today from a $6k start. Investing wisely has given me time for family and future plans.
From $37K to $45K that's the minimum range of profit return every week I thinks it's not a bad one for me, now I have enough to pay bills and take care of my family.
The gods brought fire to humankind, and look what we have done with it.
Im with the kids who see their family buying into things that are destroying our world. we mindlessly buy buy buy things without a thought besides our immediate "gratification". Too often those items bought are not our choices at all but the products of all kinds of industries that decide for us and we are made to feel some kind of individual satisfaction in our "personal" choice. Too many of the things we buy we dont need. But we are caught up in the ritual for our "standard of living". Something we should all stop and consider. What is this "standard of living"? where did this concept come from? Too often a lot of what we hear is made to coerce behavior. Culture by its nature is about manipulation. I have lived my life looking closely at my own behavior and how is it ive come to believe in what it is i do. It was shocking to realise how much of what it is i thought i believed was not of my own choosing but that of culture family and education. To undo that requires a great effort. I believe that if we gave more valued emotional intelligence and taught that from birth we might have a greater capacity to thinking more broadly and we would have had profoundly different world.
Yep.
Marrying someone rich doesn't even sound appealing to me
Waaah, no more icebergs. Waaa, new oil places. Waaah, no more richy oceanfront. Waaa, faster growing food. Waaaahhhh!
please stop having kids...... Oh wait you won't!
I call them brainless breeders, CAFO raised humans obsessed with their cults. No care for the life their children will endure or any other cost on the environment of producing another generation of consumers who want to be vegan, homeschool and live off grid. The cult of humanity.
Eco village but no washing lines or bike stands…
So funny, the guy who talks about boiling the frog. He says "we humans have no place to jump to" when it gets too hot. Well, what I see is north Europeans (eg. from UK) migrating to the much warmer southern Europe (eg. Spain) to retire!. We see no humans living at the poles (except a few Inuit), no-one in Antarctic without modern technology and buildings, but the population around the equator is increasing! NIgeria is near the equator. It's population has ballooned to 230 million and increasing! The migrations from North Africa to Europe and from Mexico to USA are for economic reasons, not climate. Most Africans remain economically and energy poor while rich countries are refusing to lend money to develop fossil fuels and their cheap abudant energy. We are choosing to keep Africans poor in order 'tp proect them from cliamte'! Crazy.
Your being human centric, only thinking how it directly effects us.
Plus renewables are far cheaper than fossil alternatives. Have been for at least 2 decades. The fossil fuels get massive subsidies from your taxes to keep them 'affordable'.
@@jonovens7974 Why wouldn't humans be "human centric"?
Life flourishes under warming. The greatest diversity of life on this planet resides in the tropics not Greenland.
Renewables will never be cheaper than fossil fuels. They are unreliable and require backup from fossil fuels. You cannot run a modern economy on unreliable energy.
Fossil fuel subsidies are not synonymous with green subsidies. Green products get subsidized and mandated because they wouldn't survive the free market. Fossil fuel subsidies come in the way of interest free loans and grants. Governments receive royalties from all extraction industries so the subsidies are investments. Governments use these royalty payments for social programs. They benefit society. Green subsidies just tax hard working people.
*"How can we explain our collective inertia in the face of the ongoing environmental crisis?"* Simple, we reject your hyperbolic claims of a crisis.
They should do some studies about how much climate change would go up or down if the rich nations would start eliminating all vehicles and houses, roads, and small buildings, by building only 40-50 story Tower cities (each one with all things, as much as possible).
And then continue that by getting all nations to build only T&T worldwide.
And then see if people will want those changes.
You could eliminate all vehicles, houses, roads, and building, and CO2 will continue to climb. CO2 does not drive warming, the Earth has warmed little since the "Little Ice Age" and there is no crisis. If there is, then prove it.
40 years to late for that....40 years to late for anything we do making any difference now, apart from increasing the maximum possible temp.
1.5 wasn't just a nice number, picked out of thin air. It was the absolute maximum before the planet takes over. And it didn't last more than 20 years before it was 'changed' from 1700 to 1850..which took off 0.45 degrees of warming.
The Cliff we were heading for....left the edge 10 years ago.....freefall from here.
Rich nations are still flying private jets and burning gas in lawn mowers, jet-skis, and racing cars, let alone essential things like home heating. We're barely even discussing the possibility of restricting what people do.
@@alanj9978 And you don't believe that the supposed elite of poor countries, aren't doing the same thing? We can stop all CO2 emissions from hydrocarbons, this second, and CO2 will continue to increase.
What if what is necessary to preserve civilization and human life is not easy, not comfortable, not profitable, and includes sacrifice?
I was hoping to leave a planet for my kids...
Still going to be a planet.....our kids/grdkids....not so likely. Filicide on a global scale.
Your kids will be working on Mars and vacationing on the moon. They'll be living a life on Earth that you could barely dream about.
The planet isn't your legacy to leave to anyone. How about preserving as much of it as possible for the sake of all the non-human lifeforms we share it with?
@woodypigeon I agree with that. I was just trying to be pithy.
etwas
Using oil for fun is empowering.
Showing a wildfire as know all wildfires have been set on fire by arsonists .
snake oil sales men everywhere...
*_when I think you are a liar on purpose to harm me_*_ - I giveF on any next word. Have you never been cheated on? LOL_
===
Our communication is broken. We have putted a lot of effort in this project.
Total propaganda rubbish
So you're one of the 30%. You don't believe humans are altering the climate?
I'm at the point where i'd rather talk to flat earthers than ecocidal climate deniers.