Big Coal Predicted Climate Change...In 1966

Hopefully not as much careful deliberation as the nuclear power fossil fuel replacement sector in this country. . What frustrates me the most is solutions exist. Permaculturists have most of this figured out. There just isn’t much interest in doing anything.

 

A typical passenger vehicle could emit 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year,
and there are approximated 1.2 billion passenger vehicles in the roads nowadays.
https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-typical-passenger-vehicle
https://www.greencarreports.com/new...-on-worlds-roads-now-2-billion-by-2035-report

 

It's all about sunlight and the trees converting CO2 into sugar.

 

It's quite a challenge when the same land is used to support sustenance,
but there is another area that is somehow I could say promising it covers 71% of earth.

https://oceana.org/blog/seaweed-could-be-scrubbing-way-more-carbon-atmosphere-we-expected

 

Good for you and i mean that. Peddle that butt all over the place.

 

I was today looking at a TED video by an expert on this topic. He showed the audience there the amount of land it involves per solution. It sure enlightened the audience.

 

So if one can simply shove all autos into the deep ocean, that cures climate warming up?

 

I have been called a damned denier when I propose that the Amazon be replanted and why not add more plants to this country too? But that does not please the alarmists.

 

Cool link.

 

Shove What?
You still need your car of course for long haul or for emergencies,
but if you can walk the distance or even use your bike then do it, even good for your health,
don't rely so much on your carbon dioxide emitting vehicles. You can help the environment and even yourself.

 

So what ??? How much would the rate of global warming be reduced if all passenger cars in the US were eliminated.

 

Hell, anyone who doesn’t have at least one wet leg from a climate stimulated limbic system is a denier. I’m adding plants. I agree it’s a great idea. A win/win/win.

 

So what ?? What does that have to do with agriculture??

 

Roughly 30% and it's substantial.
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/car-emissions-global-warming

 

You are claiming that if all the gasoline powered vehicles in the US were confiscated tomorrow that global CO2 emissions would be reduced by 30% ?? The US accounts for only 25% of the global CO2 emissions. And what would the effect be on the US economy ??

 

We should keep a balance between CO2 emission and absorption or even offset it to favor absorption, to prevent climate change. There are also trees that can sustain both environmental needs and agriculture as you wish to push through like fruit trees apples, oranges etc, gives us something for our consumption and helping in absorbing CO2 as well.

 

That is impossible, what I'm trying to emphasize is at least a citizen will do it's share in reducing carbon emission or footprints, use your own two feet from time to time if using cars is not really that imperative, it's good for your heart and the air you breath.

 

That's a personal decision but it could cost you more money and will do nothing significant for the environment.

 

Planting trees will not significantly reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere. Incurring costs to reduce CO2 by planting trees is money wasted. BTW, there is no proof that the increasing CO2 concentration is responsible for the current warming period.

 

And we looked at it, and determined it was a mixture of fraudulent claims about sources, dishonest cherrypicking and really awful logic. Do you have anything that isn't ridiculous propaganda?

You shouldn't try to play source wars. We have tens of thousands of peer-reviewed papers, and the consensus of all the smartest people in the world. You claim a few hundred, most of which don't even say what you claim they say. We annihilate you in source wars.

It's not John Cook's fault that you choose to peddle fraud. Don't keep shooting the messenger. That just makes you look worse.

Now, grab that Bible, wave it in our faces some more, and scream that we heretics need to BELIEVE.

 

No, you haven't. You're just making up sad victimhood stories again.

You were called a denier for your wildy dishonest claim that rational people didn't want to plant trees (a wildly dishonest claim that you're repeating here), and for your reality-defying claim that planting trees alone could counteract the CO2 emitted by fossil fuel burning.

 

Depends on how you define "significantly".

An opinion, and not a very good one, given that tree seedlings in bulk cost very little.

Outright delusional. But at least you're admitting to the strong warming, which is more than most deniers will do. You've retreated from the "it's not happening" line to the "it's happening, but humans aren't doing it" line. You've also started building fortifications at "Well, humans are doing it, but it's good!". After those positions crumble, your final line with be "Well yes, it's bad, and we did it, but it costs too much to fix now, so we have to live with the badness."

 

Flat-earthers feed me that line too.

A big difference is that the flat-earthers don't pout nearly as much. At least the flat-earthers try to debate.

 

Funny display of projection on your part.

 

"Some unknown future magic technology will save us!" is not a rational way of thinking.

It says that nobody should ever work on any problem, ever. After all, if we just wait and do nothing, the wonderful future utopia will arrive and save us.