Ok, I’ll bite.
I hope everyone realises that a zero carbon footprint isa death sentence for humankind.
Zero Carbon means sequestering all anthropogenic produced carbon, either naturally or by artificial means, in order to achieve a stable level of atmospheric CO2. The pre industrial era level of 385ppm is likely not achievable for centuries, the current level is 420ppm but a level around the 440ppm might be achievable if rapid action is undertaken. No one has ever claimed it was to reduce atmospheric CO2 to zero.
Without Co2 plants do not grow.Of course and most plants mainly the C3 type, react well to increased CO2 levels, though nutritional value may decline. Research has revealed however tolerance to heat and variation in temperature is reduced. Greenhouses which use a high CO2 level to promote growth will also control temperature and moisture levels for optimal effect.
So let the cows fart and fires burn.
Cattle emit copious quantities of methane, a GHG 28 times more potent than CO2. Intensive farming of cattle as a food source has added to the GHG problem hence the requirement for the Zero Carbon program.
Are you worried about the Great Barrier Reef dying?
Did you know in FY 2022 it had the highest recorded coral growth in 36 years!
Why have no green activists mentioned this?
It has been widely reported from all sides. What is important to remember is we have had three years of cool La Nina conditions which has given the coral a chance to recover. Next year will be interesting with the current El Nino and high global temperatures both land and ocean.
Are you worried about the CO2 levels in atmosphere?
Don't look at the last 200 years.
Look back millions of years.
Co2 has been on the decline.
If it gets too low plants wont grow.
You can work it out from there...
Why don't climate scientists mention this?Those scientists who researched historic CO2 levels are the same ones drawing attention to the current levels. We have seen an unprecedented rise in CO2 levels over the last 200 years. Levels have been higher in the past but generally take thousands of years if not longer to change, and are affected by volcanic activity, Total Solar Irradiance, Milankovich Cycles, Precipitation and weathering etc. None of these are responsible for the recent rises.
Hey, I am not asking you to believe me.
Just do some googling.
Its pretty easy to see the facts if you ask the right questions.
Suggest you look up some Michael Shellenberger talks. Fascinating stuff.
Google is a great asset but you be cautious of what you read. I spent a lot time reviewing the opinions of the likes of Joanne Codling (Nova), Jennifer Marohasy, Wattsupwiththat, Roy Spencer, Monckton and a host of others. They have all been loose with the facts: selective quotations, quote mining, dubious interpretation of data and outright lies. The Climate debate has spawned an industry populated with cranks, nutcases and plain weirdos. Who can forget Rowan Dean’s classic take down of “Global Warming” on Sky News: “It’s cold where I am so Global Warming must be a false.”
I found it a better use of time to read to the scientific papers used as references and make an assessment from there and apply some critical thinking. Shellenberger may be a nice guy, but I prefer to get my information from those who know what they’re talking about, not some clown trying to chalk up a few hits on their Instagram page.
(20min delay)