Alarmists are wasting time dealing with a chorus of comments such as; there is no proof that CO2 is dangerous, the climate is always changing and sea levels are going up and down all the time.
The scientific consensus is clear about those issues, but we keep seeing graphs that are cherry picked that somehow show the opposite--that is time wasting.
If you call climate scientists producing reports that show the CC issue is putting the planet in danger an activist---- I am happy to take that message to chatrooms like this for further discussion.
I am happy to debate the issue regarding
temperature, sea levels and CO2 as they are related and are at the core of the CC problem.
But I don't want to be dealing with comments such as , "We are only a drop in the ocean so why should we do anything."
The principle is that per capita we are close to the greatest CO2 emitters in the world.
How about they go plant trees instead of wasting time debating Co2? ...paid or organised activists IMO.
I posted a response to the above comment that goes along the line, "trees can capture the CO2 produced so there is no need to spend money on technology as nature has done it for us already."
Trees cannot fix the CO2 we produce each year. Here is the reasoning that I posted a couple of times lately.
Trees are not the solution to curb CO2 emissions.
A lot people say we should plant trees to offset CO2 emissions. That sounds good in theory but is it practical?
Here is a bit of arithmetic.
Humans currently emit 40 billion tonnes of CO2 each year (and it is rising).
Based on 2 trees to capture a tonne of co2 when mature, we need to plant 80 billion trees each year.
But we can say most of the CO2 goes into the ocean so if we work on 10% of the CO2 emissions to be absorbed by trees we need
8 billion trees each year
If each tree needs a minimum of 10 sq. m of space then we need an area of
8,000,000,000 x10 sq Km 1000x1000
0r 80,000 sq. km annually to absorb 10% of the emissions.
But the world clears or burns 130,000sq. km of forest each year.
So to balance the books we need to plant 130,000 +80,000 = 210,000 sq. Km annually or stop clearing forests.
This is almost the area of Victoria needed each year.
Given the best land is already used for crops then the trees will be planted in areas where there are poorer or drier soils.
So we would not have enough land with good soils or sufficient moisture so this scheme won’t work for now.
But once we develop technologies to desalinate water cheaply via nuclear plants or fusion energy( in a couple of decades down the track) then it will be possible to have robots working 24 h/day planting trees.
By then we should have the means and technology to revegetate inland Australia and places like the Sahara.
But I don’t see that happening for at least 20 years.
Meanwhile we need to develop new technologies to suck up CO2 and turn it into carbon based materials such as wood, fibres, food and construction materials.
Australia already has the ABC for all that kind of world ending advertising.
The ABC is charged with presenting news, issues and people with expertise but that needs to filter down into the community and homes. That is necessary to allow people to understand the issues and make a better informed decision.
Given some climate scientists are making world ending comments we should heed their warnings and understand why they are warning us about climate issues.
