(07-28-2018, 03:43 PM)MalabarJag Wrote:

(07-28-2018, 10:30 AM)mikesez Wrote: I looked at the second article after reading your reply. 
It said we reduced our carbon emissions by 0.5% year over year. Then it said that the UK and Mexico both saw reductions of 4%.  So, the article does seem to be saying that we did well, but we could be doing much better.

We're not emitting carbon, we're emitting carbon dioxide. Calling it "carbon" is an intentional misrepresentation because carbon is perceived as being dirty. Calling CO2 "carbon" like calling a sip of water "drinking hydrogen."

The UK and Mexico are outliers. Most European countries haven't come close to a 0.5% reduction.

And "doing much better" would be increasing our CO2 emissions to further feed the vegetable kingdom. When the next glaciation comes the land plants are going to need all of the CO2 that survives being dissolved into a colder ocean. Many plant species went extinct in an earlier glaciation, and the planet came close to wiping out all vegetation. Thankfully China and India are stepping up their CO2 emissions.

That's nuts.
I mean sure Canada and Siberia might become more pleasant places to live, but much larger land areas like Brazil, North Africa, India and the Persian Gulf could become so hot in the summer that it's either air conditioning or death. Farming could become nearly impossible in these areas unless there is a new wave of automation in farming. And that says nothing of the fact that half of Bangladesh and a lot of coastal Florida would be underwater.
There might not be much we can do about these eventualities at this point but we owe it to ourselves to try. Saying that this will all end up being a good thing is willful ignorance.

---