If co2
emmissions not reduced by 80 % NOW there is very little hope of bypassing the tipping point.
Not exact matches
Cuomo's plan, released a couple of years ago, would cut the use of fossil fuels for electricity in the state in half by 2030, but does
not apply those same goals to other carbon
emmissions.
You can't add modern safety features or a modern engine and
emmissions controls to a tiny plastic 1970's car - it costs millions to develop a new car and more to redevelop a 1970's one.
He doesn't understand the relationship between
emmissions and concentrations, but aside from that we know very well that the CO2 rise is due to anthropogenic activities, and we also know the magnitude and rate of the CO2 rise is far outside the bounds of natural variability.
No one should bet that human
emmissions are
not the cause.
What I am saying is that real, useful, competent action on reducing greenhouse gas
emmissions will require an intellectual and emotional movement of great proportions, and my observation is that such movements do
not arrise without leaders and heroes.
Yes, we should be doing things like finding ways to reduce lung damage from interior fires (I've heard this one specifically given as an argument to
NOT put money in CO2
emmission reductions since millions of children are dying now exposed to interior smoke fires in developing countries, and the money would be more effective in providing gas cookers).
And replying to your statement about Permian extinction, doesn't that prove natures power to repell our Co2
emmission.
The same can
not be said for the claim that man - made
emmissions of C02 are causing 100 % (ish) of temperature increases on earth.
I do
nt» want to give out my taxes to cut
emmission and then find out i have to give out more to solve the problem «again».
This is one of many dictators that don't give a hoot about
emmission.
This is
not an old issue, and more serious steps need to be taken to prepare than
emmission cutting Science will solve this problem by itself if our sceintific trend continues.
From the podcast it seems like he's highlighting natural variability and saying «hey, manmade
emmissions are smooth therefore we can't be to blame».
As much as I would love to see people creating forests rather than destroying them, CO2
emmissions are a problem caused by a global market that until recently belived they could throw anything at the biosphere and it wouldn't make a difference.
I have left two statements blank above because while they are admirable aspirations the literal nature is difficult for me to support because the transport and agriculture sector can't transition to complete renewables as fast as static power industry and so a ban on new fossil fuel projects may preclude novel ways to mitigate gross levels of
emmissions in some instances.
It is ludicrous to
not use per capita
emmissions figures as a measure of contribution.
So clearly the direction of travel within the administration is to deny climate change is a man made phenomenon (even Pruitt has had to back off saying it's
not happening) and ignore any concerns about
emmissions reductions.
i'm moderatley informed yes, but even at that i'm smart enough to see that at least if this problem is indeed happening from humans that cutting Co2
Emmission isn't going to solve the problem, according to your science its too late.
Would
not a rise in level of manmade
emmissions then help moderate the cooling earth?
I must admit to hearing quotes of CO2 has increased by 4 % since 2002 (I think), so that does
not exactly tally with man's
emmissions either, maybe a bit of exageration in the adding up (or the method used) to get to 22 % perhaps.....