Nostr Web Client

Texas is one of the most vulnerable places on Earth to global warming, already hot and humid and battered by big hurricanes. 🥵

In Texas last year…

Climate killed 306 people

Cancer killed 46,300 people

How would you allocate spending across these two problems? 🤔

Now, should we compare actual climate change budgets with oncology research budgets? 😖

Today 1 in 6 people die early because of cancer.

How much propaganda do you have to absorb to be more passionate about fighting CO2 than fighting cancer? I am curious.

Eluc 2y ago

I won't argue that we should not invest in curing cancer but with money at stake in big pharma the incentive are already high and investement is probably higher than climate change already but I didn't search a source to confirm that.

The truth is that curing cancer might save some more humans but what about all animals and plants we will let die if we continue to destroy our environnement like we do today. Earth will not burn into flame but living comfort will degrade for future generations of humans staying alive and all other living species that share our planet with us.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

⚡️🌱🌙 2y ago

I’m not sure what you mean there?

Sounds like political dogma.

As atmospheric CO2 increases so does the biomass of the Earth. Thanks to anthropogenic CO2 the biomass of Earth has been steadily increasing since reaching a nadir in the 1960’s.

A higher atmospheric CO2 concentration means more efficient photosynthesis and improved plant growth. The planet doesn’t degrade, life on Earth has witnessed 1/3rd of the history of the universe. It’s survived many more challenging cosmological events than any threat humans pose.

Isn’t the main challenge due to climate change wandering ecosystems running up against geographical limits, as thinks adapt by drifting latitude?