At least saving aims at something.
I am shocked how few people have looked into CO2 and how it works.
We are optimising a whole system for CO2 not because it has significant impact on the climate, but because air taxes are a good way to extract more taxes and O2 would have been to obvious a scam perpetrated on the slaves.
Decentralised and (to some degree) less polluting energy has other benefits. So we should never paint something in black or white only.
It is very easy. I will explain to you. CO2 is reactive to infrared radiation. Infrared radiation is what transports the biggest amount of energy in the spectrum of solar radiation. Since CO2 reacts to infrared radiation, it increases the temperature on earth.
The temperature on earth is naturally tending to create equality of energy entering from space and energy exiting into space. When the amount of CO2 is increased in our atmosphere the absorbtion (storage) of energy within our atmosphere increases. To get a zero sum game again, the atmosphere needs to increase the temperature.
This has a massive effect on all species of earth. Species need to mass migrate, to find a space where they find their living conditions in 100 years. Many species do not have the natural ability to migrate in the pace of climate change we have now. Therefore they will extinct.
When enough species extinct, ecosystems loose their stability and they tend to collapse. We humain are part of such an ecosystem. We depend on flourishing soil, growing plants, healthy microorganisms and animals in order to survive. Climatechange is threatening this ecosystem of live.
Since I want to create better circumstances for my children, then the cirumstances I have, I want to increase stability of ecosystems. Not decrease them.
This explanation is extremely good!
I also understand why many people don't want to believe this. In my opinion, the reason for this is that our so-called governments take measures that are detrimental to the population and often don't bring about any improvement. The goal of a state or government is to preserve itself. And this goal is achieved by expanding the state. This happens through redistribution. And people feel this. Unfortunately, many then throw the baby out with the bathwater and dismiss everything associated with "climate" as manipulation.
Very insightful 🥳
I always wonder about the argument of natural swings in temperature 🤔
"The Romans grew wine in England"
And ice ages too.
I don't know much about it, but it seams to me that human civilization would survive a climate change, even tho it would be a very disruptive event to all humans
The medieval war phase was local, not a global change in temperature. But I, too, am convinced that we would survive a changing climate. Evidence is that humanity has always survived, and used not to even have a tiny bit of the technology we have today (heating/cooling/pumping/building/irrigating/desalinating/…)
Define survive. And may give some reasons, why humanity would survive?
Human survival is bound to following factors: Adequat supply of food, water and climate below 35°C wet-bulb temperature.
Our food sources have other living conditions, depending on the species. But many species have very specific food preferences, that they do not change. (we as human are very flexible in our food consumption)
Therefore I also think we have great abilities to adapt and build constructions to help our survival.
But with all technology, our survival depends on our food sources.
And we have more diverse and better food sources, when we live in a diverse and flourishing ecosystems, then we have in a decreasing ecosystem. When species extinct, they often cause chain reactions of other species that go extinct. And we are one variable in such a chain reaction.
I do not know how many species do have to go extinct for humanity going extinct. But I prefer not to put it to the test actually.
In the end my measure is well being. And I think we all can agree, that we as human will decrease in well being, when the food-sources decrease.
Very interesting, a collapse of food chains sounds very threatening 🤔
I wonder why politicians didn't take it more serious.
There are a lot of measures taken in Europe, but what about China and India.
Isn't Europes CO2 load just a little fraction of these countries?
I ask myself, if it's such a big threat, why is the no coercion to make other countries submit to CO2 reduction?
Maybe I just didn't know about it 🤷♂️
The food stuff I do know better 😁
I do agree to the extent that more variety gives more joy, but very simple diets gave me the most well-being so far.
For about 15 month I have sustained myself on steak and eggs only.
Eating once a day with about one day off water only fasting per week.
I feel better then ever 🤩
I do miss the fun of Pizza and doughnuts tho 🙈
Where do you get your information from until now, when you do not know that it is totally threatening all form of live. It is not as if science is holding back any evidence on this. Models are already very bad. But almost every year, they have to lower the expectations of the models, since reality is worse.
I think when someone is serious, we have to accept the fact, that for climate there are no frontiers in the world. Therefore every single human being is equal in front of climate change.
And when we investigate, which world citizens pollut the world the most it is cristal clear: https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/
And here the list of the 40 countries, with the biggest climate actions in the last 10 years (wow Germany is one place before China): https://247wallst.com/special-report/2021/12/21/the-40-countries-decreasing-emissions-the-fastest/?tpid=1017163&tv=link&tc=in_content
Hi freemymind 🤟🏴☠️😉 nice to meet you 🤝 You’ve laid out a solid explanation of how CO2 affects our planet’s energy balance and its broader implications for ecosystems. Climate change is indeed a threat to biodiversity and our own survival. The challenge now is finding a way to balance our needs with sustainable practices. It’s clear that we must take action to preserve and restore ecosystems not just for our children, but for the future of all life on Earth. What steps do you think individuals and governments should prioritize to ensure we create a more stable environment?
