If democrats really care about CO2 levels, why don't they advocate for more trees? (solution, politician)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
..and left up to us...atmospheric CO2 would be back to ~350ppm
we are not increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere...our emissions are almost stable
CO2 is cumulative due to the long life times of CO2 in the atmosphere. Emissions can be stable yet the CO2 concentration will rise. This is well known and is the reason why our relatively low amount of emission (relative to natural sources) has led to increased concentration.
our emissions have been stable +/- ~1 Gt for the past 50 years....that is our contribution to atmospheric CO2
left up to the USA...atmospheric CO2 levels would also be ~stable
...all of the increase in atmospheric CO2 has come from developing countries
and no we do not...China is responsible for their emissions...
We just moved our manufacturing emissions to China. It’s a global problem. Our demand for cheap crap from China is just as much the root of the problem.
CO2 is cumulative due to the long life times of CO2 in the atmosphere. Emissions can be stable yet the CO2 concentration will rise. This is well known and is the reason why our relatively low amount of emission (relative to natural sources) has led to increased concentration.
so you're saying the relatively extremely high emissions from China, India, and the rest of the developing world are 5-6 times more cumulative than ours
We just moved our manufacturing emissions to China. It’s a global problem. Our demand for cheap crap from China is just as much the root of the problem.
and China's demand to manufacture that cheap crap as cheap as possible means they get a free pass on pollution, CO2 emissions, and global warming
..that's their problem..not ours
start blaming them....and you guys won't look like some cheap scam
The largest CO2 producer is China, so even if the US went completely carbon neutral, at best, we would hardly put a dent the CO2 levels. So why not advocate for more trees instead, which consume CO2? Instead, all we hear is that we need to ban cars, burgers, transatlantic flight, and collect trillions more in taxes. It sounds more like a giant scam to me.
This has nothing to do with the environment. If they cared about the environment they would have done something about their cities turning into sewage holes. They used to show Ironeyes Cody tearing up at garbage in a street. A box of food on the road made the Indians weep.
This is all about power. Green Peace isn't so worried about keeping things on the planet green as long as their bank accounts are loaded with it.
ALL of the great organizations have been hijacked by tyrannical hypocrites. They no longer represent what they once did, they are no longer righteous.
There's no money in clean air, water, and land. It's all about the climate baby, that's where the real cash is.
Heh, well, I'd say it's the AGW nutters that hate trees. Trees make fresh oxygen and fertile land and those nimrods can't be having self-powered air factories screwing up their gig.
As a Forester for 40 years, we have an “epidemic of trees” in this west. It is the primary reason for the devasting wildfires.
Planting trees is a good idea in our cities. Not in our forests.
Best, cheapest, and quickest way to reduce CO2 emissions is to limit speed limits to 55 MPH. 30% reduction in CO2 emissions due to transportation overnight.
Step Two....Limit jet air travel to 1970 level. That is a major reduction in air travel. There is enough scientific evidence that what we are seeing as a signature of global warming is actually due to jet travel.
Two fairly inexpensive ways to SIGNIFICANTLY lower CO2 emissions, without a reduction in the standard of living for most people on the planet.
and China's demand to manufacture that cheap crap as cheap as possible means they get a free pass on pollution, CO2 emissions, and global warming
..that's their problem..not ours
start blaming them....and you guys won't look like some cheap scam
I think you mean supply.
Even the manufacturing done there on behalf of US companies you take no ownership of? That’s quite the delusion. We want cheap stuff without the expense of paying for lower emissions production, worker/human rights, etc. That is at least partly on us.
The largest CO2 producer is China, so even if the US went completely carbon neutral, at best, we would hardly put a dent the CO2 levels. So why not advocate for more trees instead, which consume CO2? Instead, all we hear is that we need to ban cars, burgers, transatlantic flight, and collect trillions more in taxes. It sounds more like a giant scam to me.
I've been an advocate of trees for decades. Sadly, the developers have the upper hand because the local governments let them get away with it. So all the trees get mowed down in the name of progress. It's despicable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
