3 ms·
No, sadly, no. None of the above. Here’s an uncomfortable fact few know about and even fewer are talking about: If humanity, and all we have ever created, eva
by robomartin 8y ago
No, sadly, no. None of the above.
Here’s an uncomfortable fact few know about and even fewer are talking about:
If humanity, and all we have ever created, evaporated from the planet tomorrow, it would take 50,000 to 75,000 years for atmospheric CO2 concentration to come down by 100 ppm.
Source: Ice core data going back 800,000 years. Look it up and see for yourself (sorry can’t link right now).
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- gdubs 8y agoI initially misread your comment and thought you were arguing something entirely different. If what you’re saying is that simply removing humans from the equation wouldn’t change atmospheric CO2 for a long time, I think we’re actually in agreement there. It supports my point that population control isn’t how we’re going to get on a different trajectory in the decade or so we have. But I don’t think it addresses the ideas of effective carbon capture. Soil carbon capture, for one, is incredibly promising. Reforestation is another.