3 ms·

I can't help but think of two webcomics when I read your comments: "they want to flip the economic system..." https://www.butajape.com/comic/conspiracies/ http

• rglover 4y ago
  Flipping the economic system isn't a conspiracy theory, it's a stated, documented plan [1]. On the CO2 side, even your comic is incorrect (it has to draw dotted lines to force its "joke") as CO2 has been decreasing: https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-1999/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide... and with proper application of regulation, carbon capture [2], and nuclear energy, will continue to decline. > Just pretend for a moment that human behavior really is warming the planet and, if continued, will have devastating effect. I have. For a long time. The effects it's having (per scientists, not news outlets) are immediately manageable and if people quit being ignorant about energy policy (wasting money on windmills, solar panels, and batteries and instead invest in nuclear safety and redesigning regulation), can be outright solved and made a non-issue long before grandma melts in the backyard. --- What you fail to recognize is that you've been programmed, intentionally, to dismiss anything you disagree with as a "conspiracy theory." A term that was coined by the CIA to discourage people from questioning the JFK assassination. [3] [1] https://unlimitedhangout.com/2021/11/investigative-reports/un-backed-banker-alliance-announces-green-plan-to-transform-the-global-financial-system/ https://unlimitedhangout.com/2021/11/investigative-reports/u.... [2] https://carbonengineering.com/ https://carbonengineering.com/ [3] https://archive.org/details/CIADOC1035960/page/n1/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/CIADOC1035960/page/n1/mode/2up
  • agar 4y ago
    > CO2 has been decreasing You're looking at the wrong statistic, my friend. Climate is a global issue, so global emissions matter more than US emissions. Try this graph, from your same source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissions/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissi... (Of course CO2 declined in 2020-2021 due to the pandemic shutdown. Unfortunately, 2023 global CO2 emissions will likely continue the prior growth trend.) Your comment that the proper application of regulation, carbon capture, and nuclear energy would fuel declines is fine and I support all of the above. However, climate deniers and opportunists cherry-pick data and stall needed regulation in the name of politics and economics. Carbon Engineering-type solutions and generalized R&D into massive climate capture is absolutely necessary, but has little to no business model behind it without a carbon tax or other market-driven incentive. Again, climate deniers lambaste government-funded climate R&D and free-market incentives (i.e., accurately pricing carbon) as either pork-barrel politics or unnecessary and broad overreach. I'm being kind, because people at the extremes use much more dire language. Carbon Engineering is a fascinating case study and odd place to hang your hat. They are a startup, with 142 employees on LinkedIn and their flagship plant "is expected to capture one million tons of CO2 from the atmosphere annually when complete."[1] Humans emit approximately 35 billion metric tons of carbon annually, so it would take 35,000 Carbon Engineering plants in production to get us to carbon neutrality. And even then, our atmospheric CO2 is still 100 ppm higher than it was in 1960[2]. Who pays for building those plants? At best-case cost of $94/ton, who pays the $94M/year operating cost per plant, or $3.3 trillion per year? Actually reversing the carbon impact requires us to massively reduce emissions and massively invest in carbon capture. We're not doing either. Nuclear is a phenomenal technology, but a political and regulatory nightmare. Thankfully it's being re-thought, but that will take time - as will the process of building them. Significant additional nuclear power won't be connected to the grid for a minimum of 7 years, maybe 10. It's just not enough. This is why "all of the above" is such an important concept. We need to invest in research, revise regulations, create market incentives, and use wind and solar that are available today to feed our growing need for power instead of building new coal and gas fired plants. But there will never be the political will to do all of that when people delude themselves to believe carbon is declining (it's not), solutions will appear on their own (they won't), we aren't affecting the climate (we are), and the drive to shift to a lower carbon footprint is because a cabal of elites want to take over the world (they probably are, but that's always been the case and that doesn't mean climate change isn't real). [1] https://carbonengineering.com/ https://carbonengineering.com/ [2] https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_Engineering#Pilot_plant_demonstration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_Engineering#Pilot_plant...