4 ms·
All fine but if say 2% is the tipping quantity (I'm pulling numbers out of my arse here) and it happens so that those 10% are the only percents we as humans can
by soco 3y ago
All fine but if say 2% is the tipping quantity (I'm pulling numbers out of my arse here) and it happens so that those 10% are the only percents we as humans can influence, shouldn't we push to reduce those 10% and keep an enjoyable planet for our grandchildren? Only a couple hundred years ago the equilibrium was without any human 10& so we have pretty clear numbers here. Decades later is nothing on the scale of the humankind and we claim all the time we are pushing our species forward (remember the saying "one small step for the man..."?) while currently doing things the majority agrees are harming ourselves. It's only that this majority won't agree to even try to do anything about it.
- lr1970 3y ago> All fine but if say 2% is the tipping quantity (I'm pulling numbers out of my arse here) and it happens so that those 10% are the only percents we as humans can influence, shouldn't we push to reduce those 10% and keep an enjoyable planet for our grandchildren? Of course, we should do it and reduce our carbon emissions as much as we can. But in addition to it we should be researching additional ways to control the climate -- reflectivity of the oceans, stratospheric reflecting particulates, methane control, etc. Putting all the eggs in the CO2 control basket might not solve climate for this or next generations.
- soco 3y agoI mentioned that because reducing CO2 is the only known and proven way to solve climate as for now. Research? Sure. But let's not claim we don't know what to do and use that as a reason to wait until the hypothetical research results are in to do anything.