It will be unpopular in this space but I think humans have a mandate to be respectful to its enviroment and resources. I understand we need oil and gas and we cant live without all this stuff but I don't understand why it has to be so political to advocate for a cleaner more efficiently ran planet. We don't have to reduce energy consumption. We have to figure out more effective ways to produce denser amounts of energy cleanly.

Any reduction in any negative emissions is a good thing, and we should be mindful about shitting where we eat. I don't think it should be such an extreme thing that we significantly negatively impact peoples lives across the planet while doing it, but I really don't understand how we as a species has gotten to the point where you cannot have any nuance in your stance on these types of issues. You must either be all in one way or the other.

I am so tired of fighting with each other.

If there is a consensus of CO2 being a problem it is for a reason. Yes. It is a big problem. This question in 2023 doesn't make sense. It is going to be worse for next generations, a massive problem and they will hate us for this. We humans knew about the problem for decades and we did nothing. Now it is too late. We must face the consequences.

We can try to mitigate it a bit, that's all. We cannot reverse it anymore at least with current technology. We needed new nuclear technology decades ago. Fusion is advancing super fast but not fast enough.

You are living a mass extinction event at high speed. In other words. Yes. A big problem.

Reduce carbon emissions, increase energy usage.

this cunt that came up with this CO2 bs took a step back and thought about how he can gain power and influence. He figured every living being produces CO2 so that was going to be his angle. Then he figured humans most humans when asked pretend to care about the environment, and maybe they do, so he started acting like CO2 harms the environment. He started saying this over and over and eventually enough people believed it.

What he said next was that in order to prevent this, he should get money and power. But in order to not look like a total fraud he had to deliver something. And he figured Wind mills and Solar panels would pass for a solution. And thats why the world is littered with these kinds of monuments now. Because thats all they are. Monuments. They are not economically viable. They require capital and resources from other parts of the economy to be diverted to them, with force none the less, otherwise they couldnt exist. So they are our modern monuments. Built by slaves, but in a way, and under such pretenses, that people cant seem to figure it out. End of story.

Whether or not an energy source is "green" or renewable is not necessarily linked to CO2 emissions.

Biomass harvesting (like gasification of landfill waste or burning cow farts) is considered "green" even tho it still results in CO2 emissions.

Plus, renewable energy is often not green at all, causing massive deforestation, topsoil erosion and ground water toxicity from mining the metals and minerals to produce photo voltaic cells, wind turbines, etc.

Additionally, nuclear power generation is very "green" because its only byproduct is heat, water vapor and depleted uranium. But nuclear isn't renewable since there's a finite amount of uranium on earth.

Most people have no idea where energy comes from and 50% of people have below average IQs so the clean/dirty or green/hydrocarbon dicotamy is a flawed but popular heuristic for when people argue about energy even when they aren't qualified to do so.

I think "green" is a terrible term because most of the greenery on this planet comes from CO2 breathing plants. Plants actually grow faster during seasons with higher winds. In stillness, there is a local deficiency of CO2 around leaves. Plants are starving for CO2 almost constantly.

I used to grow cannabis and the way to achieve max yield was to introduce tanks of CO2 in the grow room. Even cycling in fresh outside air wasn't packing enough CO2 to max out what the plants were capable of soaking up.

I don't think limiting CO2 emissions as a government policy is a worthwhile effort. We'd be better off creating more (or rather repairing) CO2 sinks by planting more trees and restoring old growth forests.

CO2 emissions aren't that bad compared to other types of emissions that often come from burning hydrocarbon. What's way worse is sulphur emissions that create actually poisonous gasses and acidic precipitation. We should limit those toxic gasses for sure.

In general, I think there is CO2 hysteria. If something is actually environmentally harmful, it will be resolved. We saw this with ozone depletion caused by CFCs and also in urban areas with smog from toxic fumes. There was a clear and obvious link between the pollutants and the environmental harm and as a society, we organized to eliminate the source of the problem and nature healed itself.

Sure, you can measure CO2 levels in various locations over time and make conclusions about how fast the levels are rising. You can do the same with temperature and hypothesize that CO2 causes increased temperatures from greenhouse effect.

If this hypothesis is correct, its a good thing for human flourishing! Humans thrive in warmer climates.

The narrative lost me when I'm supposed to believe that increased temperatures will lead to sea levels rising until thousands of miles of coastline are underwater and we're in an uncontrollable death spiral until the earth is a scorched wasteland and human populations decline drastically. To me, this line of reasoning shows no respect for the ability of nature to heal and for humans to adapt. Humans are powerful enough to cause climate change but not powerful enough to undo it? IDK seems like a leap with a lot of assumptions.

I think long-term projections about climate change should be completely ignored. The biosphere is incredibly complex and impossible to model everything. Some of our "best and brightest" forecasted that COVID-19 would be the next Bubonic Plague but those models were invalidated after just a couple months. But somehow, we're supposed to take scientist's predictions about the next 50-100 years of climate data as gospel? Ok boomer.

With all that said, I think societies will still move away from hydrocarbons as a primary energy source. Nuclear and hydropower are better suited for providing reliable energy to the grid. At least in the US, nuclear and hydro are highly-regulated so it's artificially easier and cheaper to produce energy with hydrocarbons. Instead of applying more regulation to hydrocarbons, and subsidizing unreliable alternatives like wind and solar, why not de-regulate the other non-hydrocarbon reliables like nuclear and hydro? I think Bitcoin miners will be instrumental in changing the regulations around energy production in the USA.

Unless a person thinks CO2 doesn't exert a greenhouse effect or that CO2 in the atmosphere isn't increasing, they'll probably be interested in reducing emissions. The trickiness is at what cost and for what benefit.

Generally, I think attempts to reduce energy consumption are going fail. It's too useful. I think a lot of renewables are sometimes inconsiderate of end to end harms, costs, and tradeoffs.

I'd prefer our grid to go nuclear and we focus on capturing carbon via turning more deserts into grasslands.

More important to clean up the oceans from all the plastic waste.

I love this website! It's maybe the only place where you will not find consensus on this subject.

MORE CO2 = MORE PLANTS

It's a great for scaremongering useful idiots into more communist totalitarianism, but besides that it is just another gas in the atmosphere, the concentration of which may be slightly affected by human activity.

It's a great for scaremongering useful idiots into more communist totalitarianism, but besides that it is just another gas in the atmosphere, the concentration of which may be slightly affected by human activity.

It is not actually true that there is a consensus about CO2 being a problem. What are close to consensus opinions are that CO2 levels are rising and that we're in a long term warming trend. There is actually a lot of disagreement about the degree to which CO2 is contributing to warming, the degree to which humans are driving the increase in CO2, and whether or not a warmer world is something to be avoided.

It is also widely acknowledged that CO2 is causing a massive increase in global biomass.

My instincts tell me CO2 probably isn’t the most important emission / byproduct of industry to focus on, not by a long shot. Regardless, I agree the environment has been under a concerning amount of stress for a long time.

Should we do something about CO2? No.

I am in the camp that fossil fuels are necessary for human survival and advancement and that yes it is feasible that the rate of change we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere may be a concern but I don't think it is a near term problem. Technology will solve the problem if we don't allow grifters, power hungry politicians and climate communists to push their solution upon us.

It's hard to take the climate crazies seriously when their solution is to pretty much throw humanity back into the stone ages instead of something as simple as "it will take 100 years to fully transition to green energy so lets project what the excess carbon emissions will be over that time frame and work on mitigating unnecessary emission (switch coal to nat gas, methane capture etc) and capturing/sequestering the rest".

For everyone here who feels that reducing emissions is a wolf in sheep's clothing for government expansion, it is not. Please do not think that it is. It is entirely possible for carbon emissions to be reduced in a free market way, and to not try and do so is to knowingly damage the environment. Many people falsely try to wield carbon emissions against Bitcoin, but that doesn't mean we should give up this point.

With the monetary system they lied and cheated us but with the climatechange they always tell the truth. Google Gell-Man Amnesia

3rd option - more CO2

Learning to meditate and breathe deeply is known to reduce CO2 emissions as the number of breaths are reduced due to mindfulness - Buddha.

Where is the option to increase it to feed the plants?

Who is "we"? 🧐 ...if you attack someone's property, you can expect a lethal response.

Woke braindead agenda.