[ifdefdebug]

So we burned a pile of wood and now everyone in the warehouse is having a bad time. Some people in the warehouse say: please stop burning piles of wood, we need what's left from the air for breathing. But you say: nah, can't clean it up, so it's fine let's just keep burning more piles of wood.

This is satire right?

[robomartin]

Your comment is a case of taking a super-simplified thinking tool example and extrapolating it to make it fit a ridiculous reality. This, as well as ignoring the FACT that I did say that there are lots of reasons to clean up our act that have nothing whatsoever to do with the laughable idea of affecting change at a planetary scale.

So, yeah, thanks for a lazy and dishonest interaction. This is the reason we are still buried in fantasy-land.

Note that not a single person commenting against my claim has taken the time to explain how we can erase half the CO2 production from this planet by eliminating entire nations and actually make things better. Not a single person.

CO2 ligers in the atmosphere for 100+ years. It is impossible to claw it back in a meaningful way. It is also impossible to REDUCE atmospheric CO2 concentration at anything even remotely approaching a human lifetime scale, even several lifetimes. Believing anything else is to believe a fantasy of planetary proportions.

Here, read this:

https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-much-carbon-dioxide-woul...

and this:

https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-much-carbon-dioxide-woul...

and this:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273392977_Energy's_...

and this:

https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/reversing-ocean-acidification-aggr...

and then look at this:

https://i.imgur.com/37AKa8L.png

and then stop to think, learn, do some research and try to understand that you are in the Matrix.

[ifdefdebug]

You claim that a 14% or even a 50% reduction of emissions would make no impact. Well, current climate research suggests differently:

- no reduction: > +4ºC by 2100 - 50% reduction: +2ºC by 2100

And those are two very different worlds we are talking about here.

So no, my comment is spot on: you say that, because current CO2 levels can't be undone, there is no difference between allowing this level to raise indiscriminately and trying to keep it at bay. It looks like you are caught in some kind of thought trap you can't get out of, and you feel like you stepped out of the matrix. Be careful, there is no matrix. It was only a movie.

[robomartin]

> 50% reduction: +2ºC by 2100

This is a fantasy. That's the problem. It will not happen. Not even close.

> you are caught in some kind of thought trap

The ones caught in a thought trap are people who actually believe things such as actually being able to reduce world-wide emissions by 50% in a few dozen years. It's impossible. Truly impossible. It will not happen. No matter what the US and Europe might do to destroy their entire economies.

The truth is uncomfortable. I get it. It is far easier to get onboard a religion than to challenge it and understand reality.

All I can say is: Remember this conversation and, in ten and twenty years, check what you thought you knew against future reality.

I have been doing this now for about twenty years. So far, none of what the merchants of fear and marketers of (fake) solutions has aligned with reality. In fact, this profitable cult goes back farther than that, with guys like Al Gore (Inconvenient Truth) pushing various end-of-the-world predictions as far back the 1980's and, arguably, as far back as the 1970's. These people pushed bullshit like the planet facing "full ecosystem collapse" in 8 to 10 years; with different forms of this delusion promoted in the '80's, '90's, 2000's, etc.