Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t JoNova; If you thought the impact of the Covid-19 lockdown on your financial circumstances or the national or global economy was bad, imagine if a similar amount of money was cumulatively sliced permanently off the global economy every year for the next 10 years. This is what the UN and national science bodies like the CSIRO want the world to accept, to hit their 1.5C Paris Agreement target.
Carbon dioxide levels over Australia rose even after COVID-19 forced global emissions down. Here’s why
August 13, 2020 12.18pm AEST
Zoe Loh
Senior Research Scientist, CSIROHelen Cleugh
Senior research scientist, CSIRO Climate Science Centre, CSIROPaul Krummel
Research Group Leader, CSIRORay Langenfelds
Scientist at CSIRO Atmospheric Research, CSIROCOVID-19 has curtailed the activities of millions of people across the world and with it, greenhouse gas emissions. As climate scientists at the Cape Grim Baseline Air Pollution Station, we are routinely asked: does this mean carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have fallen?
The answer, disappointingly, is no. Throughout the pandemic, atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) levels continued to rise.
…
Research in May estimated that due to the COVID-19 lockdowns, global annual average emissions for 2020 would be between 4.2% and 7.5% lower than for 2019.
…
The road ahead
It’s clear COVID-19 has not solved the climate change problem. But this fact helps us understand the magnitude of change required if we’re to stabilise the global climate system.
The central aim of the Paris climate agreement is to limit global warming to well below 2℃, and pursue efforts to keep it below 1.5℃. To achieve this, global CO₂ emissions must decline by 3% and 7% each year, respectively, until 2030, according to the United Nations Emissions Gap Report.
Thanks to COVID-19, we may achieve this reduction in 2020. But to lock in year-on-year emissions reductions that will be reflected in the atmosphere, we must act now to make deep, significant and permanent changes to global energy and economic systems.
Read more: https://theconversation.com/carbon-dioxide-levels-over-australia-rose-even-after-covid-19-forced-global-emissions-down-heres-why-144119
The following is a scolding from the United Nations, explaining what we naughty children have to do to get back onto the CO2 emissions path the UN has set out for us.
5. Dramatic strengthening of the NDCs is needed in 2020. Countries must increase their NDC ambitions threefold to achieve the well below 2°C goal and more than fivefold to achieve the 1.5°C goal.
- The ratchet mechanism of the Paris Agreement foresees strengthening of NDCs every five years. Parties to the Paris Agreement identified 2020 as a critical next step in this process, inviting countries to communicate or update their NDCs by this time. Given the time lag between policy decisions and associated emission reductions, waiting until 2025 to strengthen NDCs will be too late to close the large 2030 emissions gap.
- The challenge is clear. The recent IPCC special reports clearly describe the dire consequences of inaction and are backed by record temperatures worldwide along with enhanced extreme events.
- Had serious climate action begun in 2010, the cuts required per year to meet the projected emissions levels for 2°C and 1.5°C would only have been 0.7 per cent and 3.3 per cent per year on average. However, since this did not happen, the required cuts in emissions are now 2.7 per cent per year from 2020 for the 2°C goal and 7.6 per cent per year on average for the 1.5°C goal. Evidently, greater cuts will be required the longer that action is delayed.
- Further delaying the reductions needed to meet the goals would imply future emission reductions and removal of CO2 from the atmosphere at such a magnitude that it would result in a serious deviation from current available pathways. This, together with necessary adaptation actions, risks seriously damaging the global economy and undermining food security and biodiversity.
Read more: https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/30798/EGR19ESEN.pdf?sequence=13
United Nations personnel, top civil servants and government scientists would be unlikely to experience any personal hardship if the proposed cuts were implemented.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Do they really think that man can change the climate? They are obsessed by the emission of CO2. Even if it were possible to reduce human emission to zero, that would not change much, as the human emission is only a very small % of the natural emission.
And how do they explain the Medieval Warm Period? Perhaps by the CO2 emitted by the cars of the Vikings?
CO2 and CH4 emitted by the Vikings after mass consumption of Meade
MKostly CH4 emitted after the mas consumption of wurst and baked beans.
Yes Jean. Very small- about 3.4% of CO2 and 0.12% of all greenhouse gases. Pity I can’t paste the image showing this . Copy/paste doesn’t work for me in WUWT comments.
Jean: Yes, they think that climate is under “humanity’s control”.
Apparently we will remain in control of the climate until our control of it causes us to suddenly lose control of it – or something.
What they don’t think through are the possible political consequences of prolonged depression. I’m talking about war, authoritarianism, tribalism, criminality, and very likely an end to the UN System itself as the world collapsed into Machiavellian brutality.
Complex systems are unlikely to be amenable to elite control.
“the required cuts in emissions are now 2.7 per cent per year from 2020 for the 2°C goal and 7.6 per cent per year on average for the 1.5°C goal”
This doesn’t mean anything to anybody living in the real world.
Covid-19 lockdowns are estimated to have knocked 4.2-7.5% of global CO2 emissions, so a 7.6% intentional cut is comparable to the economic damage done by the Covid-19 lockdowns.
Damon means that they’re off this planet.
Perhaps they live on Planet-B, that magical place, where their computer models produce real results.
+97
And yet this failed to register so much as a blip on CO2 levels, last I heard. Or the temperature. So… NO.
If you stop emissions tomorrow the temperature doesn’t cool back to the current level for 70 years. That is why emission control is doomed to fail it does absolutely nothing for the people making the cuts in theory you are helping you great grandchildren which plays to about 10% of the population and more female than male.
“70 years”
In 1000 years 15% of our plume is still in the air, so more like 5000 years before the forcing finally fizzles out.
Btw, I agree about emission control not working for the reason you give. So say hello to accelerating warming.
“Loydo August 15, 2020 at 4:00 am
In 1000 years 15% of our plume…”
Our plume of what? Evidence?
Loydo,
Explain why a warmer world is not better. I think those people 1000 or 5000 years from now will thank us for ensuring the interglacial warm period continues.
Assuming CO2 actually warms the Earth’s atmosphere, after feedbacks are included.
I think anyone assuming that is assuming too much, based on our level of understanding of how CO2 interacts with the Earth’s atmosphere.
Climate Science is completely made up of unsubstantiated assumptions.
Loydo
Here is the mauna loa graph of co2
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Notice anything? No of course not. Even the scientists say to have an effect over the next decade we will have to have the devastating impact of covid in 2020 which has ruined many economies.
Then in 2021 the equivalent of covid and another covid then in 2022 the equivalent of covid, covid and covid. Well you get the picture as we rapidly descend to anarchy and medieval living conditions.
And at the end of all this what will be the effect on that co2 graph? Nothing, as it is the out gassing from the oceans that dwarfs our puny efforts.
Do you really want to wear a hair shirt in our climate ?
Tonyb
Loydo really does love to make stuff up.
All of the real world tests put the half life for CO2 in the atmosphere to a dozen years or less.
A single molecule has a half life of only a few years but a plume of CO2 lasts thousands of years. After all these years make-it-up Mark still telling lies about the basics.
I’m guessing that Loydo actually believes the nonsense he’s being paid to distribute.
As always, when called on one of his lies, he just gets more abusive.
“Loydo August 15, 2020 at 4:37 pm
A single molecule has a half life of only a few years but a plume of CO2 lasts thousands of years.”
What plume? Evidence please.
Where did you get your “dozen years or less” from Mark?
Carbon dioxide cycles between the atmosphere, oceans and
land biosphere. Its removal from the atmosphere involves a
range of processes with different time scales. About 50% of
a CO2 increase will be removed from the atmosphere within
30 years, and a further 30% will be removed within a few
centuries. The remaining 20% may stay in the atmosphere
for many thousands of years.
https://www.globalcarbonproject.org/global/pdf/ar4wg1_pub_ch07.pdf
I really hope you are right Dodo, because CO2 has been on a downward trajectory for millions of years, to the point of near life extinction during the norm now, which is full on advancing glaciation in this ice age we are living in. If there is any long term reason why Man evolved to be a good steward of the good Earth, is to ensure and maintain a healthy level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Life is carbon and relies on CO2 to operate optimally.
Let’s not forget that we have to MAINTAIN the reductions from this year indefinitely and FURTHER reduce emissions by a similar amount next year. After which we will need to maintain this year’s and next year’s cuts while further reducing by a similar amount.
This ever-lower emission scheme must continue, year after year until we are at net zero. Then during the neolithic restoration age that follows, it must remain net zero while the human population declines by famine and disease closer to the desired million or so green elitists and their servants. (That last part is not advertised of course, and must be inferred).
There is a vast difference between UN “hot air” and actual CO2 emissions.
Hot Air will actually increase real world global temperatures while CO2 only negatively affects Modeled Temperatures
“COVID-19 has curtailed the activities of millions of people across the world and with it…”
It did nothing of the sort. What did that was Govn’t policy and lockdowns. Not a surprise pile of carp from the CSIRO and The Conversation.
One thing I have noticed, and is why people “believe” in climate change, is that people “believe” in the COVID-19 propaganda, social distancing, mouth/nose nappies, hand-sanitiser etc etc. They “believe” the BS the Govn’t is telling them. Guess what? Now mouth/nose nappies are “POLLUTING” our streets, parks and waterways. Didn’t take long did it?
Covid is a tremendous bonanza for the private/biz/charter jet industry. Anything rental, airworthy heavy or light has customers on it’s waiting list.
Those who can afford it, and there’s a surprising and ever increasing number of them, fly private no matter the cost factor.
The climate nuts must be loving this virus. It’s turned most sitting Western politicians into loony raving Maoists.
No it’s taken up all the news and MSM oxygen and gives an insight it to what the greentards are actually asking for. It has also put massive dents in the world economy and basically put a nail in any emission control plan.
I see this phoney pandemic and climate change as part of the same Marxist agenda.
My new Marxist friends tell me that 2 + 2 = 5
Actually it’s 2+2=mine, not yours.
The math works better if you’re black!
“RockyRoad August 15, 2020 at 2:41 pm”
I’m black and I’m proud. (Movie quote).
Watermelons, the whole lot.
Most of the western politicians already were loony raving Maoists. The virus just gave them the excuse to stop hiding it.
“Most of the western politicians already were loony raving Maoists.”
Exactly!
They do still undertake actual scientific research in parts of the CSIRO.
However, they have a climate ‘science’ centre these days, 100 climate clowns swinging their heads from side to side, mouths open, waiting for the next paycheck for doing nothing.
For sure, the CSIRO helped train Shi Zhengli, who used those skills to create chimeric bat viruses, crosses between human and bat viruses, to see how difficult it was to turn a scary bat virus into a dangerous human virus. Her laboratory in Wuhan was criticised for poor biosafety by at least two parties.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/05/03/were-dangerous-wuhan-coronavirus-lab-experiments-part-funded-by-western-governments/
So nobody can say the CSIRO no longer conducts “real research”.
“DPP August 14, 2020 at 11:42 pm
They do still undertake actual scientific research in parts of the CSIRO.”
They sure do. Like they know how the exit door works at the end of the day at my local branch of this particular circus.
“The road ahead
It’s clear COVID-19 has not solved the climate change problem.
But this fact helps us understand the magnitude of change
required if we’re to stabilise the global climate system.
…
Thanks to COVID-19, we may achieve this reduction in 2020. ”
So the solution they propose is 750,000 deaths and $2.7 trillion economic loss each year until 2030?
I thought long, what have they sliced in the “CSIRO” lable like salmon sashimi.
Only when searched for what “CSIRO” is (never heard about it), I realized, it is sashimi of Australia!
“An Entire Covid-19 Lockdown Worth Of Cumulative CO2 Emission Cuts Required Each Year”
If you want to know why I think those pushing climatephobia will never win … that is the reason. Politicians who bought into the coronaphobia cult and wrecked the economy will be fighting to regain credibility for decades. And every time any of them says “we must fear climate change” (like they did COVID-flu), no matter how much censorship there is from google, facebook, twitter, they’ll get laughed at and ignored.
The key is China. If they don’t require China to cut CO2 emissions as drastically as the rest of us, then they don’t believe there’s any danger.
“If you thought the impact of the Covid-19 lockdown on your financial circumstances or the national or global economy was bad”
It was bad. The other bad thing is that it didn’t slow down the rise in atmosCO2.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/05/18/12479/
“Watts Up With That?
The world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change”
Not sure why I never noticed that before.
It is a significant achievement.
Congratulations.
And thank you.
This is what the UN and national science bodies like the CSIRO want the world to accept, to hit their 1.5C Paris Agreement target.
And it will make no difference because 98% of CO² is released from the oceans and I don’t suppose for one minute that the reduction of 2.7 is a coincidence. It’s the estimated amount of co² emitted by humans and human activity each year.
So these nasties want to shut down the world and kill a few billion people
This is similar to the statement made recently by Richard Betts of the Met Office, see https://blog.metoffice.gov.uk/2020/05/07/coronavirus-will-impact-the-atmospheric-co2-record-but-not-enough-to-slow-global-heating/.
“To halt the CO2 rise and prevent further global warming, global CO2 emissions would initially need to halve, and reduce by even more in the long term”.
Mr. Betts implies that he know just how much warmth a given amount of CO2 will add to the Earth’s atmosphere. Mr. Betts is confusing unsubstantiated assumptions with facts.
A new Covid *will* reduce the CO2 levels *if* it kills some billions of people.
Then, they will (obviously) stop eating food (carbohydrate) and thus there will be less tillage going on all around the world. Because THAT is where the CO2 is coming from.
Also, the observed ‘rising temperatures’ will level off – Earth albedo will start to rise again with greater amounts of greenery on its surface *and* there’ll be less city building.
Also> more organic matter in the dirt retaining moisture and reducing diurnal temperature variation
AKA: Soil Erosion
Its going to happen anyway and Covid has shown that
Covid mostly killed people with existing health problems and in their entirety, those health problems were caused by the consumption of carbohydrate food.
Exactly what happens in ‘Care Homes’ = carefully regulated places so that residents get the Government mandated diet.
Low fat, low salt, high fibre (an anti-nutrient) low vitamin (esp B and D) plus also as *cheap* and nasty as possible. eg The Mediterranean Diet, Of everyone likes that because it gives licence to alcohol consumption
Carbs fit the bill perfectly = low nutrient food, especially the B vitamins but also magnesium, selenium, copper, iodine and zinc..
If if Covid don’t do it, some other bug (3 billion of them fall from the sky on *every* square metre of Earth *every* day) – some other bug will do the biz.
As the song goes, ‘Its a rat-trap baby, and you’ve been caught’
We are aboard a Ship of Fools and its pointless (for the rats) jumping ship, there’s now nowhere left to run.
Ship of Fools was/is alluding to this:
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/08/why-britain-failed-coronavirus-pandemic/615166/
Its been going on for decades. Add to the (UK) list:
Foot & Mouth Disease (Foot In Mouth being intrinsic in most politicians, scientists and ‘experts’ these days along with Headless Chicken Disorder))
Bovine Spongiform
Diesel, the promotion of same in 2005 and subsequent demonisation
Not least also, Climate Change, Ozone Holes, Ocean Acidation, plastic
Brexit
Lockdown rules
Exam results
It’s clear COVID-19 has not solved the climate change problem
Nice try
Was it supposed to?
You’d best ask them
Yeah, but it has caused a “pause”. What comes next is my main concern?
“imagine if a similar amount of money was cumulatively sliced permanently off the global economy every year for the next 10 years.”
…mmm, but whatever you do, continue to discount the cost of doing nothing about some places suffering 5 or 6 degrees of warming. Indeed, refuse to even consider it a risk.
“Loydo August 15, 2020 at 1:44 am
…about some places suffering 5 or 6 degrees of warming.”
Evidence please!
There is zero chance emission control will work, no prohibition law has ever worked in the entire history of mankind. So once you accept the basic nature of that then one mans risk is another mans opportunity. If the Earth warmed 5 or 6 degrees there will be winners and losers, the trick is to maximize your chance to be in the winner group. You don’t do that by weakening you economy and pray other countrys feel like you do. You may sure you have the ability to pay for adaption that may be required.
There are far to many Australian voters who feel exactly like I do Loydo and you are doomed to pass a sad and depressed little bunny.
Yay, warmer weather.
What a thoughtful comment. I’m sure thats just what 500 million Indians are thinking too.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145167/heatwave-in-india
Newsflash: India gets unbearably hot in Summer! Who knew? (Apart from Loydo?)
“Graemethecat August 15, 2020 at 4:21 am
Newsflash: India gets unbearably hot in Summer! Who knew? (Apart from Loydo?)”
Not the ~1.4billion people who live there!
500 million Indians are thinking that they would enjoy the same standard of living as you do.
“Please Loydo, don’t save us, please don’t save us, we want to be bad like you, let us be bad, we’ll suffer the consequences…” etc.
Thankfully India is developing their coal infrastructure so everyone can afford air conditioning.
In any case, 45C is only scary to people who have an office job. My first job, in Summer inside the factory it sometimes hit 55C, with visible clouds of steam floating through the air. Plenty of people, bakers, miners, factory workers, work every day for decades in similar conditions.
Loydo why are you even talking about a heatwave last year????
Want to have a guess the best number of deaths even crazy climate scientists could attribute … 184. Do you know how many people in India die per day .. 25270.
Want to have a guess how many of that daily total are from smoking … go on guess?
If you really think fixing climate change is somehow going to stop people dying in India or make their life quantitatively better you really are more stupid than even we thought.
If you cared about people in India, you’d want money to clean sanitation and drinking water supplies, not climate change BS.
India picked some low-hanging fruit for Paris that they were already trending towards, and they are on track to hit those. They apparently won’t hit forest cover https://thewire.in/environment/india-paris-climate-agreement-targets . And even if they do hit their goal of lower emissions per GDP, it is coming with much higher emissions. India’s commitments were deemed insufficient in the first place, so no celebration would be in order even if they did fulfill their part of the agreement.
So don’t tell us how we should care about India’s climate change issues when even India only pays lip-service to climate change issues.
Loydo
You do know that you linked to a 2019 report?
Generally only records kept since independence are used for official purposes
The records kept by the British raj date back to the late 1700’s and we can see numerous intense heat waves occur at frequent intervals. The heat is one of the reasons India was so poor, but industrialisation and growing affluence make air conditioning more practical.
I am sure you will agree that It will be a good day when even the poor of india can enjoy the coolness that a/c brings
Tonyb
You think the answer to AGW is more a/c?
What [C]AGW?
You should describe it properly: Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.
You are predicting catastrophic consequences from humans adding CO2 to the Earth’s atmosphere, aren’t you? Of course you are, so use the term “Catastrophic” when apprpriate, which would be every time it is claimed that dire consequences will happen by adding more CO2 in the atmosphere.
Even according to the sainted IPCC, CO2 will have the least impact on places where there is a lot of water vapor in the atmosphere.
You know the difference between weather and climate ?
Heatwave is weather, where ever, even in India, be sure !
😀
The difference between weather and climate.
Warmer is always climate.
Colder is always weather.
The director of Max Planck Institute of Meteorology , Dr Marotzke , does not seem to be too worried :
https://notrickszone.com/2020/08/14/max-planck-institute-for-meteorology-director-not-worried-about-climate-tipping-points-worried-about-panic/
-“Five degrees “very very unlikely”
When asked about the results of the French model released earlier this year, which assumes five degrees of warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, Marotzke expressed his amazement, telling the FAZ what he thought of the French scientists: “My God, what are you doing? Because it is very, very unlikely that the true climate is as sensitive as these new models show.”
“The issue of climate sensitivity is extremely complex. Therefore, the results of a model should first be treated with caution,” Marotzke said.
When asked why the French model produced such a high warming for a doubling of CO”, Marotzke said he didn’t know why: “No one understands why they published it without first reflecting. The British did it differently, they said the new value is a mystery to us. They first want to investigate what the reason is and whether the warming rate is realistic.” “-
I have noticed that dogmatists and fanatics are incapable of doing a logical cost-benefit analysis.
I have noticed that the less the world responds to CO2, the scarier the projections have gotten.
You have convinced me loydo. I have emitted my last plume. Sorry, I would’ve posted that where you said it, but comments had reached the limit. But tell me more of this 5
or 6 degrees, o wise one. Where is this happening?
“Cost of doing nothing?” US has done a wonderful job of reducing CO2 emissions without whackjob totalitarian ideas.
Of course the chances of the world warming up, even if the absurd 8.5 scenario were to be followed would be 0.0%, or less.
If the world does warm up by 5 to 6 degrees, all that would happen would be the earth would get back to the temperatures enjoyed during most of the Holocene Optimum.
Your seriously out there mate. To be frank there is no / little warming, no/little sea level rise and most of the little can be attributed to coning out of a cooling phase in the 17/18/ early 19th century.
If you want any sort of credibility, explain all the variations in climate in the past 10,000 where CO2 was clearly NOT the control knob of climate variation AND where some of these changes were in a decade or so……explain old mate
In other news – a nitrogen threesome joins the infrared party
https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2020/08/15/twos-company-threes-a-crowd-a-nitrogen-threesome-joins-the-ir-party/
Interesting, thanks!
“ If nitrogen is indeed active in IR due to this threesome-formation behaviour…”
Whoaa….Right close to zero nanopercent of atmospheric nitrogen is bombarded by enough high energy photons to dissociate….which is what this IR absorption requires.
DMac
This is not about nanopercents. It is a prominent night-time IR radiation from the sky. Try reading the paper, here’s the abstract:
Stebbins J, Whitford AE, Swings P. A strong infrared radiation from molecular nitrogen in the night sky. Astrophysical Journal. 1945;101:39-46.
Mount Wilson Observatory and Washburn Observatory.
A new infrared radiation has been detected in the night sky, which is far more intense than the ordinary persistent aurora giving the green line at 5577 A. Measured with a photocell and filters, the wave length of the new radiation is 10,440 +/-25 A.
This night-sky radiation is identified with the (0, 0) band of the first positive group B3II – A3(sigma) of N2. The absence of other D(N2) bands sugests that emission of the (0, 0) band involves conversion of the energy of dissociation D(N2) into excitation in a three-body collision:
N + N + N2 = N2 + N2(exc)
Since D(N2) is a little larger than the excitation energy of B3II, v’ = 0, but smaller than B3II, v’ = 1, only the bands arising from B3II, v’ = 0, would be excited; and of the latter, only (0, 0) is observable. This mechanism implies the presence of a large number of nitrogen atoms in the high atmosphere. It can be effective only with the value of 7.38v of D(N2) advocated by Herzbeng and Sponer.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=stebbins+%09A+strong+infrared+radiation+from+molecular+nitrogen&btnG=
A 20% reduction over three months, yet global measurements continued to show a rise.
The obvious answer is that this CO2 did not come from man.
NO2 showed a decrease, clearly measurable, but not CO2.
So where the hell is the CO2 coming from? Where is the big unknown CO2 cycle we are missing?
The oceans emit gigatonnes of CO2. Even Elon Musk is awed.
The ocean is a net CO2 sink.
A warming ocean emits CO2 to the atmosphere. The oceans hold approximately 50 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere, so the oceans are essentially an infinite source of CO2.
I thought it was the other way around, a warming ocean takes more CO2 in, like sea plants like warmer water AND love CO2, more plant life = more animals, all live and die and go on to become limestone, ….so the ocean temperature actually plays a balancing role with atmospheric CO2
At Ottowa, no, colder can hold more gas. When you leave a bottle of coke in the sun, it goes flat. Keep it in the fridge, it wont.
It’s a CO2 absorber.
Only in cold regions. In the tropics it out-gasses even more than you do.
Unlike me its a NET sink.
Where did this 20% nonsense come from. At the height of the lockdown, we were being told that CO2 reduction was only 10%, and most countries have eased their lockdowns substantially since that time.
Well I was told it was 19%.
Regardless, it didnt register at all on the Mauna loa graph.
Why would it, Mauna loa doesn’t measure emissions.
From the ( slightly) warming oceans perchance? Like it did throughout the planet’s history.Oceans have along”memory. “
They claim cuts are needed to ‘stabilise the climate’. Ha. The climate is already as stable as it’s ever going to be, and certainly hasn’t been de-stabilised’ by human-emitted carbon dioxide. Yet more fake news.
A Swiss company called Climeworks AG has been set up to extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and sell it to soft drink makers and the like. Its website says it provides a solution that empowers everyone to be climate positive… Coming soon, carbon-neutral Dr Pepper.
That’s hilareous! Once you pop open a can of carbonated beverage the CO2 begins to effervesce back into the air. And that part you consume is released in burps! And you think cow farts are a problem.
This whole fetish about CO2 has become a farce. CO2 doesn’t cause temps to rise. Rising temps encourage the biosphere to grow that increases it to produce more CO2.
They simultaneously understand and don’t understand Henry’s Law. How Orwellian.
So each year we should repeat something which demonstrably failed to make any change/improvement towards their own stated objective?
Yeah, it’s a lot like communism in that way.
Ha ha! That was good.
To paraphrase an old Russian joke:
It’s always getting better. Last year was better than this year, and this year is better than next year! Every year it gets better!
I’m constantly amazed that socialists cannot see the futility of communism when it is in evidence all over the world at all times.
pity theres no really short sharp snappy way to fit the info on a bumper sticker;-(
but yeah IF you could get people to wake the F up re the not happening drop,despite the massive costs and unemployment etc theyre experiencing as whats wanted BY the WHO IPCC and th other mobs it really might finally sink in its NOT going to improve a damned thing for their lives OR their kids/grandkids..
For those who haven’t already seen it, we present the following from the Scripps Institute of Oceanography. Good luck finding a link between Covid lockdowns and atmospheric CO2 levels.