Yawn. Same moronic alarmists that are so obsessed with their own righteousness that they cannot comprehend that reasonable people can look at the facts come to different conclusions.
There is a word for people who denigrate people who do not adhere to their doctrine: religious zealots.
BTW: Everything I have said about the impracticality of doing anything about CO2 given the current state of technology is true. People claiming that action has not occurred because of "big oil" conspiracies or other nonsense are living in self-delusion. Most governments have not acted because they know there is nothing they can do other than **** people off and damage the economy. Those that have acted have payed a high price in terms of higher bills for consumers/voters and have precious little to show for the pain.
I respect your differences of opinion on this topic but one I disagree with you on is the notion that CO2 emission programs are futile. I do agree to date some programs have not worked as effectively as was hoped but to throw them all out as futile is not accurate.
I do have the same concerns you do that many of emission reduction programs may simply enable the worst of polluters to continue polluting and buying their way out of having to do anything and I base my concern on articles such as this:
http://science.uwaterloo.ca/~mauriced/earth691-duss/CO2_General%20CO2%20Sequestration%20materilas/Early%2520Emissions%2520final%2520revision%2520June%25202001.pdfHowever I agree with the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change when it concluded that the world is currently on track to emit enough greenhouse gas emission to exceed 2°C of global warming by 2040 and that beyond that threshold, the risks of "dangerous" ramifications of climate change escalate. Sp O can't buy in to this just sit on our asses mind set as this happens.
I would further argue that since 3/4 of emitted CO2 comes from fuel combustion (anthropogenic origin) and only 1/4 comes from natural CO2 cycles on the planet, it is illogical to justify inaction saying its not something that we humans create and therefore can not be stopped. Blaming mother nature for what is happening and saying we can't change mother nature is for me intellectually dishonest. Its the 3/4's of human created green house gas emissions that are warming the planet we can and should reduce. No one is claiming the 1/4 portion that happens naturally does not happen but some of us are arguing that 1/4 portion is not causing the problems.
So I would argue and take my arguments from:
https://www.energycentral.com/c/um/climate-change-bold-approach-co2-emission-reduction-usA is that pursuing a realistic assumption for CO2 reduction is in fact the most efficient way to reduce CO2 emission.
I would argue we need to replace the worst emitter (coal power plant for electricity) with near zero emission generators such as:
renewable energy sources (wind, solar, biomass;
large hydropower plants;
biomass power plants.
In regards to biomass power plant burns Sweden has already been using them with positive results. The biomass is used to make steam and ultimately electricity. It comes from garbage
Biomass provides 1.8% of US electricity. It has limitations yes, but is it futile of course not. It works.
As well there is solid date that better forest management and slowdown in deforestation contributes to emission reduction and we can control that. Consider this:
1-15% of global carbon dioxide emissions come from deforestation;
2-32 million acres of forest per year were cut and burned from 2000-09;
3-the process of cutting and burning trees adds as much pollution to the atmosphere as all the cars and trucks in the world combined.3 Therefore, any realistic plan to reduce global warming pollution sufficiently—and in time—must include the preservation of tropical forests/
Here is data that proves effective forest management is an effective reducer of CO2emissions:
http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/281182/icode/.
Here is a CO2 emission program for airports the State of Israel started in 2014 and people are watching and its very premature to call it futile:
https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Lists/ActionPlan/Attachments/51/Israel_Action%20Plan_%20December%202014.pdfInteresting the program is called: "ICAO Action Plan on CO2 Emission Reduction of Israel" and I am sure the anti Zionists on this board seeing the reference to reduction of Israel will get all excited but alas it refers to CO2 emission reduction, not the reduction of Israel so calm down.
Hell even oil companies are trying to engage in CO2 emission programs. Sure its good pr but if it was stupid, they would not do I. Take for example Irving Oil. It publically states it recognizes that the emission of greenhouse gases due to human activity is impacting our global climate and requires action by us all. They claim in this regard they are providing cleaner transportation fuels and trying to reduce their carbon footprint.
They claim to have implemented a carbon reduction goal to reduce carbon dioxide emissions 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, in alignment with GHG reduction targets agreed upon at the 2009 UNFCC Copenhagen Climate Change Conference.
They also claim In 2011 they were successful in obtaining a 13 percent reduction in our GHG emissions intensity and continue to investigate new ways to further reduce emissions.
source:
https://irvingoil.com/en/corporate-social-responsibility/environmental-responsibility/carbon-reduction/OK it may be propaganda, good will pr, be cynical, but why is it futile? Why isn't it an example of a positive corporate response?
Nissan has a similar program called the The Nissan Green Program 2016 (NGP2016),which was actually started in 2011:
https://nissannews.com/en-CA/nissan/canada/releases/nissan-global-corporate-activities-reduce-co2-emissions-by-22-6-percentWhy are its efforts futile?
I am also aware of the many arguments saying CO2 emission programs and policies are too costly, but I would argue not necessarily and it depends who you ask. For example there is a policy model by Stanford Graduate School of Business accounting professor Stefan Reichelstein that suggests it’s not only possible but also less costly than many think. see:
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/what-would-it-really-cost-reduce-carbon-emissionsHere is my concluding and I think most up to date argument. In the US as everyone knows, Donald Trump has abandon the National Clean Energy Standard and has an Secretary in his cabinet dedicated to undoing all federal pollution and environmental regulations as the article source I quite bekow points out: a number of leading U.S. corporations are implementing climate-changing emissions from their operations and supply chains because as Wayne Batla, the VP of Corporate Envrionental Affairs and Product Safety at IBM was quoted as saying:
"We do it because it makes good business sense—whether it's top of the fold [politically] or not,"
source:
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20120906/major-corporations-quietly-reducing-emissions%E2%80%94and-saving-moneyThe fact is many members of the corporate sector are on board implementing CO2 emission programs and achieving remission results. How can that not be positive?