Sandra is pretty mad about global warming. So is the Nat Geo and Sandra sent this article on global warming from National Geo. It is a pretty wild-eyed.
(This is representative: "The IPCC’s Special Report lays out various pathways to stabilize global warming at 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius). These solutions all require unprecedented efforts to cut fossil-fuel use in half in less than 15 years and eliminate their use almost entirely in 30 years. This means no home, business, or industry heated by gas or oil; no vehicles powered by diesel or gasoline; all coal and gas power plants shuttered; the petrochemical industry converted wholesale to green chemistry; and heavy industry like steel and aluminum production either using carbon-free energy sources or employing technology to capture CO2 emissions and permanently store it." This is directly from the report.)
|
www.nationalgeographic.com
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says the world is headed for painful problems sooner than expected,as emissions keep rising.
| ||
And she wrote:
And President Trump does not agree by pulling out of the Paris agreement..and we were warned about this at least ten years ago..what sort of world do we leave for our children and their children..
Sandra
I wrote back,
Hi Sandra,
The ten year disaster predictions are beginning to look like the Russian Five Year Plans.
But, regardless of what you think about the Paris Accords, there are very straightforward solutions to carbon production in the world. The first, second and third worlds could all contribute.
First, the Americans. The Americans have dropped their production dramatically over the last years, more than anyone else, but could go further by attacking the major carbon producer, the military. So a retraction of American military usage would be a step. Start there.
Second, deforestation. Preventing slash and burn techniques in farming areas--especially Brazil--would be a start. Outlawing primitive areas' use of coal, wood and peat sources would also help. That's two.
Third, coal fire plants. There are coal plants going on line every several weeks in India, every week in China. The Paris accords admitted those two countries would not curb their coal plant expansion--expansion--until 2030. 2030! So, they could stop that.
That would be three terrific steps right there. (I am sure there are other simple steps that could be taken and achieved simply by government fiat--without the reactionary Americans--like outlawing meat-eating, killing methane producing farm animals, curtailing travel and shipping, limiting military maneuvers, planting forests, killing carbon producing wild life; all are simple, achievable, minimally-intrusive objectives.)
On the assumption that Trump is too idiotic to do the first, we'll just have to rely on the good intentions of the other two groups. It would probably be more than we need, but we can achieve these goals without the Americans. All we need is the rest of the world's commitment. So I am sure it will work out just fine.
Love to all,
Jim
And a couple of notes on Paris Accords:
|
steeleydock.blogspot.com
The Paris Accords Trump is said to be considering leaving the Paris Climate Accords. I do not know his reasons but reasons are often fore...
|
|
steeleydock.blogspot.com
Sandra has noted, critically, that I have not condemned Trump's exit from the Paris Accords. What is interesting about the Accords is why ...
|
No comments:
Post a Comment