In favor of other resources such as nuclear, hydroelectric, solar, wind, and etc.?
I think this will help with CO2 mitigation, but each alternative resource has its own problems....
Eventually we will. But we need a transition first. That transitional period will probably last a long time.
Honestly, we'll probably have nuclear fusion solved during that transition. That'll make it a lot easier to switch away from fossil fuels for good.
Yeah the main problem is none come close to replacing what fossil fuels produce.
Solar and wind are a complete joke. They’re expensive. Kill animals. And don’t even produce 10% or what humans use.
Nuclear is productive but one accident has the potential of killing millions.
Co2 is plant food. Without it we all die. Too much is bad like on Venus where the atmosphere of Venus is 90 times more dense than that on Earth and it is made of 96.5% of CO2. Here it’s the product of natural sources such as the planet, and natural life. Humans produce less than 3% of the co2 in the atmosphere which makes up less than .04% of the entire atmosphere.
The co2 scare is just another sham of the left and the democrat media/party. No ideas, no solutions.
" the main problem is none come close to replacing what fossil fuels produce. "
For now. Eventually technology will improve and they'll replace it.
Many years ago, cigarette companies knew their product caused cancer but engaged in a coverup which was eventually discovered.
Deja vu! The oil corporations knew their product created global warming and spent money to deny and confuse the American public. Oilmen Koch brothers spent over $100 million dollars and funneled the money through different organizations to refute global warming.
https://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/203_co2-graph-061219.jpg
40% more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution.
Your propaganda is coming from bloggers, oilmen and politicians receiving money from them instead of scientists.
i didnt realize that oil corporations existed 12,000 years ago when the glaciers receded in north america...very intriguing...
shareI suggest you look at this graph which covers the last 800,000 years of CO2 in the atmosphere. https://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/203_co2-graph-061219.jpg
The natural climate cycle's (CO2 at 180ppm-280ppm) last high level of CO2 which precipitated the melting of glaciers in North America 12,000 years ago was much lower at 280 ppm than the current level of 400 ppm.
Unless humans act, CO2 concentrations will pass 500 ppm in the coming decades, and could eventually rise to 2,000 ppm.
we were also running out of oil in the 1970's and scientists cant figure out if pluto is a planet or not. the earth has been warming and cooling for a long time...hence the ice caps...if the earth is warming because of us, then why isnt anybody doing anything about it? people keep just complaining...
share"running out of oil in the 1970's "
New technology helped reach previously unobtainable oil reserves and create fracking.
"pluto is a planet or not. "
Science isn't static, but is continually making new discoveries and changing beliefs based on those new discoveries.
"why isnt anybody doing anything"
There is plenty being done, but not enough. Too many powerful and super rich people who can control policy and public opinion. Some people are also in denial.
"earth has been warming and cooling for a long time"
Carbon dioxide stayed within a certain range. At the start of the Industrial Age, emissions moved the range much higher and within a short amount of time. See graph:
https://climate.nasa.gov/system/resources/detail_files/24_co2-graph-061219-768px.jpg
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been
Our planet probably experienced its hottest temperatures in its earliest days, when it was still colliding with other rocky debris (planetesimals) careening around the solar system. The heat of these collisions would have kept Earth molten, with top-of-the-atmosphere temperatures upward of 3,600° Fahrenheit.
Even after collisions stopped, and the planet had tens of millions of years to cool, surface temperatures were likely more than 400° Fahrenheit.
Between 600 and 800 million years ago—a period of time geologists call the Neoproterozoic—evidence suggests the Earth underwent an ice age so cold that ice sheets not only capped the polar latitudes, but may have extended all the way to sea level near the equator.
It is still uncertain where all the carbon dioxide came from and what the exact sequence of events was. Scientists have considered the drying up of large inland seas, volcanic activity, thawing permafrost, release of methane from warming ocean sediments, huge wildfires, and even—briefly—a comet.
Modern human civilization, with its permanent agriculture and settlements, has developed over just the past 10,000 years or so. The period has generally been one of low temperatures and relative global (if not regional) climate stability.
Apparently the Earth has cooled down quite a bit over years, we should be lucky its not 400 degrees anymore.
That would be a good thing for the planet, but I don't see it happening anytime soon. Chevron and other companies will do their best to block it, unless they go into solar power or others. Good luck.
shareYou need to go first with Sanders population control. No chance any reduction in fossil fuel can happen with this increasing population.
https://boereport.com/2016/07/07/world-demand-for-oil-and-gas-will-continue-to-increase/
Increasing population will take away the room that is needed for solar or wind. A large population on those technology will have to take from other areas resourses to make up for loss. You can't have blackout all the time.As Sanders says we should do away with unnessasary people.
With the exception of China, countries tend to want population growth to help the economy. An overpopulated Earth causes problems too.
It would make more sense to have fewer children and grow economies with immigration. That is happening now in Western countries like Germany and the U.S which have a drop in native population growth and an increase in immigration to keep the economy growing.
Unless we are willing to bomb China and India back to the Stone Age there is absolutely NO hope that CO2 levels are going to decrease.
So the anti-free enterprise gang better start getting serious about finding ways to extract CO2 from the atmosphere. Funny how that is rarely discussed isn't it? Maybe (well...yes, no maybe about it) it's all about bringing down the US economy.
Eventually, countries will take it seriously, but only after costing millions in lives and billions in economic lost. I feel sorry for young people because they will live a hellish existence.
shareI think the risks are way overhyped. The media has an agenda and so to the climate change scientists.
I live in an area that became a high risk flood zone only few years ago. Many homes were destroyed and people died. The sea level is raising and the neighborhood where I was born, raised and still live will be underwater unless something is done. I've seen the change with my own eyes. There is no overhype.
shareYou might want to tell it to Obama, he recently spent something like 14 million on a house on the beach.
shareThat's why there's flood insurance.
Personally, I wouldn't depend on it because I know people who fought for years to receive money to rebuild, although I don't believe the Obamas will have that problem.