If we don't start thinking big about the CO2 problem, we may miss our opportunity to stop a climate runaway that will trash the habitable parts of the earth.
It seems that, notwithstanding the dramatic increases in manmade CO2 emissions over the last decade, the world's warming has stopped.
Investigations during the last few decades have brought hydrogen instead of carbon, and instead of CO2 water, the mother of all life, into the foreground.
hen the price of carbon reaches $100 a tonne, then it will become an economically viable business proposition to start taking CO₂ out of the atmosphere and sequestering it underground.
CO2 is so beneficial. . . it would be crazy to try to reduce it
Sunspots and cosmic rays have a 79 percent correlation with our thermometer record since 1860. Meanwhile the CO2 correlation is a mere 22 percent.
I think any public policy that doesn't account for the fact that most CO2 emissions don't come from the United States, but they come from other countries, is a flawed policy. So let's not unilaterally tax our power, our people, to solve a global problem.
CO₂ emissions anywhere threaten civilisation everywhere.
CO2 is a pollutant? Tell that to the plants.
We can no longer completely avoid anthropogenic climate change. At best, limiting the temperature rise to two degrees is just about possible, according to optimistic estimates. That's why we should spend more time talking about adjusting to the inevitable and not about reducing CO2 emissions. We have to take away people's fear of climate change.
The US in some ways has been the best. Who figured out shale gas? Although that wasn't a good thing [for CO2 levels], it was very innovative. It's led to low-cost energy. Who figured out nuclear power? Largely the United States. Once you get past the steam engine, which is mostly British, then the US has been at the center of most of the energy things that have happened.
Only by advocating 'politically unrealistic' CO2 concentrations can runaway global warming be avoided. But what is politically realistic for humans is whollymunrelated to what is physically realistic for the planet.
Absolutely love the new campaign from the Optimum Population Trust: do your bit for addressing climate change by having fewer children - or even no children. The lifetime CO2 emissions of a UK citizen amount to 750 tonnes (the equivalent - apparently - of 620 return flights between London and New York), so the extra 10 million by which our population will rise between now and 2074 will, over their lifetimes, emit around 7½ billion tonnes of CO2. . . "births averted" is probably the most single most substantial and cost-effective intervention that governments could be using
Weather patterns over the next 20 or 30 years are going to be determined by the amount of CO2 that is up there now
With this information, in light of the increasing human demands on vegetation, it is my personal opinion that capping CO2 emissions or reducing them to some prior level would be akin to 'biting the hand that feeds us.
Even if producing CO2 was good for the environment, given that we're going to run out of hydrocarbons, we need to find some sustainable means of operating.
I think the whole human-induced greenhouse gas thing is a red herring. . . . I see climate change as due to the ocean circulation pattern. I see this as a major cause of climate change. . . . These are natural processes. We shouldn't blame them on humans and CO2.
I am troubled by the lack of common sense regarding carbon dioxide emissions. Our greatest greenhouse gas is water. Atmospheric spectroscopy reveals why water has a 95 percent and CO2 a 3. 6 percent contribution to the 'greenhouse effect. ' Carbon dioxide emissions worldwide each year total 3. 2 billion tons. That equals about 0. 0168 percent of the atmosphere's CO2 concentration of about 19 trillion tons. This results in a 0. 00064 percent increase in the absorption of the sun's radiation. This is an insignificantly small number.
Our CO2 mixes with everyone else's within a year, then hangs around for centuries like a shroud.
It looks as though yields of over 10 times what we can currently grow per acre are feasible if you control the CO2 concentration, the humidity, the temperature, all the various factors that plants depend on to grow rapidly.
