It's not too late

July 12, 2022
 by Paul McGowan

Over the past few months, I have been privileged to be part of an amazing team working on a project that is near and dear to my heart. Getting the facts straight about Climate Change.

Through the efforts of hundreds of volunteers from around the world, the work is finished.

And, it's about time.

When it comes to the issue of Climate Change we urgently need facts, not opinions. Insights, not statistics. And a shift from thinking about climate change as a “me” problem to a “we” problem.

The Carbon Almanac publishes today.

It is a once-in-a-lifetime collaboration between hundreds of writers, researchers, thinkers, and illustrators that focuses on what we know, what has come before, and what might happen next. Drawing on over 1,000 data points, the book uses cartoons, quotes, illustrations, tables, histories, and articles to lay out carbon’s impact on our food system, ocean acidity, agriculture, energy, biodiversity, extreme weather events, the economy, human health, and best and worst-case scenarios. Visually engaging and built to share, The Carbon Almanac is the definitive source for facts and the basis for a global movement to fight climate change.

This isn’t what the oil companies, marketers, activists, or politicians want you to believe. This is what’s really happening, right now. Our planet is in trouble, and no one concerned group, corporation, country, or hemisphere can address this on its own. Self-interest only increases the problem.

Join me, today, in celebrating the launch of this extraordinary book.

Grab a copy here.

We are in this together. And it’s not too late for concerted, collective action for change.

Subscribe to Paul's Posts

64 comments on “It's not too late”

  1. It seems to me, at least half of the US is generally not interested in facts, regardless of the topic. Hopefully I’m wrong. I wish you good luck for this good initiative!

    1. I think all believers aren’t interested in facts but rather in fantastic tales and sweet dreams distracting them from facts-based reality which are often hard to stand. I am also convinced: it’s too late! Worldwide t differences in cultural values are simply to big for finding a common agreement in a sustainable path.

  2. I was considering buying the book so I looked at the index of the book on Amazon. There does not appear to be an entry for the ice core data in the index. I am perplexed as to how one discusses climate change without discussing the ice core date?

  3. I can see the polar ice melting.
    I can see tiny islands in the pacific disappearing underwater.
    I can see the coral of The Great Barrier Reef dying from the acidification of our oceans.
    Strike 3; you're out!

    I'm sure that it's a great book Paul, (the shock that we all need) but I don't need to read it to see what's been happening for the last 2 decades & the fact that it's accelerating.

    The biggest problem is that China can't afford to stop manufacturing at their current levels of production if the CCP wants to keep 'the natives' happy & even though the CCP likes to tell us all that they are using more 'Green Power', the fact is that they are actually burning more & more coal.
    Who's gonna tell the CCP to stop burning more & more coal?
    Who's gonna tell the CCP to stay out of the Pacific?

    Also, India has only recently started their 'industrial revolution' & with a population of 1.32 billion they are also burning sh!tloads of coal & I can't see India wanting to put the brakes on anytime soon either.

    It's virtually impossible to put the brakes on in time, which is why I have mentioned many times here on 'Paul's Posts' over the last two & a half years that, "Nero fiddled while Rome burned".
    We sooth our souls by listening to our home-audio rigs & agonise about which component we should audition next, while the environment is falling apart.
    That's my analogy 😉

    Does anyone here know how much microplastics the human body can tolerate before it becomes a problem?

    As I said a couple of posts ago 'Mechanical Music' (July 10)...
    "The point of no return will only be found once we have passed it."

    1. I agree with much of your post here. I, too, am quite pessimistic.

      Although, I will push back on one point. In the longer term, I would bet that China will actually be more responsible than the USA on this issue. Granted, they have definitely been on the wrong trajectory for awhile. But, they have also proven they can make very rapid changes (when they want to). I would cite their aggressive regulation of their tech companies as an example.

      The USA, on the other hand, is the world's largest producer of oil. And, because money can/has overrun our government to create corporate regulatory capture, our current course seems overdetermined.

      There are going to be a lot of Americans that stay employed, afford to raise families, and lead good lives because we let this problem persist. And we, Americans, have a real difficult time leaving money on the table for the greater good. China does not seem to have this problem.

      1. Hi a2x024,
        First of all I'm not so much of a pessimist; rather I'm a realist...which, I'll
        grant you, these days can look pretty pessimistic.
        The CCP will tell the population of China any number of bald-faced lies just
        to stay in power.
        Also I will say that the Chinese are just as ravenous as the Americans when
        it comes to money..."it's a hit, don't give me that goody, good, good bullsh!t,
        I'm in a high fidelity, first class travelling set & I think I need a Lear jet." ✌

        1. I agree with all of this.

          But, to clarify, the point I was trying to make is not that the Chinese like money less than Americans or that the CCP is virtuous. I am just thinking that the CCP seems able to think more strategically and longer-term than the US government.

  4. Paul or others: Could you perhaps briefly address the following point (without just saying "read the book"), which I haven't seen mentioned elsewhere [it might just have escaped my attention]: Doesn't nature pretty much always move towards an equilibrium of the resources available? If sunlight, water, soil nutrients, temperatures, etc. remain in sufficient quantities (and not TOO much) globally, and the relatively miniscule percentage of life-essential CO2 in the atmosphere increases to a higher but still relatively miniscule percentage, won't plant life increase to utilize it until equilibrium is reached again? Do any of the models take this into account? I'm no expert in this field, so please forgive my ignorance - I want us all to be good stewards of the environment, not wasting, polluting, or destroying - but I'm always wondering about the focus on even a relatively large increase in the percentage of CO2 (e.g., double or triple, just for argument's sake) but the fact that it still remains such a relatively miniscule portion of the atmosphere, and the thought that global plant life will use the increase for more growth until equilibrium is reached again (just like it would produce less if those resources were reduced). I was especially concerned when the U.S. government ruled CO2 to be a "pollutant", and hence subject to perhaps over-the-top government regulation, when it's essential to all life on earth? And there's so little that our monumental efforts can achieve if China and India don't lower their emissions too? And all animal life in the entire world (not just cattle)?

    1. Yes, these systems do tend to reach an equilibrium point. But, from a human perspective, this is moot as our planet will not naturally reach this point quickly enough to matter to us.

      We are artificially (and dramatically) accelerating the timelines at play here. By burning fossil fuels, we are converting millions of years worth of plant-matter back into CO2 in a matter of decades. The notion that the Earth will then someday (centuries or millennia later) adjust to and correct for this unnatural circumstance will be cold comfort to the people that are caused to suffer/die in the meantime.

      It all really comes down to timing. Suppose you ingested too much poison for your body to naturally process. What if the doctor told you that, instead of taking extraordinary measures to get this poison out of your body rapidly, they would instead just let nature reach an equilibrium: over many years, the poison will slowly exit your body and rejoin nature by the process of chemical diffusion. The doctor would be factually correct that poison will eventually come out but, since you have an hour to live, you just won't be around to see it happen.

      That is basically how your idea would work. Yes, the Earth will eventually reach an equilibrium. We just might not be around to see it happen.

      1. Could it be that pure ignorance leads to your finding that there is only a focus on CO2? The pollution of our earth is seen in all areas even in the brains being manipulated by mass media and troll factories. 50 years ago the Club of Rome published a study “Global 2000” (The Limits of Growth) based on computer models founded on research in System Dynamics following a holistic (!) approach - thus not only focusing CO2. Could it be that you simply dream that the speed of genetic mutations increases similar to the exponential growth we see in pollution thus finally mankind would survive in climate zones with mean temperatures higher than in todays deserts? The speed of natural evolution will not speed up thus you have to manipulate your DNA using recently developed genetic tools as CASP/CRIPR! 🙂

        1. Back to Carbon & Methane:-
          Meanwhile Russia is exploring oil extraction up there in the North
          polar region & while that polar cap melts, huge amounts of
          methane is escaping into the atmosphere & stratosphere.

    2. Bob, I certainly do not consider myself an expert on climate change since I am retired and climate change is a very complex phenomenon. You are right that there is a CO2 and O2 exchange with respect to plant life. I know there is modelling of this, however, it usually concerns the depletion of forest and the reduction in O2 production caused by this. I assume that takes into account how much CO2 consumption is also reduced by depletion of forest.

      Someone I know from the research group at WU in St. Louis that I was in when I was in grad school has done some modelling of the absorption of CO2 by the oceans. His modelling indicates that the oceans cannot keep up with the current rate of CO2 production in the world. Also, as the oceans warm they give off some of the CO2 that they have absorbed at cooler temperatures. It was about ten years ago that I had this discussion, and he has since retired as well. I do not know what the latest is on this modelling,

    3. Hi Bob. Great question. And I am no expert in this (which is one of the reasons I joined the staff at the Almanac so I could learn).

      It's not just C02 that is causing this. C02 is but one of the causes (methane is a magnitude more harmful).

      But, to your point. While we are on one hand increases greenhouse gasses we are decreasing plants and forests (rather a lot). In the Amazon, for example (our largest rain forest often referred to as the lungs of our planet) it has been reduced since 1947 50%. So, just as a small example, if you dramatically increase C02 and at the same time dramatically decrease plants, well....

      Again, this is just me and I am no expert. Thankfully, I worked with close to 1,000 of them to produce the almanac.

    4. Sure, but "nature" does not really care if humans continue to exist, so that equilibrium may not include human life, or many species of animals as well. forget about cities going underwater, and those types of problems-the more immediate problem, which is here now to a degree, is that changing climate means people may not be able to grow food where they have before. This is already what is causing a large immigration problem from S. America to the US. As it becomes harder to grow food, this will cause strife between countries, and wars will breakout. The only way we can avoid this is via a World wide effort. And the US, and other wealthier nations need to lead this effort, and be willing to show the developing world the way, and be willing to help the developing world to do the right thing.

      1. Hi barrows,
        There's whole bunch of 'frozen' land up north...Russia, Alaska, Canada,
        Greenland that will become more favourable to agriculture as the Earth
        warms; a new world 'food bowl' as it were.
        However that may end-up only being a short window.

        1. Yes, the problem is that the shift of population to more northern areas will involve political strife between nations: the result will be war. Anyway we look at it, climate change is already causing problems (migratory for example), and these will only increase unless we get on the ball. The frustrating thing is that we have the technology to solve this, rather easily even, we just do not have the will, mostly because so many are so engaged in making money from the "old ways", whether that be eating high on the food chain, or using archaic internal combustion engines (highly inefficient) for our transportation needs.

          1. I can remember, back in the early 1980's, reading about how the oil companies were buying up & shelving what we now call 'Green Technology', specifically solar power technology.
            We could've avoided all of this 'ten minutes to midnight', global warming, man-made armageddon crap if our governments had had bigger balls.
            It's always about the money.
            I also read somewhere that, "we get the government(s) that we deserve"

            1. Indeed, FR, it’s always about the money and the importance we allow the money finally about the power to buy everything and (!) everybody. But even worse in the last decades the priority was maximizing profit rate and short term (!) profits, day trading and microsecond-trades for example. Thus the richest have become extremely short-sighted. Maybe they believe they can survive on planet Mars or on some strange space-ships.

  5. I have stopped feeling guilty about what I am doing to harm the environment.

    I drive less than 1,200 miles per year and buy hardly anything, while I see people driving unnecessarily, flying around the world, ordering big stuff air-cargoed from China, refrigerating their homes like an icebox when the outdoor temperature is a comfortable 77 degrees, eating meat at every meal, playing golf on high water-use courses, buying or leasing brand new cars every year, refusing to put solar panels on their roofs even with government financial incentives, soccer moms running a limo service across town to take their kids to-and-from activities, teenagers getting their own cars to drive around (what happened to bicycles) and on and on.

    My carbon footprint is that of a titmouse. I guess I need to buy the book and see what more I can do.

    On July 4th looking out from my Hollywood Hills deck I counted at least 200 firework displays in the distance. The smoke was so thick I could not see the countless more displays that were hidden by the cloud of pollutant. It was like looking out through a telescope and not being able to see more distant stars through the gas clouds. People just don't care. They want the temporary thrill of fireworks and other polluting enjoyments without any concern at all for the environment.

    Government officials are hypocrits, wasting energy, traveling around the globe, eating their fat juicy steaks, funding wars and military exercises that does God-knows-what to the environment, polluting the environment more than any of us will ever do in a lifetime. If we want to get rid of a King Kong carbon footprint, start with the government.

    And when it comes to Christmas. Don't get me started. The plume of pollution from last minute shoppers, FedEx/UPS cargo planes and delivery trucks, the waste of Christmas present wrappings and bows, and the methane from Santa's reindeer on the night before Christmas.

    I'm done feeling guilty. Just let me die in peace. I will be cremated and request no one fly in for the funeral because in the long term that will be least harmful to the environment.

    1. I'm with you Joseph.
      I keep my carbon footprint as tiny as possible...& I don't have kids,
      so I don't even know why I give a sh!t.
      No car since 2010 & I don't have aircon; a pedestal fan is just fine in summer.
      Christmas is a crock; it has nothing to do with Jesus Christ.
      In short, the world runs on bullsh!t...always has & probably always will.
      If it's not politicians it's fake news or disinformation.
      From 50 years of observation I can say that I'm a realist.

      "We didn't start the fire" & nobody wants to put it out 😉

    2. Thanks, guys. And there's no reason to feel guilty. This is not about me its about we.

      You're right not to feel guilty. I took a nice long hot shower this morning. I eat fruit flown in from another country.

      We are simply living in the world were a part of. The point of the book is to get the facts straight so that hopefully, we as a society, can agree its important to move forward. That we as a country can make a difference.

      This is not shaming nor feeling guilty for you have nothing to feel guilty about.

      Lets take the me out of the conversation. I agree.

      1. Paul, I wasn't pointing a finger at you personally. I was speaking broadly of the entire country and world. Also, my post was meant to be satirical, as communicated by my Santa's reindeer comment. I am not really in favor of getting rid of Christmas. My point was, there is a long way to go to get people to be more responsible.

        I applaud you for recognizing that methane is a worse culprit than CO2, something a lot of people don't understand. The fact that you are a vegetarian is to your credit. I believe that the most benefit from environmental polution controls is the reduction of methane. Everyone should recognize methane as perhaps the most dangerous component of the carbon footprint.

        1. Thanks, Joseph and Martin.

          Indeed, methane is hugely more important, and unfortunately, getting worse as the permafrost in Siberia and Russia thaw. As it thaws, more is released and we get a pretty vicious cycle.

          Thanks for caring.

  6. Global Warming!
    Life expectancy has increased since the industrial revolution
    Epidemics have been managed more successfully over time
    Global temp has risen less than the limits set by the Paris Accord
    China India are “developing “ nations
    And burn lots of coal and have no regulations till 2035! And then what?

    And the change In our planet has nicely isolated us from prior world wars

    who in the USA congress is representing cows? One of our reps wants to eliminate cows!

    I think a mass movement to seek equal
    Rights for cows is a place the world should focus on . Perchance India could address this position!
    Cow Power!

    Well it’s almost National French Fry day!

    One friend just called me to tell
    Me gas price at the pump has gone down $0.04! And it’s only 6:30am!

    He wants an electric car but does not realize that electricity is generated by fossil fuel- but he does not see that and he too loves cows and today will rush to the market to buy beef - he loves beef and big cars too!

    Perchance I can get a cabin on a transatlantic oil tanker shipping oil out of our country. I hear the cuisine on the tankers is great - for real!

    I’m wondering if my SoFo neighbors will relinquish their poodles and get
    Cows? Maybe there is a market for Service Cows!

    Perchance Cervantes will surface and write a novel restricting Don Quixote from attacking windmills on cloudy days!

    If it wasn’t for hifi where would we all be?

  7. Do they know PS Audio makes 600w power amplifiers and 120kg speakers shipped by air?

    Looks like a good project. Unfortunately, whereas Green politics is looked upon favourably in Europe and elsewhere and, for example, the Greens in Germany have six cabinet posts, in the USA the Green New Deal is about as politically popular as leprosy.

    The problem with Green politics and education is the "we're all going to die so let's glue ourselves to the road and piss people off" approach. And the cave dwellers who call themselves the Supreme Court who believe pollution is great because they won't be around when the earth fries.

    What you really need is a climate-induced tidal wave to wipe out Palm Beach to get people's attention.

    1. I hope you mean a Palm Beach tidal wave metaphorically. It will take much more than an isolated tidal wave to wake people up to climate change, which, BTW, will continue no matter what man does. Sea level change has been happening for at least 150 years, long before rapid rise in atmospheric pollution.

      I went back and looked at San Francisco Bay sea level readings since they started recording them in the 1800s and the rise has been a linear, straight line increase, not at all corresponding with the alarming hyperbolic atmospheric CO2 levels. Alternatively, sea levels have been falling along shorelines in other parts of the globe.

      1. I wanted to edit my last sentence but the clock ran out. Add the word "some" before the word "other." While global warming has for decades been causing sea level rise in most parts of the globe, the sea level relative to land in some other parts has been falling due to tectonic plate movement, such as parts of Alaska, Finland and Sweden. The comment was not meant to minimize the seriousness of the rise in sea level on the coastlines of much of the world due to global warming, but to illustrate how the sea level change was occuring even before the dramatic escalation in green house gases.

  8. What a coincidence Paul! Just finished watching a TV doco called 'Carbon: The Unauthorized Biography' this evening. It appeared to be a collaboration between Australia, Canada and others so you should be able to find it on your favourite streaming service. For my Aussie brethren, it should be available on the ABC's iView service.

  9. Thanks Paul for your involvement in this. I wish people would really take this seriously. We are already seeing the impacts, especially in terms of climate migration right here in the US at our southern border. The Syrian war also was in a large part the result of climate change and drought in the region. Unfortunately, no one is doing enough: we really need a World wide effort comparable to the US Apollo program, where everyone goes "all in", if we are going to have a chance to avoid catastrophic problems. I have a real fear that the middle 20xxs may be referred to as the "Climate War" period if we do not get more on the ball immediately.

  10. It's not really the planet that's in's humankind.

    Suppose that some cataclysmic event suddenly destroyed every human being on the planet. I suggest that every other living thing would continue along without barely a blink and the planet would survive and thrive. Everything from algae to giant sequoias, from cockroaches to sperm whales, would toddle along just fine.

    The big difference between humans and the dinosaurs seems to be that a cataclysm of sorts, and not of their own making, made the planet uninhabitable for most of the dinosaurs and they faded away.

    Humans seem bent on making the planet uninhabitable for themselves. It will take a while. I won't see it. But whenever we accomplish our extinction, the planet won't miss us.

  11. There is a fantastic documentary on Apple+ called “The Year Earth Changed”. I recommend everyone watch it. It basically chronicles the impact on nature/Earth when everyone stayed home because of the COVID pandemic, a unique opportunity to see the Earth’s reaction.

    It’s fascinating how the air cleaned up, water oxygen levels went up in rivers, animals breed more often and had larger numbers of offspring, oceans cleared up, animals roamed openly where they previously could not, noise levels in the oceans dropped and whale song could be heard magnitudes farther, etc.

    I came away with a few points that hit hard. 1) Just how much impact we have on the planet 2) Nature will fix itself if we get out of the way 3) Most importantly, humans don’t own this planet, we share it.

    We need to change our mentality that we own the planet and that everything is there for us to do what we want.

  12. According to the company which publishes the The Economist 93% of the world's population lives in "flawed democracies," "hybrid democracies" or "authoritarian regimes." Of the 7% of the world's population living in Western-style "full democracies" more than half of those people appear happy to impose by any means necessary their will and their values on the other half. Most "liberals" are authoritarians, too.

    Across the Middle East, across Africa, across Eastern Europe, across Asia, across the Third World there is rampant barbarism in the names of religion and tribalism and politics, and there is widespread condoned violence, especially against women.

    What fraction of the world's population consists of individual liberty-loving people with good hearts who are worth saving? Very tiny. Humans suck. We are not worth saving.

    I am going to enjoy my eight cylinder gasoline engines, high-power audio amplifiers and irrigated landscaping. I don't care if the planet burns up and evolution starts over.

    The planet would be better off without humans. I'd prefer to save the (non-human) animals!

    1. Biology tells us that a population of predators will quickly collapse when these beasts have devoured all prey animal. Native tribes/ First Nations have passed the knowledge that nature has to be preserved. Modern human cultures focused on maximizing consumption is however highly gifted in repressing real problems (often with the help of drugs satisfying the neural reward system) or in dreaming of a future paradise or a new life in heaven. And strange enough too many believe or hope that in the end scientists and technology will solve all problems for them ignoring that most problems are based on lacking early technology assessments! 🙂

      1. Human beings have a real problem trying to conceptualise self non-existence
        & so they came up with an afterlife, paradise, heaven or hell...problem solved.

  13. Far more issues connected to climate change other than CO2 to mention here. A couple of major reasons little is being done is playing big businesses of all kinds against the pollution and byproducts they produce, and the mindset of mankind. Since the 'civilization' of man it has been a state of over use and over indulge. Especially since arriving in the Americas it was viewed as there is more of everything than could ever be used. Began then with clear cutting forests and dumping waste into rivers or wherever. Continues today. Global population is growing at a rate we cannot sustain. By the physical space needed will overtake the space needed to produce food and the ecosystem to maintain a balance. By the need (over use) of every natural resource to feed our over indulgence of power, fuel, food, travel, bling etc. By the use it once and throw away mindset - cardboard, aluminum cans, plastics then dump it. Out of site , not a problem - until it forms a giant island in the middle of the ocean. If it were possible to change man's thought process of always wanting more and waste, we might have a chance. And I know I'm guilty as most on this. My two cents for todays post. Thanks to anyone listening.

  14. Personally, I think Al Gore got it wrong. Climate change is caused by people consuming resources. The inconvenient truth is that the current population of the earth is unsustainable. There are just too many people consuming too few resources. Look for more disease and pestilence as a possible solution. Other than a random asteroid here or there, it's been how the earth classicly purged overpopulations.

  15. I am not sure if anything is wrong with our planet. I am a non-believer about climate change.

    But I just ordered the book to learn more. Maybe there are details I have not considered or been exposed to.

    Now the book most likely was written from one perspective and May have to find another book that explains why the first book has some if not all it’s “facts” wrong.

    Hence why there maybe no consensus on this issue.

    1. Thanks for being open minded enough to get the book and see if there's anything to be learned.

      What we stayed away from was the tendency to draw conclusions. We did our best to present the facts and made sure every fact has a reference which one can check the source on.

      Definitely a labor of love by as many as 1,000 volunteers.

  16. I'm just as concerned as climatologists about the numerous ways that humans are doing harm to the planet. I don't disagree with the viewpoint that pollutants from fossil fuels contain elements that are harmful and poisonous to life on earth. However, I'm more concerned with the lead, mercury, carbon monoxide, or a host of other pollutants...but
    I object that carbon dioxide, an essential element for plant life is. I'd also like to see the scientific community acknowledge that all climate research is relevant, especially the fact that the earth's climate has been going through heating/cooling cycles for millions of years, and humans do not have any control of these cycles.

    I believe that it would be much less of a tug-of-war to get people on board with the "climate change" agenda if there wasn't so many politicians and billionaires looking to profit from it. The tech sector has been inventing promising ideas, which Washington has been relentlessly pushing like solar, wind, and battery powered vehicles, which offer small but highly profitable solutions. Politicians also been trying for decades to enact "cap and trade" or other "carbon taxes" but never seen to explain where or who the money would end up going to. Just recently, in New Zealand, lawmakers passed a tax on beef because they claim that cows produce too much methane gas. I truly believe that a bad smell is coming from NZ and it's not coming from the flatulence of the cows. It's already been said here and everywhere else there's a climate debate...who's going to police China, India, Russia, and all the other gross polluters?

    I'm not here to dispute that the oceans are getting warmer, glaciers have been melting, and coral reefs dying. But since the oceans are the lifeblood of the earth...when are people going to start treating it as such? I personally think that ocean pollution (industrial waste, microplastics), overfishing, and the slaughter of the sharks/whales is arguably the largest problem caused by the human population. Why aren't people terrified and protesting that the planet loses around 10,000 acres of rainforest each day? How much carbon is removed by the ocean and rainforests alone? Why is there little to no effort to build new, modernized, nuclear power plants or more research into geothermal energy or other economical green sources? The answer almost always is...follow the money.

  17. Wow!
    When I read the title, I figured this would be a well-participated thread.
    I had an earlier appointment, and just got back to find this many comments!

    In our Pacific NW, we are pretty green, and this is a topic I follow with great interest.

    Download the book sto see where I can learn.

  18. Peach tree dish politicians - such as the great 'Merican MTG - and the smartest man on earth, Ben Shapiro - steadfastly maintain that climate change's a lie, fake news, and nothin' more than a baby-eating, reptilian-shadow-government librah conspiracy, designed to take away your rights, your guns, your trucks, and control your mind.

    Science is a lie.

    Rock on.

  19. They are telling us to lower our electricity usage. They say the power grid which by the way is powered mainly by fossil fuels cannot handle it. But they are telling us to buy electric cars most of us cannot afford. So lets all buy electric cars that contribute in their own ways to harm the environment.

    If you force what we are not ready for onto the world people are going to die from exposure to the elements and starvation. Without a sufficient enough energy source the population cannot be sustained.

    Nature requires us to have enough energy or guess what we die. Green alone cannot provide us with nearly enough energy. Nature makes the rules that require us to have energy. Nature itself can be very deadly. There have been at least 6 mass extinctions due to nature.

    The earth has been warming ever since the end of the ice age and it will cool and freeze again. We had nothing to do with that. The globalists are pushing the BS because they want to control people and their goal is global depopulation whether through wars, man made viruses or not enough energy to keep us alive. As the world population grows there is a higher need for energy and that includes fossil fuels because without fossil fuels there's not enough energy.

    As more people buy sound systems there is need for more energy. Windmills and solar panels just don't cut it. We need to combine all sources of energy including fossil fuels or we will not have enough energy to sustain and feed the growth of humanity or power our sound systems.

    Stop drinking the propaganda koolaid. Energy shortages kill. Got the ask yourself why Joe Biden is begging the rest of the world to step up oil production when we have all the oil and natural gas we need right here and it's produced cleaner here than anywhere else in the world. Does foreign oil burn cleaner? This is all political BS. Lets be energy independent again and bring down gasoline prices. Instead he's selling our oil to China.

    1. From the time man discovered how to make a fire by rubbing sticks together and create sparks by other means fossil fuels have kept us alive. There are screwballs out there actually complaining about cow farts.

      1. Count me among the screwballs, Joe.

        Cow "farts" contain methane which is far worse than C02 (by a factor of 30 times) and they are not insignificant. The feedchain that supply livestock accounts for about 8 gigatonnes of C02 eq (equivalent containing methane) and cattle are the main contributor to the sector's emissions with about 5.0 gigatonnes CO2-eq, resulting in about 13 gigatonnes per year. That's about 10% of all human contribution to green house gas emmissions.

        1. Can you imagine all of the dinosaur farting that occurred? Maybe the dinosaurs caused their own extinction merely from living. Wonder when the libs are going to call for a fart tax? Or did they already? As a lover of meat I say fart away. 🙂

  20. While progress is definitely being made, the experts have some work to do. But lets find /have viable solutions before we self-inflict to a rolling-food shortage/blackout...

    Marco Springmann is a senior researcher at the Environmental Change Institute. He is interested in the health, environmental, and economic dimensions of the global food systems. He often uses systems models to provide quantitative estimates on food-related questions.

    Marco Springmann, a senior researcher with the Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food, published a paper last year in the journal Nature describing how the global diet needs to change to preserve the environment. He’s skeptical of how effective these factory-produced meat alternatives will be in changing the food system.

    “Those companies make wild claims, but they don’t back that up with any independent attestment,” Springmann said. “Their claims are based on third-party potential estimates of emissions.”

    Even if meat alternative companies back their products up with more studies, they don’t offer the best emissions solution. Cellular-based meat alternatives release five times the emissions as chicken, putting their emissions just under beef. Plant-based meat alternatives produce the same amount of emissions as chicken — which are about five times the emissions of legumes and vegetables.

  21. Paul,

    The people running the world have no intention of fixing anything. It is strictly about the profits to be made. As long as there are supposedly 2 sides to the story IE: good / bad, right / wrong the profits will keep flowing into these peoples pockets. (very little will ever get done)

    Turn your attention to survival as time is short now..

    1. Thanks, David and I get that it's easy to believe that view when you're living here in the US. Move outside the US to say, France or Germany, and you get a very different perspective. Big economies too, but there the public interests play a big role (and it's obvious). The dog eat dog profit centric viewpoint is pretty rampant over here. It's good to get out of Dodge on occasion and get a different view.

      1. There are some people trying to stop the train wreck so to speak - by offering the bad entities an alternate source of income to replace what they are receiving from the climate change agenda.
        Ultimately getting these people to help repair the earth and create a healthy environment for all. So far 99% of them have said no.

        On a side note 2 books that fascinated me recently, Orea Linda Book, and A Theory of Natural Philosophy Large Edition by Roger Joseph Boscovich.

Leave a Reply

© 2022 PS Audio, Inc.

linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram