Climate has been changing for 500 million years before humans even existed. CO2 was not causal; temperature was, and that was driven by variations in solar output and Milankovitch Cycles. At present, we are at the end of an ice age, so temperatures are rising naturally, whether humans exist or not. We are still significantly below historical norms.
People need to accept that Earth is warming naturally, that crops will grow better with warmer temperatures and more atmospheric CO2. But, it won't be significant for 10,000 years or more, so grab a beer and cheer.
This second contribution to your position on Net Zero is welcome. What is being demonstrated is the government's attitude toward "progress". When Pearl Harbor was bombed in 1941 the government "forecast" a long war and directed, by legislation and fiat for the entire country to mobilize to meet the threat. What Japan hadn't counted on was the way the US was able to meet the threat. I mention this to show how it is possible for the government to announce a policy and get the entire country to move in a given direction. BUT, climate change wasn't introduced the way Pearl Harbor was presented. There were no deaths and destruction, only forecasts and predictions of disaster. Noteworthy was the failed predictions that preceded the announced plans to deal with climate change. The nation's response was less than enthusiastic, except for the way industry moved. Government incentives were focused on manufacturers in a way that the citizenry didn't feel the impact. At least not at first. Automobiles were the most obvious "face of climate change", then came smaller requirements like the requirement for newly constructed residential houses to have solar panels and then the proliferation of wind turbines. Reality in the form of "net zero" meeting AI requirements is something relatively new. And it raises the question of "what's next?"
Climate has been changing for 500 million years before humans even existed. CO2 was not causal; temperature was, and that was driven by variations in solar output and Milankovitch Cycles. At present, we are at the end of an ice age, so temperatures are rising naturally, whether humans exist or not. We are still significantly below historical norms.
People need to accept that Earth is warming naturally, that crops will grow better with warmer temperatures and more atmospheric CO2. But, it won't be significant for 10,000 years or more, so grab a beer and cheer.
This second contribution to your position on Net Zero is welcome. What is being demonstrated is the government's attitude toward "progress". When Pearl Harbor was bombed in 1941 the government "forecast" a long war and directed, by legislation and fiat for the entire country to mobilize to meet the threat. What Japan hadn't counted on was the way the US was able to meet the threat. I mention this to show how it is possible for the government to announce a policy and get the entire country to move in a given direction. BUT, climate change wasn't introduced the way Pearl Harbor was presented. There were no deaths and destruction, only forecasts and predictions of disaster. Noteworthy was the failed predictions that preceded the announced plans to deal with climate change. The nation's response was less than enthusiastic, except for the way industry moved. Government incentives were focused on manufacturers in a way that the citizenry didn't feel the impact. At least not at first. Automobiles were the most obvious "face of climate change", then came smaller requirements like the requirement for newly constructed residential houses to have solar panels and then the proliferation of wind turbines. Reality in the form of "net zero" meeting AI requirements is something relatively new. And it raises the question of "what's next?"