| denny-o - 5/13/2014 12:57
usually I stay out of these scrums over climate change - but whut the hey
So, to reverse course we have to reduce our energy consumption down to the level of 1760
Usually I stay out too...
First, it's not the energy consumption, it's carbon dioxide and other pollutants emissions.
Second, it's not all the way back to 1760, the ocean cycle can actually absorb a lot of carbon dioxide and still maintain a balanced cycle. But we have been exceeding even that extra buffer capacity.
Anyone want to volunteer to go back to the energy consumption of 1760? Wood heat, candles or oil lamps, no electricity, walking or horses, do everything by hand (no machines).
Again, it's about clean energy and other pollutants, not energy or industry. Besides, we'll have to do something anyway when oil is gone.
The icing on the cake is how much energy will each of us be allowed to use for the next 250 years?
My guess is, even more than now, energy consumption is rising even though there is more and more green energy in the mix and we are becoming more efficient at sparing it.
Al Gore will be ecstatic.
That's why I stay out of these silly discussions, when the only authority "scientist" that people know of and mention is Al Gore who published an inconvenient "scientific paper" about the environment 8 years ago. |
I don't understand the theory of oceans rising from global warming of the polar ice
