It's making money and fame for grifters like the Thunbergs. Politicians can bring in 'green taxes' and other crap to drain us of funds and freedom.
Earth's atmosphere is composed of about 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.9% argon and 0.1% other gases. CO2 makes up 0.04% of the "other gases. Of this number 97% comes from nature, plants and animals, and only 3% of that is caused by humans. By the way, plants use up some of it in a process called photosynthesis. Is CO2 a problem? Work it out for yourself. The Dutch government has a problem with the nitrogen "pollution" of its farmers. It's quite ludicrous.
I remain highly skeptical that CO2 is as big of a problem as climate alarmists say it is. There is just too many other factors that would have a much larger impact on the climate like the Sun, Earth's orbit, Earth's axis tilt, where clouds form, ocean currents and so much more. If the question was what to do about pollution, for example plastic waste, industrial chemicals and so on, then that would be a discussion we should be having.
I think we should be always looking at better means of public transportation, better ways to provide electricity and sustainable farming, but the focus on CO2 is suspect.
There should be a study on the consequences of the decrease in living conditions.
Humans extra contribution of around 3-5% per year is a big deal.
Before the industrial revolution, CO2 in and CO2 out was pretty much in balance.
We are adding an extra amount of CO2 into the atmosphere every year that nature cant remove fast enough to maintain a balance.
Keep doing this for decades and it adds up.
Its not that hard to understand.
Again, when a rise in C02 comes from so-called "natural" causes, (which it has, at far higher degrees throughout history), then somehow THAT'S okay? Life always finds a way, sub-species always come and go and adapt. Being anti-fossil-fuel is being anti-human, as it has a balance of being the most reliable, affordable, and yes, clean energy source. If you can't see the obvious financial and globalist motives (spending absurd amounts with lots of zeros on "green" jobs that somehow disappear along with the money, focusing on certain countries that don't make a relative dent in emissions while ignoring the majority of unstoppable emissions from certain others) as well as the blatant inconsistencies and contradictions in carrying these plans out (i.e. using gas to ship in gas instead of domestic production, using gas to generate electricity, producing relatively short-life-span batteries that have huge environmental impacts) then I don't know what to tell you.
What scientific back up has the cartoonist got for that statement?
From here mostly:
It's a bum rap. Perhaps I should add a correction as I understand it: One volcano puts more CO2 in atmosphere than all mankind's efforts for the period of the eruption. And that's all concession you'll get from me. I stick to the rest of my posts.
So much for "global warming." Many people think more of us are doomed to die from warmer temperatures but a new Lancet study found cold killed 77x more people in Britain & Wales on average annually than heat (60,573 vs 791 deaths) btw 2000- 2019.
''One volcano puts more CO2 in atmosphere than all mankind's efforts for the period of the eruption.''
I tried but couldn't find back up for this assertion either.
Apart from this,
'' human activities emit a Mount St. Helens-sized eruption of CO2 every 2.5 hours ''
Volcanic eruptions are more likely to produce an overall cooling effect than anything else, because of the large amounts of sulphur that get released.
More recent examples of this are Mt Pinatubo:
and Mt ChiChon: