People can make decisions with little to know understanding of a topic, but to make informed decisions does require additional context.
For example, being confident that if the planet once existed as a ball of heated metal floating in space, doesn't mean that many billions of years later the entities living on that planet couldn't make choices that do harm to themselves.
The concern about our climate isn't that every day on the calendar is always hotter than any previous year. To imply that's how easy it is for your average person to "know" anything about climate change is simply false. The issue is that most folks, myself included, haven't spent many years studying the science behind the topic, so we all just make our decision based on what we hear from others.
In some cases, folks will listen to scientists who have done all those many years of studying to have real insight into the underlying causes, while others will decide the whole topic is a conspiracy to vaguely consolidate power for illicit purposes.
This is a forum for the discussion of the sciences, not for the promotion of conspiracy theories or science denial, so we'll want to keep on topic and avoid just hurling insults at people who stay on topic.
To truly be "informed" and to make the sound decisions, all viable science needs to be considered. That would be real "context". Didn't plant and other non fungal/ bacterial life start on this planet when atmospheric co2 was around 5000 ppm? Can plants survive let alone thrive under 200 ppm?
Yes we need to reduce CO2. Can we do it at the expense of strip mining heavy metals on lands that are traditional forests? We still haven't addressed the ecological damage, the pollution and human suffering that come with strip mining for rare earth minerals. Not to mention the huge amounts of carbon energy it takes to produce and store "green energy" Add those factors then there is truly a zero net gain.
Perennial plants, Trees and forests are the best method of mitigation for CO2. We need those forests and plants to balance the carbon. Then there is industrial agriculture's and urban growth's along with industrial growth's impact on the forests and land by clearing for food production and paving land for urban and industry. Being the president of our local resource conservation district we have written and set up many carbon farm plans, native species restoration, wetlands restoration, forest management, soils health plans, erosion control, cover cropping, water conservation and we are implementing more. RCD's are also working hard to mitigate the urban encroachment on the few small farms that and open space that are in danger of development
The municipalities are also draining wetlands that are carbon sponges for more urban growth. We should be restoring wetlands. Then you have developing countries that have replaced burning charcoal with propane or butanes. Take that away and they go back to burning forests for charcoal. We should be planting more trees instead of enacting policies that cause the removal of trees.
The problem is complex, the solutions are difficult and can't be solved with narrowly focused strategies like cobalt blood batteries, charging stations, solar, and wind. They are only partial solutions. And Nuclear seems to be the third rail so that is out. Developing and develpoed nations would need an infinitude of electric infrastructure to move away from burning to produce energy. And, without nuclear we wouldn't' be able to supply enough energy for said infrastructure.
If we cold turkey hydrocarbon energy people in developed nations would have to make huge lifestyle sacrifices and developing nations would go back to carving up nature to eat, heat and cook. A balance of hydrocarbon use and clean technological advances along with CO2 mitigation plantings of Carbon consuming flora wold be the common sense approach towards a carbon neutral world. That is out to because science has become to politicized on Both sides of the paradigm. . A double edged sword indeed.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram