Maestro, I mean no disrespect in my reply.
‘ greed always conquers social responsibility’
Agreed. It is the greed of the global climate cabal, the electric companies, the Marxist devotees that want to control free movement, the attendees of the Church of Global Warming, all that have placed their greed for tax dollars, power, and control over the environmental and social impact of Lithium and cobalt extraction. Is the social responsibility of reducing CO2 emissions in the developed world more important than the landscape devastated by Lithium mines? The water use, water pollution, and lack of clean up a fair trade-off because it isn’t here?
What about child slave-labor in African Cobalt mines?
This social responsibility, it only pertains to you, not those other folks, right? Is it because they are poor and their country can’t fight back? Or is it because of their brown skin, that you place greater merit upon your feelings of social responsibility?
X-number of scientists they say...
Global Warming, err... climate change, they say...
Climate Scientists, the ones with advanced understanding of atmospheric thermodynamics, are not in universal agreement regarding CO2 or man made global climate change.
Why? Many reasons, but the basics:
1) the climate change models minimize the multitude of natural terrestrial factors, while virtually eliminating the extra-terrestrial factors.
2) Botany.
Okay, so starting off, CO2 isn’t even the worst gas, it is down the list from significantly more prevalent and naturally occurring gases and water vapor.
100 years ago, 1921, the atmospheric CO2 concentration was 308 ppm (parts per million). Today, it is 417 ppm. That’s a 36% increase! Well, yes. In small numbers, a change can make a big percentage delta.
In terms of concentration, 417 ppm is 0.042%. We went from 0.029% (285 ppm) in the 1840s to 0.042% (417 ppm) today. Looks kind of silly when you put it that way. Did you know Argon is 9300 ppm? That 0.93%! 22x CO2.
The sun plays a significant role in climate, the short, mid, and long term cycles have been observed far longer than CO2, and estimates of silt heating fluctuations on other planets mimic many of the changes we see on Earth. There are orbital and inclination wobble factors as well, but that’s well beyond the scope of this reply.
Secondly, the productivity of plant life is severely impacted at lower CO2 concentrations. Below 150ppm, many of the foods we eat would be devastated. 200ppm is a practical low-limit for subsistence farming of grains. The ideal range is at or about 1000ppm.
Let’s revisit some numbers above, shall we? 200 ppm, food issues. 285ppm pre-Industrial Revolution, 417ppm post Industrial Revolution. CO2 emissions are decreasing in the developed world. China, Russia, India...well, not so much.
Ideal plant growth around 1000ppm. NOAA predicts in 20-30 years we will hit 500 ppm for CO2.
This climate crisis, it isn’t because of CO2, all the ICE powered machines that have contributed to longer life spans, healthier and happier people, increased food production, medicines, transportation, and general global well being. Any demonstrable change in climate is largely due to significant factors fully outside our control. When all the variables are considered, this conclusion is the only plausible conclusion that can be supported by ALL data available. Through the exclusion of data, we reach a false conclusion, and create a crisis where there is none, and utilize the crisis as a means to enrich a few among us.
Back to cars! You don’t think that if ICE are banned that the market won’t be flooded with electric conversions, do you?
