Earth Was Due for Another Year of Record Warmth. But This Warm? (nytimes.com) 205
Earth is finishing up its warmest year in the past 174 years, and very likely the past 125,000. From a report: Unyielding heat waves broiled Phoenix and Argentina. Wildfires raged across Canada. Flooding in Libya killed thousands. Wintertime ice cover in the dark seas around Antarctica was at unprecedented lows. This year's global temperatures did not just beat prior records. They left them in the dust. From June through November, the mercury spent month after month soaring off the charts. December's temperatures have largely remained above normal: Much of the Northeastern United States is expecting springlike conditions this week.
That is why scientists are already sifting through evidence -- from oceans, volcanic eruptions, even pollution from cargo ships -- to see whether this year might reveal something new about the climate and what we are doing to it. One hypothesis, perhaps the most troubling, is that the planet's warming is accelerating, that the effects of climate change are barreling our way more quickly than before. "What we're looking for, really, is a bunch of corroborating evidence that all points in the same direction," said Chris Smith, a climate scientist at the University of Leeds. "Then we're looking for causality. And that will be really interesting."
That is why scientists are already sifting through evidence -- from oceans, volcanic eruptions, even pollution from cargo ships -- to see whether this year might reveal something new about the climate and what we are doing to it. One hypothesis, perhaps the most troubling, is that the planet's warming is accelerating, that the effects of climate change are barreling our way more quickly than before. "What we're looking for, really, is a bunch of corroborating evidence that all points in the same direction," said Chris Smith, a climate scientist at the University of Leeds. "Then we're looking for causality. And that will be really interesting."
Then I guess we'd better hurry up ... (Score:3, Insightful)
... and go fully nuclear.
What's that, no? You'd rather just make political hay and emote about it? Okay.
yawn (Score:4, Insightful)
Another message from the nuclear playboys that can't math
It's faster and cheaper to build renewables plus storage
END OF LINE
Re: (Score:3)
It's faster and cheaper to build renewables plus storage
False. Storage is too expensive to be practical. We're waiting for new technology there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why the hell would you use lithium for stationary storage?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, we have recent examples of how quick nuclear is to build in France, the UK and the States. Even China has taken how long to ramp up nuclear plant production and still needs to build coal plants while they continue to ramp up nuclear production as ramping up things like forges to build containment structures is slow.
Re: yawn (Score:2)
Re:yawn... While you were sleeping... Uruguay (Score:5, Insightful)
Uruguay.
https://www.theguardian.com/gl... [theguardian.com]
Today, the country has almost phased out fossil fuels in electricity production. Depending on the weather, anything between 90% and 95% of its power comes from renewables. In some years, that number has crept as high as 98%.
In this context, the country is easily overlooked. However, economically it is a South American success story. Its GDP per capita was £16,420 in 2022, according to the World Bank, the highest on the continent; only a tiny fraction of its population lives in extreme poverty. The country has a burgeoning middle class – accounting for about 60% of the population – and there are high expectations for lifestyle and opportunities.
Such demographic change has driven demand for the trappings of a contemporary, 21st-century lifestyle. Homes are fitted with washing machines and dishwashers, and air-conditioning units have become commonplace, as have vast flat-screen TVs and connected devices.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, curious I looked it up and Uruguay runs off 56% hydro power, which is fantastic if your landscape can support that. They also have nuclear and what I found most interesting is it's power grid is also 94% state/government owned and operated and has been that way for over 100 years.
Re: (Score:2)
There must be some advantage to having the government run the public utility. Probably avoids the capitalist corruption of private utilities.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I'm not gonna say it eliminates corruption because obviously government can be corrupt but I like the idea of state-run utilities since these are things necessary for life today. The entire US economy and our way of life is undergirded by electricity and energy. Peoples lives literally depend on its continued flow an accessibility, why would we leave such a vital resource up to the whims of profit motive?
Operating a utility with the primary goal of generating electricity reliably and safely alights t
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is it has to be good government. My Province has been running the power utility for 70+ years, one 4 year period of a government who religiously believed private was always better almost did it in and likely would have if they'd stayed in power.
Re: (Score:3)
I am just gonna say it again, since others pointed it out.
I said: exactly 0 countries has achieved a decarbonized electricity mix using only solar and wind energy.
And you give me the example of Uruguay, which depends a lot on renewables, and most importantly, on hydro. Hydro is great, and should really be the preferred solution (over nuclear, solar or wind) whenever possible. But it is highly dependent on the geological features of a country. France or Germany for instance have already maxxed out their hydr
Re: (Score:2)
Well... you switched from "renewables" to "only wind and solar".
I think you have a safe bet. No country is ever going to decarbonize using only wind and solar. That's stupid.
Do you have a real point or are you just trolling?
Re: (Score:2)
Well... you switched from "renewables" to "only wind and solar".
No, I did not. My exact sentence to which you replied was: "exactly 0 countries has achieved a decarbonized electricity mix using only solar and wind energy."
On the rest of my initial post, I even explained how hydro is a different beast and should be favored when/where possible, but is highly dependent on geological features not available in sufficient quantities.
It's not on me if you find it hard to understand or if your need to be right causes you to accidentally misread others' comments.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear is highly dependent on the geological features of a country, but also on the political situation, and if other countries are willing to let them have it.
Whatever the issues around deploying any particular type of renewable generation, those issues are 100 times worse for nuclear.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:yawn (Score:4, Informative)
If you look at France and the UK the per capita emissions are very close but the UK has got there with much less nuclear.
No need to extrapolate, we can have a look at some data:
- UK emissions for electricity production in 2022 were at 250g CO2eq/kWh [nowtricity.com]. France in 2022 was at 73g CO2eq/kWh.
- UK used 18% of nuclear for that, while France used 64% of nuclear.
Let's do some simple math: UK emitted 3.4 times more than France per kWh in 2022. Also, UK had 3.5 times less nuclear than France. 3.4 seems awfully close to 3.5.
Now, you are talking about per capita emissions, and I agree that UK and France are actually close on those (5.18t for France vs 5.6t for the UK). This illustrates one thing: emissions per capita include a lot more things than just electricity generation. They include transportation, eating habits (more or less meat), industries, housing, ...
Reducing a country's emissions needs two things to happen:
- electrify current fossil fuel usages (transportation, fertilizers, industries, housing heating...): both France and the UK need to work on that
- make sure your electricity mix is low CO2-emitting: France is better, mainly because of its nuclear plants and hydro/solar/wind strategy.
If the UK had put more in it might have not had as many renewables and not be any further forward.
Or they could have actual nuclear plants up and running, while also having renewables. Exactly like China, or France, did. That's the problem with "might": it can be either way, so I see no point in arguing about that.
If you look at the overall charts there are countries with similar nuclear proportions in terms of electricity production but with higher carbon footprints
Can you point out which ones?
Usually, it boils down to your next sentence: production of goods. Mining, steel making, fertilizers, and stuffs like that, need a lot of fossil fuels (even though some electrification is starting to appear for some of them). This just means that having a low CO2-emitting electricity mix is even more important if we start to electrify those usages.
Re: yawn (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True. That's why I said having a low-CO2 emitting electricity mix is only one side of the equation. The other side is electrifying the existing fossil fuels usages, and gaining in efficiency where possible (home insulation is a good example).
However, it is also not good enough to electrify existing fossil fuels usages if your electricity mix emits a lot of CO2eq/kWh.
This is where it makes no sense to exclude nuclear in the low-CO2 emitting energy sources toolbox that we have at our disposition.
Re: yawn (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It seems it's hard to persuade people to build it without even greater subsidy.
Did you know that subsidies for solar/wind are ~5 times greater than those for nuclear [irena.org]? And expected to grow to 10 times higher by 2050 (figure S-2 page 10).
Did you also know that most of the costs (as much as 80%) of nuclear plants in the west are related to interest rates? I mean, I like paying pension funds and the financial sector, but don't you think that's a bit crazy? I say "in the west", because in countries like China (standard disclaimer: which I dislike mainly because of its political system) the
Re: yawn (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thus there are more factors than simply having a reasonable amount of nuclear or manufacturing in play.
True. But nuclear and manufacturing are also factors, that you can't ignore if you want to fix the problem. Or if you prefer, the carbon intensity of your electricity mix is a factor that you can't ignore. You can insulate all you want, install all the heat pumps you want, if your electricity mix emits a lot of CO2eq/kWh, you WILL emit a lot of CO2eq.
If we compare the US and the UK, they indeed have the same level of nuclear, but US is at 360g CO2eq/kWh while the UK is at 260g CO2eq/kWh. The difference lies
Re: (Score:2)
And they import electricity from Germany. They cheat. Because they've been trying and failing since 2012 to get a new reactor online.
Re: (Score:3)
Check your facts. They have been net exporters for the last 50 years, except for three months in 2022 (July/August/September if my memory serves well). Even then, they basically only had to import ~4% of their electricity needs, or 17TWh.
The rest of the time (597 months of the last 50 years), they have been net exporters, especially to Germany.
Re:Roads Should be Private (Score:2)
From 2005-2022 (18 years), [rte-france.com] they were net annual exporters to Belgium/Germany 11 times, and net importers 7 times.
And every year, they were net importers from Belgium/Germany for at least 2 months out of the year, usually in the winter.
Re: (Score:2)
So, by your own link, you mean that between 2005-2022, Germany cheated 11 times by buying cheap low-CO2 emitting electricity from France, and that 7 times, it was France that bought expensive coal-based electricity from Germany?
That begs the question: why didn't Germany decarbonize its electricity grid at the same time than France (50 years ago)? Then they could have sold low-CO2 emitting electricity to France...
Also, they were overall net exporters for the last 50 years (again, except for 2022). The first
Re:yawn (Score:2)
Yes, it debunks your claim that France "successfully achieved a decarbonized electricity mix".
Re: yawn (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True.
France is exporting low carbon electricity. Has been for 50 years. More than they are importing
Why can't Germany do the same? Why do they still have to burn coal/lignite/gas for so much of their electricity, 50 years after we had a solution to avoid doing that?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it debunks your claim that France "successfully achieved a decarbonized electricity mix".
Seriously. If you prefer: France successfully achieved a domestic low-carbon electricity mix.
EU energy market is cross-country unfortunately. So yes, France can buy from Germany, Spain, the UK... But they also can sell to those countries. As France has been a net exporter for the past 50 years (minus 2022), it means that they actually helped those other countries to lower their emissions more than the other way around (if Germany imports more electricity from France, they burn less coal).
It only brings the
Re: (Score:2)
I find it exhausting to have people continually pushing an idiotic solution to a problem
Ah. You should have made it clear sooner that you are a climate change denier.
I'm partly of German descent, but nothing I've ever said on Slashdot even came close to implying that I'm a German citizen.
That must have been your german accent that set me off-track.
Re: (Score:2)
I am one of the leading voices against AGW denial.
Certainly. Absolutely. Being a prominent advocate against climate change denial, all the while advocating for increased burning of coal and gas (direct implication of your opposition to nuclear energy in the electricity mix). The advantage of declaring oneself a leading voice is the ability to hold such beliefs without constraint.
Stop pretending to be a participant here in good faith, as you clearly are not one.
At no point did I pretend that. Please read the previous comments, and stop making shit up.
The non-existent problem nuclear claims to solve is the lack of base load power.
Strawman fallacy. Nuclear claims to be a non-intermittent low-CO2 emissions energy source
Re: yawn (Score:2)
"Stop pretending to be a participant here in good faith, as you clearly are not one."
"At no point did I pretend that."
You certainly didn't DO that, you mean.
Re: (Score:2)
I've always been told to avoid disturbing someone clearly irrational.
Thus, absolutely, you are correct. I intended precisely what you expressed. Your messages contain so much wisdom that it's challenging for me to grasp it all. Can you enlighten me more?
Re: yawn (Score:2)
Well, that is ever so much bullshit.
I am obsessed with facts, and facts about nuclear make it a bad choice on every level for everyone except the people profiting from building reactors.
I'm happy to see more types of power generation developed that work well. And when some other types have been shown to be as beneficial as wind and solar, I will support them too. But right now, they are far and away the cheapest and cleanest options, especially wind.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually nuclear is a great choice for those who don't want to do anything now besides maintain the status quo. It's like carbon capture, a delaying action.
Re: (Score:3)
Even this year, we are in the top 10% of coldest years in earths history
Can you give me a Y axis for that graph? Are we going back 4.5B years?
Antartica was a forest continent
Yeah, when it was on the same latitude as Argentina and southern Africa, that doesn't mean anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it was a forest continent while basically where it is and strictly speaking, the OP is correct, 90% of the time the Earth was a hot house that was uninhabitable for humanity. He just forgets to mention the uninhabitable part, or is plain uneducated, or troll.
Hot house Earth is defined as no permanent polar ice caps btw.
Re: yawn (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Simple question: how are you on permanent storage of nuclear waste within 20 mi of where you live?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Then I guess we'd better hurry up ... (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't hurry up and go nuclear, that's why nuclear can't contribute to addressing global warming in time. It takes decades to build a new reactor and we only have 1-2 decades to decarbonize. Renewables with storage are faster and cheaper, nuclear only makes sense for places that don't have the geography for renewables.
Re: (Score:2)
We should also stop with the meat consumption too. That farming creates more greenhouse gas.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather unserious hacks like you not engage in political conversation, but we don't always get what we want, do we?
Not political, and I've worked with both NucEs and Environmental scientists, so perhaps I should be allowed to have at least a somewhat informed opinion.
Nuclear Fission based power can be safe - but not when humans are involved in creating it. Even here in 21st Century USA, we have found many reactors using fraudulent parts. And the recently cancelled project - after wasting 9 billion dollars - in South Carolina had unqualified people designing electrical and mechanical aspects with no engineering appro
Re: (Score:2)
Sure but it's not like we don't have a track record of being able to do it safely, this passage from the article really jumped out to me for two obvious reasons
The audit did not examine the effectiveness of the industry’s self-regulation, but did conclude that the NRC was not on top of the issue. The inquiry quoted an unnamed NRC source saying “licensees [reactor owners], not the NRC, are responsible for which parts end up in their plants.”
And to that cuts to the core of the two ends both
Re: (Score:2)
had unqualified people designing electrical and mechanical aspects with no engineering approval.
Why? Isn't that illegal?
Re: (Score:2)
The politicians need to either do something or get out of the way.
Re: Then I guess we'd better hurry up ... (Score:2, Funny)
I used that phrase to point out your hypocrisy and for no other purpose. You can't successfully twist it into something else when my purpose was obvious and the comment is right there for anyone to read. You must really think we're all a bunch of idiots who can't read, based on your own experience here I assume.
Re: Then I guess we'd better hurry up ... (Score:2)
You puked up some nuclear nonsense.
Tell me which words confused you so I can laugh, I'm certainly not going over it again when that's clearly a waste of time.
Re: Then I guess we'd better hurry up ... (Score:2)
Re: Then I guess we'd better hurry up ... (Score:2)
One man's climate disaster (Score:4, Informative)
is another man's nicer weather.
I live at 65N latitude and this summer, the weather was so balmy that we essentially had no mosquitoes. That's super-rare in boreal regions. And this winter is shaping up to be exceptionally mild and excellent for cross-country skiing.
It's nicer for us temporarily, but of course it's a very bad symptom and the forerunner of another kind of ecological disaster here in the north, because nature isn't built to cope with for those conditions here. But at least while it lasts and the consequences aren't there yet, it's quite enjoyable.
Re:One man's climate disaster (Score:5, Interesting)
While I do like the warmer weather, temperature-wise, if it comes at the cost of fewer sunny days, I think I would rather go for the "cold and sunny" over "warm and dreary"
Re: (Score:2)
is another man's nicer weather.
I live at 65N latitude and this summer, the weather was so balmy that we essentially had no mosquitoes. That's super-rare in boreal regions. And this winter is shaping up to be exceptionally mild and excellent for cross-country skiing.
It's nicer for us temporarily, but of course it's a very bad symptom and the forerunner of another kind of ecological disaster here in the north, because nature isn't built to cope with for those conditions here. But at least while it lasts and the consequences aren't there yet, it's quite enjoyable.
I'm way down in the tropics at 53N latitude. This winter has been hovering around zero (using real units) so whenever we get a bit of snow the freeze/thaw cycle turns sidewalks into a skating rink.
And of course not enough snow for cross-country skiing.
Re:One man's climate disaster (Score:4, Funny)
This winter has been hovering around zero (using real units)
Wow, that's quite cold. But hey, at least you could play with liquid helium without having to cool it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: One man's climate disaster (Score:2)
is another man's nicer weather.
I live at 65N latitude and this summer, the weather was so balmy that we essentially had no mosquitoes. That's super-rare in boreal regions. And this winter is shaping up to be exceptionally mild and excellent for cross-country skiing.
It's nicer for us temporarily, but of course it's a very bad symptom and the forerunner of another kind of ecological disaster here in the north, because nature isn't built to cope with for those conditions here. But at least while it lasts and the consequences aren't there yet, it's quite enjoyable.
Enjoy it before the ticks find out :/
Re: (Score:2)
Well yeah there is that.
I guess what I meant was last year was ticks only, versus ticks and mosquitoes.
Re: (Score:3)
because nature isn't built to cope with for those conditions here
the tree-huggers fallacy. planets fine, the people are fucked
Sulfur dioxide? (Score:5, Interesting)
Did they factor in the sudden drop in global cloud coverage over the oceans?
Banning high-sulfur fuels in cargo ships was a good move when it comes to reducing acid rain - but it became obvious very quickly that the ocean-spanning clouds seeded by the resulting sulfur dioxide had been causing a powerful global cooling effect, and removing them is nearly doubling the rate at which the planet is warming.
Personally, it seems to me like maybe we should roll back the new ban until we've got the warming under a bit more control. Is reducing acid rain for a few decades really worth cutting the time we have to avert catastrophic global warming in half?
Instead, the only proposals I've seen have been adding new, expensive additives to the fuel to get a similar effect. Which realistically seems VERY unlikely to happen, especially compared to the ease with which everyone would be happy to go back to the old cheap bunker fuel.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, the ULS fuels have been a real boon for petrochemical companies. It may be "good for the environment", but it's even better for the pump price of fuel (going up).
Despite it being a very significant improvement to the (US) economy to reverse the ban, and a net benefit to the environment in the short term, it'll never happen. Just like with all of these "feel good" initiatives, they're first and foremost about padding the pockets of power brokers. Whether or not it helps the environment is not
Re: (Score:3)
Banning high-sulfur fuels in cargo ships was a good move when it comes to reducing acid rain - but it became obvious very quickly that the ocean-spanning clouds seeded by the resulting sulfur dioxide had been causing a powerful global cooling effect, and removing them is nearly doubling the rate at which the planet is warming.
In particular, as of a couple months ago the climate scientists were estimating that the sulfur cleanup driven ship track reduction was more than enough to explain ALL of the ocean sur
Phase Transition (Score:2, Insightful)
Isn't it amazing how the same trolls have switched seamlessly from "Global Warming is a lie" to "It's too late to do anything about Global Warming, so why destroy the economy trying?"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No, some of us "trolls" are still adamant that "global warming is a lie".
No, we're not denying that climate is changing. That's evident, and it's probably been 30 years since you've had anyone make that argument. And, no, we're not denying that humans have had a non-trivial impact on it.
Some of us are denying that it's a bad thing, and some of us are denying that it isn't primarily the result of larger cycles humans can't control.
What is absolutely evident is that the "global warming movement" is a scam - e
Re: (Score:2)
As soon as you start blathering about green energy subsidies, I can't respect you as a serious person. Even decades after it has attained the status of full maturity, it continues to receive subsidies that dwarf those going to renewable energy, which is still developing.
And at this point, your carefully-worded "I'm not saying it but really I am" nonsense about GW being the result of larger cycles or being beneficial is...not terribly intellectual. And your contention that it's been 30 years since anybody
Re: (Score:2)
Provide to provide some evidence/clarity for the subsidies that (something other than green energies) receives? What're you talking about, exactly?
There's a slight difference between tax writeoffs (which is the majority of what petro subsidy is) and "green" subsidy, which largely fun both the production and consumer adoption, while at the same time penalizing traditional energy production.
Re: (Score:2)
Edit for clarity: Even decades after it has attained the status of full maturity, THE FOSSIL FUEL SECTOR continues to receive subsidies that dwarf those going to renewable energy, which is still developing.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean....are you even trying to be honest, or are you just making things up knowing full well they're wrong?
"Federal subsidies to support renewable energy formed nearly half of all federal energy-related support between fiscal years 2016 and 2022. Traditional fuels (coal, natural gas, oil and nuclear) received just 15 percent of all subsidies between FY 2016 and FY 2022, while renewables, conservation and end use received a whopping 85 percent."
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/fossil-fuels/renewa
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind, this doesn't even include the "electric car" subsidies provided by automakers by requirement of the government, or the subsidies given for purchasing "green" technologies which feed back into the grid for home owners like solar and wind.
Re: Phase Transition (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The fuck you talking about?
Either drop the booze or take your medication.
Re: (Score:2)
We'll be dead in 30 years. But I don't really worry, I'll be dead in 30 years either way.
You'll find that common sense is quite a lot, but one thing it is not: Common.
Causality? (Score:2)
I took Oceanography in college (Score:2)
It was a 3xxx level elective. One of the major processes taught was the conveyor belt currents that took warm ocean water to the higher latitudes and made them habitable. If these break down, we experience an ice age. So it seems that if we are experiencing rapid warming, that currents will die and usher in an ice age.
Re: (Score:2)
Then the gorillas will freeze to death [youtube.com] and all our problems will be solved.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's likely to happen, with a caveat... the flip side would be if we get more CO2 released, the atmosphere will be stabilized and plants will flourish, creating a broader greenhouse effect in northern latitudes, increasing habitable area. (We're seeing some of this in Saharan Africa right now: marginally increased CO2 is increasing plant vitality, decreasing their need for water, and greening areas which haven't been green in millennia - dropping the ground temperature in those areas in the proces
Re: I took Oceanography in college (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While the UK is likely to have a bad time of it more or less as soon as the belt shuts down... turning around 2C of warming into an ice age isn't going to happen on anything approaching a comfortable time frame.
in-numeric (Score:2)
Up, up, and away! (Score:2)
"Up, up, and away!" -- Superman
Phoenix has it's own Micro-Climate. (Score:2)
Go about 100 miles north of Phoenix to the forests of north
Re: (Score:2)
My vote for most likely is methane from melting permafrost. I don't think that's been properly estimated. (I am NOT a specialist. This is just my guess.)
Re: (Score:2)
CO2 is given an inappropriately negative connotation. We are at historically low levels of atmospheric CO2, and not far from the point where plants start to die off. We need more CO2 to improve global stability.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/heres-what-real-science-says-about-the-role-of-co2-as-earths-preeminent
Re: (Score:2)
I clicked on that link expecting to find an article stating that we are at historically low levels of atmospheric CO2, but it doesn't state that at all. It goes on to explain that CO2 is responsible for a mere 80% of the greenhouse effect, which doesn't corroborate the statement "CO2 is given an inappropriately negative connotation."
Re: It cannot possibly be that hard to isolate thi (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
let's start ruling things out. Measure the sunlight. Simple. Is there more light reflecting off the CO2 in the atmosphere? How is this mysteriously missing from any study?!?!?!
In the first place, it's not missing from any study. Satellites have been measuring sunlight for decades [nasa.gov].
In the second place, how is it that you can't do a simple Google search before posting?!?!?!?!
Re: (Score:2)
Because that's not the point.
What matters is that there's someone telling people who want to hear that everything is fine and that they don't have to change anything in their life exactly that. There is no source necessary and no proof. It's what they want to hear, case closed.
What is doesn't matter anymore. What matters is how it makes me feel and whether it's what I want to hear.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have more of a "meh" position by now. I just don't really care anymore. I tried to "save the planet", I accept that I failed, and frankly, I can't be assed anymore. If people who actually have kids can't be bothered to hand them something but a total wasteland, why the heck should I care any more than them?
Blow that CO2 into the air. Or don't.
I really don't care anymore.
Re: It cannot possibly be that hard to isolate thi (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: It cannot possibly be that hard to isolate thi (Score:2)