I was talking to a normie associate about the efforts to reduce "carbon footprints." He was mentioning about electric vehicles and wind turbines. I said "if they really believe that there's global warming, then why spend $4 million on an ugly wind turbine? How many beautiful trees do you think they could plant for $4 million?"
His response did find the problem with my suggestion, but it instantly made me realize how insane the entire premise of CO2 fear is.
He said "well, trees do absorb a lot of CO2 from the atmosphere each year, but the problem is that when they die and decompose, they put the CO2 back into the atmosphere."
He was right. Whenever a tree dies, all that carbon goes back into the air. But not not just trees, we're talking about every living thing on earth-- insects, farm produce, grass, weeds, fish, algae, mammals, bacteria, EVERYTHING! Not just when they die, but whenever a tree loses it's leaves, or an animal sheds skin or hair, much eventually becomes carbon in the air.
That's the way the world works! It's a huge cycle based on helpful CO2, helpful oxygen.
Trying to fight our carbon footprint is like telling people they need to drink less water and pee less or they'll be in danger of flooding the earth.
CO2 is plant food!
Plants take water, CO2, and sunlight and turn that into vegetation. It is more correct to say that plants grow out of the air than out of the ground.
Then animals, insects, fungi, and bacteria eat the plants and/or each other and grow from there.
What's interesting is that if you increase the amount of CO2, you actually increase plants' rate of growth. The whole world is a giant control system, in the engineering sense.
Carbon is what humans are made from.
Nitrogen is what fuels the plant growth that cattle feed upon, and that we in turn consume in the form of meat and vegetables.
To reduce the world's carbon and nitrogen is to reduce the population of humanity, and all other life forms on this planet. This agenda can be summarized in a single word: GENOCIDE.
CO2 accounts for just 0.04% of Earth's atmosphere and 95% of that 0.04% comes from natural sources (volcanos,decomposition of organic material). In other words, man accounts for 5% of CO2 in the atmosphere, A mere 0.002% of the atmosphere (5% of 0.04%). Every human on Earth could drop dead tomorrow and would not have any significant difference in the atmosphere.
The premise of your statement is incorrect. When trees and other organic matter die, they fall to the ground and decompose, releasing the carbon and other minerals into the soil. These are particles, not gases.
The only way a tree could "release" carbon into the atmosphere is if it burns.
And if you cut some of the trees down and make houses and furniture from the wood that carbon is sequestered for decades.
Also, even if this theory of "carbon returning to the air" stood, with enough trees and sustainable lumberjacking (by making houses and furniture, as you say) that CO2 would go into other plants, growing them for years, decades.. centuries... millennia even in some cases.
I have read by geologic time standards today’s CO2 isn’t even that high as it has been higher sometimes much higher in other epochs. And plants are almost CO2 starved during this era.
these are particles that are digested by microbes, which then releases gasses into the atmosphere.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080731173125.htm
the government even did a report warning the food waste leads to global warming due to the gasses the decomposing food releases
https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2022/01/24/food-waste-and-its-links-greenhouse-gases-and-climate-change
This is such a miniscule amount, it could hardly be measured accurately (or meaningfully) on a global scale. CO2 only occupies 0.03 to 0.04% of the atmosphere. It can be measured in a lab under controlled conditions, but not on a larger scale.
The largest carbon sink on the planet? It's the oceans. Plankton release/use it when they photosynthesize, but that varies between daylight and nighttime. Seawater also absorbs CO2, more as temperatures rise. This is contrary to the narrative.
Government report, kek!
Wait, why would you believe a criminal organization who is already pushing global warming just because they talk about decomposition in a report?
Decomposition also creates methane, methane is a gas unless frozen or compressed into liquid.
And they never mention the positive benefits of increasing atmospheric CO2.
Increasing atmospheric CO2 does the following: Increases plant drought resistance. Increases plant frost resistance. Increases plant growth. Increases human concentration.
50% of increased agricultural gains since 1900 are due to increased atmospheric CO2.
Great analogy at the end.
The only truth about the environment is that we are polluting the earth. The rest about carbon footprint is total BS. They just want to be able to tax us again and to squeeze a bit harder. The big businesses should pay to clean up their pollution and especially agricultural ( Monsanto basically )
When you look at the Paris Climate Accord you will find the reason for it.
Paying taxes to the elite again for doing nothing.
These people are bred for being evil, blood sucking tyrants.
Isn’t water vapor much more green house effects than CO2? And the earth is covered in water vapor like CO2 effect would be a rounding error.
^^^ Correct.
yeah and "alternative" energy is not sustainable -- too many rare earth minerals etc. used in manufacture and what do THEY [ev batteries, solar panels, wind turbines and blades etc] release into the atmosphere or soil in the dump after they crap out?
Not exactly.
A lot of decomposing wood ends up as coal/oil/peat in the earth crust, as huuuge CO2 depositories.
A tree is a net positive O2 contributor in its lifetime, as long as you don’t burn those deposits.
Planting trees (or even better, things we can eat) is a much better use of money against co2 than wind turbines, but not if that wind turbine is replacing the burning of theses huge co2 depositories.
Peat is a good example. Buried deep down in a bog, it will release all its co2 during hundreds of years. If we mine it and use it as soil for plants, it will release all its co2 in less than ten years. If we burn it, it will be released in minutes.
On the other hand; we’re in a period of record low ppm co2 in the atmosphere, so low that farmers are adding co2 to their green houses to increase growth.
Co2 is food for plants, but we should be very careful about how much of it we release into the atmosphere. It’s not a problem now, but it might be further down the road.
Tl:dr. Dead wood is a huge depository for Co2(oil/coal/peat), and we should be careful when burning hundreds of thousand years worth of Co2 in the matter of a few generations.
Good points! Never thought about adding peat to soil.
BTW, shouldn't the Tl:dr; go at the top of a post, to save reading the whole thing before finding it?
When I went to third grade I learned about the carbon cycle. Today they learn about 57 genders.
Is Carbon Dioxide A Pollutant?
WHAT WILL THE TREES EAT?!
They want to tax your breath - each one of them.
And here we are, arguing on their terms.
epoch Senate hearing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofXQdl1FDGk
Understand the report from iron mountain
Climate change narrative is BS. Defreed geologist here.
Lol. Msc in geology
You missed the biggest implication of what he was saying. It applies to humans too.
So the more humans die the more carbon they put out. So you have to make whatever it takes to make sure humans dont die, and of course more and more humans should be born so they can all absorb carbon. Right? Right? 🤣
Humans: the self replicating CO2 sink theory, nice.
I recall a study doe did around year 2000 that only a small percentage of CO2 in the air any given time is man-made, implying that controlling CO2 won’t do that much.
I have to get up to speed o the climate stuff to argue with the libtards.
CO2 accounts for 0.04% of atmosphere and human activity accounts for 5% of th0.04%.
So climate activists are fighting to lower the 5% which will do exactly nothing to the climate. Because it’s the sun driving the train.
I would start with Dr. Patrick Moore videos and interviews.