Canadian debunks Carbon Tax with simple math. Trees clean up far more carbon than everyone is producing.
(files.catbox.moe)
"The more you know!"
Comments (64)
sorted by:
The carbon they want to eliminate is you.
Liberals hating science and biochemistry in 3…2…1…
Yes!! Ffs, I've been trying to point this out to people where I live, exactly this point, but it's leftyville in these parts and fingers go in ears quick when convincing arguments are made. It's amazing how much less of a racist I am when I'm not here poking people with sticks.
Yup. Shit blue Colorado...first in legal pot. Grow houses sucking up generated CO2. And governor poleass wants to lock you in a 15 minute city.
Same here, near where the beer flows like wine. Western Slope is still sane, good people, good Sheriffs. Denver/Boulder/Ft Collins can suck my bawls though
https://files.catbox.moe/mazomi.jpg
Another long-con tied to cLiMaTe cHaNgE..
Putting aside the global warming hoax. If they really wanted to lower CO2, we would simply plant more trees. Lookup the 1 trillion tree initiative that President Trump signed. https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/1TrillionTrees.pdf
Hasn't Co2 gone up though? I'm not saying it's causing problems, but I thought we all agreed that the actual measurement of Co2 in the air has steadily increased since the industrial revolution. I think we're currently at ~420 parts per million.
Atmospheric CO2 currently is at 0.04% up from 0.03% in 2019. The facts don't lie. The hysteria is not justified.
I'm not talking about hysteria or feelings, just facts. Even from .03% to .04%, that's a 33% rise.
Our atmosphere comprises roughly 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.97% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, trace amounts of other gases, and water vapor. A 33% rise in a gas that is ONLY 0.04% of our atmosphere is meaningless.
That alone would cover almost the whole CO2 emissions all over the world, not counting the existing trees.
CO2 is food for plants. The more CO2 there is the more plants will grow. Why is that so hard to understand?
Of course, just like anything else. The point is CO2 is not the danger they are claiming.
Cool story, bro.
Thanks!
If you haven't seen the cartoon that a group of engineers made and was distributed on Infowars it's very telling. The craziest part is where they slaughter all the cows to stop methane and deforesting the Amazon is a good thing. Basically they invert reality that trees are toxic and bad and lead to more carbon, etc. They are starting the slow roll of complete inversion of reality. The more this shit goes on the more I genuinely believe we are under some sort of non human attack. Whether it be a.i. demons or aliens. Something wants our planet all for itself.
Liberals hating trees in 3..2…1…
The earth’s orbit around the sun is not perfectly circular. The orbit is elliptical (see Milankovitch Cycles). This, as well as the Sun’s natural cycles, undoubtedly play a huge role in earth’s ever-changing climate.
It is the only factor that makes any real difference. If we increase CO2, plant life will increase and hold the CO2 in check. If we plant more trees, the amount of CO2 in the air will drop, fewer plants will survive as a result, thus fewer plants will absorb CO2, and CO2 will rise again, allowing the plants that couldn't survive at that lower level to come back. The amount of CO2 we have goes up and down in cycles relative to our distance from the sun, and it doesn't vary that much. It's a non-issue no matter how you slice it. CO2 doesn't affect temperature. Temperature affects CO2.
The Australian Government tried using that calculation to prove Australia's carbon footprint was far less than tree uptake and the IPCC and the UN had a fit and refused to allow Australia to carbon trade and generate considerable income.
We are the carbon "They" want to reduce!
We should plant more trees then
We don't even have to do that. More CO2 = More plant life. Too much plant life, CO2 drops, plants die, CO2 goes back up, plant life goes back up. It's a self-sustaining system. There's literally no need to do anything different, and if we did, it wouldn't change anything.
There is an upper limit of CO2 -> plant life. If there is too much, many plant species will suffer.
Different events do change things. You're wrong about that.
Many plant species will suffer? LOL tell me, have you been the equator? Do you see a dearth of plant life there? Plants need CO2, sunlight, warmth, soil, and water. If they have those, they grow. CO2 is spread pretty evenly across the planet. Where there is no plant life it's either too cold, too dry, or both. And that's determined by geography and their distance from the poles.
There's also a set amount of water on this planet. Heat it up all you want, all you'll get is more rain, and thus, more plant life in more places drinking up the CO2.
Get a grip. CO2 isn't a problem. And warmer temperatures would be a good thing for everybody, but since CO2 doesn't affect that, it's a non-issue either way. Our planet is what it is. It's distance from the sun is what it is, and our ability to affect an of it on a macro-scale is nill.
You said the CO2 is distributed evenly across the planet (it’s not, btw), so why would going to the equator change anything
Different plants require different conditions to thrive, hence why different areas have different plant life. There are many species of plants that do not survive as well with too much CO2
Oh my God. It's a gas. It's always moving, so yes, it's PRETTY even across the planet. The equator doesn't have any more or any less CO2 on average than the rest of the planet. That's not why plant life is so rich there. It's rich there because they have tons of direct sunlight, it's warm, and it's wet. The direct sunlight and warmth are a result of being on the fucking equator, and the wet is due to its geography. Drive to southern california sometime. You'll pass Vegas which is a dry desert, and in a few minutes you'll head over a mountain range that drops into California, where shit grows pretty much no matter what you do. Why? The clouds that form over the ocean hit those mountains, compress, drop rain all over southern california, and have very little left by the time they make it over the mountain range.
CO2 has nothing to do with anything except for the fact that without it, there would be no plants. But we have it, so there ARE plants.
Why is this hard?
I agree. That's why I was confused when the comment before seemed to use plant life on the equator as evidence that plants are always going to be fine with more CO2:
I already understand that plants use CO2 in the photosynthesis process to make glucose. However, what I am saying, and what evidence and observations have shown, is that in conditions with too much CO2, many plant species suffer.
Most plant species DON'T. So I don't really get what point you think you're making. Go to industrial greenhouses, they literally have machines that pump out extra CO2. You can cite as many New World Order articles as you like. Those who grow plants for a living know what works.
A little reading for you:
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/dont-plants-do-better-environments-very-high-co2
LOL I'm sorry. That article...you found that...compelling?
I'm quite certain you didn't read it given that you replied within a minute of me sending the link, so I'm not sure how you were able to pass judgement.
If you have actual data to support what you've said, I'm happy to read it, but it seems that you're just clinging to your belief without caring about facts.
I stayed awake during science class prior to fake climate science taking over the world. Why don't you go back to that article, see who posted it, figure out what company owns it, what company owns them, and what their angle is. I think you'll find the truth a lot easier by following the money here, pal. I don't have to read communist propaganda to form my opinions on the blatantly obvious. Go cry about the few plants who choke on too much CO2 elsewhere.
One more:
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/12/more-co2-in-the-atmosphere-hurts-key-plants-and-crops-more-than-it-helps/
LOL. Follow the money, pal. Your science isn't science. Use your brain.
Unfortunately my brain, like yours, doesn't have full intricate knowledge of how CO2 levels affect plant life. That's why I read about plants to better understand the process and find research and data that gives a more complete picture.
Are you saying that the only reason you believe what you're saying is because your brain says so?
I'm saying go to an industrial greenhouse. People who grow plants for a living have machines that create extra CO2 to make them grow faster. Your NWO funded articles demonizing this essential component of life doesn't sway MY BRAIN.
Aren’t our oceans the biggest co2 sinks in the entire world?
But didn't they switch to nitrogen? Shouldn't we focus on debunking that??
Atmospheric carbon is not a pollutant, either. It helps plants grow, it's one of the main nutrients they rely on. I've heard that our atmosphere is composed of 0.04% carbon, and that at 0.02%, plants struggle to survive.
It's well known that you can pump carbon into a greenhouse and the plants grow huge. Also, animals can be put into a greenhouse to naturally increase the atmospheric carbon inside. (like in my neighbor's greenhouse/chicken coop combo)
The artificial additives that burn in fuel are bad for the environment, surely, as a pollutant. But the carbon that comes out of the exhaust is not a pollutant at all, but a benefit.
" Dude! You are carbon."
Plants will take as much as we can give.
"They" won't listen to him.