Climate Change and “Drawdown”, a more aggressive game plan

[icehorse]

Most of what I see about battling climate change is pretty one-sidedly about reducing carbon emissions - a fine goal to be sure.

I’m reading a book called “Drawdown: The most comprehensive plan ever proposed to reverse global warming”, edited by Paul Hawken.

https://smile.amazon.com/Drawdown-C...own+the+most+comprehensive+plan+ever+proposed

The book talks about reducing emissions of course, but it also talks about a number of initiatives underway to pull carbon out of the atmosphere and put it back into the ground and the biosphere. As the title suggests, the book presents a wide range of strategies and tactics to address this problem.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Most of what I see about battling climate change is pretty one-sidedly about reducing carbon emissions - a fine goal to be sure.

I’m reading a book called “Drawdown: The most comprehensive plan ever proposed to reverse global warming”, edited by Paul Hawken.

https://smile.amazon.com/Drawdown-C...own+the+most+comprehensive+plan+ever+proposed

The book talks about reducing emissions of course, but it also talks about a number of initiatives underway to pull carbon out of the atmosphere and put it back into the ground and the biosphere. As the title suggests, the book presents a wide range of strategies and tactics to address this problem.

It would be interesting to see how that's going to be done. It sounds like a step in the right direction though.

 

[Mindmaster]

Most of what I see about battling climate change is pretty one-sidedly about reducing carbon emissions - a fine goal to be sure.

I’m reading a book called “Drawdown: The most comprehensive plan ever proposed to reverse global warming”, edited by Paul Hawken.

https://smile.amazon.com/Drawdown-C...own+the+most+comprehensive+plan+ever+proposed

The book talks about reducing emissions of course, but it also talks about a number of initiatives underway to pull carbon out of the atmosphere and put it back into the ground and the biosphere. As the title suggests, the book presents a wide range of strategies and tactics to address this problem.

Most of the greenhouse gases emitted are not carbon containing molecules but water vapor. The carbon containing molecules are < 10% of the total, so the worst you could effect our planet is minuscule. Nothing will effect the water vapor short of cutting back on our agricultural business which causes unnatural amounts of water vapor to hang in the air and getting people to lay off constantly watering lawns. (farming and lawns cause large amounts of ground water pollution as well)

The largest factor in global climate is actually solar weather and no amount of carbon credit savings is going to matter for that one. These solar events have a much larger effect on what's going on that anything we do.

Certainly, with all this being said we should be controlling pollution as a health concern more than any other reason.

 

[icehorse]

Most of the greenhouse gases emitted are not carbon containing molecules but water vapor. The carbon containing molecules are < 10% of the total, so the worst you could effect our planet is minuscule. Nothing will effect the water vapor short of cutting back on our agricultural business which causes unnatural amounts of water vapor to hang in the air and getting people to lay off constantly watering lawns. (farming and lawns cause large amounts of ground water pollution as well)

The largest factor in global climate is actually solar weather and no amount of carbon credit savings is going to matter for that one. These solar events have a much larger effect on what's going on that anything we do.

Certainly, with all this being said we should be controlling pollution as a health concern more than any other reason.

Any citations for these claims, they seem at odds with conventional wisdom?

 

[Mindmaster]

Any citations for these claims, they seem at odds with conventional wisdom?

They're not so much claims as easily searchable information. However, admittedly conventional wisdom means wisdom acceptable to the median of our IQ as a race.

Most of that data is actually available on NOAA websites hidden behind their climate change spew.

 

[icehorse]

They're not so much claims as easily searchable information. However, admittedly conventional wisdom means wisdom acceptable to the median of our IQ as a race.

Most of that data is actually available on NOAA websites hidden behind their climate change spew.

Okay, what if I said your original claims were closer to "extraordinary"? In which case I think it's reasonable for me to ask for citations, correct?