All I did was explain the usage of the term "green" in the context that it was being used.
The rest of your post is just assigning to me concepts that I did not argue for.
I do understand that it is going to be hard if not impossible to get all of the current human population on Earth converted to "green" or "renewable" energy sources. That is why I have been posting for years that such a large human population is not sustainable in the long term, at least not at the level of comfort that most people in North America and Europe currently enjoy.
Regarding your thinking about the importance of CO2 levels in Earth's atmosphere, I do tend to agree that the people who are thinking we can turn Earth into another Venus are not correct. But, if you take a look at what the Earth was like in the past when CO2 levels were substantially higher than they are today, you will see that it will cause severe challenges to our current lifestyles, too. Our coastal cities would be flooded by sea levels about 300 feet higher than they are now, and our crop producing areas would be relocated, and perhaps reduced. I think that is where we are ultimately headed - a post ice age extended warm period. The issue is whether we can adapt as fast as it happens, and whether other species can adapt that fast, too. It won't be just a uniform temperature increase. Weather patterns will shift, and environmental chemistries will change, and species will die out.
However, climate modeling is still not so well understood that we can actually rule out another ice age in the not-so-distant future.
You can use the uncertainty as an excuse to not bother trying to minimize your impact on Earth's climate and ecosystems. But, at some point, you or your children will probably be faced with changed conditions that you don't like, and will probably look back on decisions being made now and wish we had been smarter at this time.
The rest of your post is just assigning to me concepts that I did not argue for.
I do understand that it is going to be hard if not impossible to get all of the current human population on Earth converted to "green" or "renewable" energy sources. That is why I have been posting for years that such a large human population is not sustainable in the long term, at least not at the level of comfort that most people in North America and Europe currently enjoy.
Regarding your thinking about the importance of CO2 levels in Earth's atmosphere, I do tend to agree that the people who are thinking we can turn Earth into another Venus are not correct. But, if you take a look at what the Earth was like in the past when CO2 levels were substantially higher than they are today, you will see that it will cause severe challenges to our current lifestyles, too. Our coastal cities would be flooded by sea levels about 300 feet higher than they are now, and our crop producing areas would be relocated, and perhaps reduced. I think that is where we are ultimately headed - a post ice age extended warm period. The issue is whether we can adapt as fast as it happens, and whether other species can adapt that fast, too. It won't be just a uniform temperature increase. Weather patterns will shift, and environmental chemistries will change, and species will die out.
However, climate modeling is still not so well understood that we can actually rule out another ice age in the not-so-distant future.
You can use the uncertainty as an excuse to not bother trying to minimize your impact on Earth's climate and ecosystems. But, at some point, you or your children will probably be faced with changed conditions that you don't like, and will probably look back on decisions being made now and wish we had been smarter at this time.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram