Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Global warming pushes ocean temperatures off the charts
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AlexB23" data-source="post: 77583947" data-attributes="member: 450900"><p>At this point, the global warming news is getting old real fast over the past few months, and has been since hearing that global annual CO2 emissions may have already peaked in 2023*. Yes, global warming is 100% real, but America doesn't seem to care to end it, neither does China. Elon Musk wants electric cars, but the car batteries require rare metals mined from Africa. Musk will use his profits to fly in his private jet, burning thousands of kilos/pounds of fossil fuels without a care in the world. So, why should we care about carbon emissions? The billionaires don't seem to care. We are still a long way off from net zero by 2050.</p><p></p><p>So, maybe we should have more walkable cities and better transit systems instead of electric cars. The US is car-centric, so it is impossible for many to walk to the grocery store or take adequate public transit. The city planners and NIMBYs will rarely allow US cities to become more walkable.</p><p></p><p>Solution? Let consumers decide when to switch to electric instead of pushing an unfeasible mandatory 100% EV adoption rate by 2035 (only 11 years from now). Maybe set the date for 2045 or something, to allow battery technology to improve, and allow companies to create more ethical batteries that require less cobalt.</p><p></p><p>*Good news: On the bright side, continental Europe's carbon emissions peaked in the late 1970s ( <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/450017/co2-emissions-europe-eurasia/" target="_blank">EU CO2 emissions 1965-2022 | Statista</a> ), and the same will happen for the country of China in 2024 ( <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-emissions-set-to-fall-in-2024-after-record-growth-in-clean-energy/" target="_blank">Analysis: China’s emissions set to fall in 2024 after record growth in clean energy - Carbon Brief</a> ). Finally, the world's CO2 emissions are expected to peak by the middle of the 2020s, potentially as early as last year ( <a href="https://climateanalytics.org/publications/when-will-global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-peak" target="_blank">When will global greenhouse gas emissions peak? - report</a> ). So yes, we will still have to try and reduce our emissions, but the news is not as dire compared to predictions from a decade ago. Hopefully this means less heat waves for Southern Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and South America.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AlexB23, post: 77583947, member: 450900"] At this point, the global warming news is getting old real fast over the past few months, and has been since hearing that global annual CO2 emissions may have already peaked in 2023*. Yes, global warming is 100% real, but America doesn't seem to care to end it, neither does China. Elon Musk wants electric cars, but the car batteries require rare metals mined from Africa. Musk will use his profits to fly in his private jet, burning thousands of kilos/pounds of fossil fuels without a care in the world. So, why should we care about carbon emissions? The billionaires don't seem to care. We are still a long way off from net zero by 2050. So, maybe we should have more walkable cities and better transit systems instead of electric cars. The US is car-centric, so it is impossible for many to walk to the grocery store or take adequate public transit. The city planners and NIMBYs will rarely allow US cities to become more walkable. Solution? Let consumers decide when to switch to electric instead of pushing an unfeasible mandatory 100% EV adoption rate by 2035 (only 11 years from now). Maybe set the date for 2045 or something, to allow battery technology to improve, and allow companies to create more ethical batteries that require less cobalt. *Good news: On the bright side, continental Europe's carbon emissions peaked in the late 1970s ( [URL="https://www.statista.com/statistics/450017/co2-emissions-europe-eurasia/"]EU CO2 emissions 1965-2022 | Statista[/URL] ), and the same will happen for the country of China in 2024 ( [URL="https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-emissions-set-to-fall-in-2024-after-record-growth-in-clean-energy/"]Analysis: China’s emissions set to fall in 2024 after record growth in clean energy - Carbon Brief[/URL] ). Finally, the world's CO2 emissions are expected to peak by the middle of the 2020s, potentially as early as last year ( [URL="https://climateanalytics.org/publications/when-will-global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-peak"]When will global greenhouse gas emissions peak? - report[/URL] ). So yes, we will still have to try and reduce our emissions, but the news is not as dire compared to predictions from a decade ago. Hopefully this means less heat waves for Southern Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and South America. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Global warming pushes ocean temperatures off the charts
Top
Bottom