What's best for Earth?

So you would be in favor of the Chinese limitation of one child per married couple ??

 

As the standard of living increases birth rates drop. Therefore you would be in favor of increasing the standard of living of all nations specifically the developing ones. And the best way to do that is to give them fossil fuel electrical energy generation plants which make inexpensive energy available 24/7/365.

 

How do you effect that population control?

Meantime, agree that the push for Green tech etc is all just bandaid stuff. It's just First Worlders trying to find a way to perpetuate their outrageously resource hungry lifestyles. Example: I know people who post Climate Change activist type bumph all over social media ... daily. Greta worship etc. All at the same time as posting non-stop reports on their latest overseas holiday. Who can possibly take them seriously? They are just desperate to have Govt shoulder their guilt for them, via legislation designed to change industry. They themselves have zero interest in changing.

 

Where is the data showing that Baghdad is warming year by year in the last 100 years.

California has drought cycles. That is part of the weather patterns. It has nothing to do with CO2 emissions.

 

How do you improve economic conditions ??

 

inexpensive and available 24/7/365

 

Large parts of my country are hot .. and like Arizona have always been hot. The difference is that even a small increase in such climates is almost catastrophic. YOU might be oblivious to the increase in 'Vermont' because you still have to dig out in winter, but in a place like Baghdad an increase of 5c on a baseline of 45c - the effect is profound. It renders the place effectively unlivable.

 

The loss of the Japanese population
seems to reflect the loss of the Japanese Imperial Y Chromosome.


Moi

No ​

 

I haven't seen it. I communicate with professional individuals (medical, so somewhat attuned to the prosaic effects) who have lived the changes.

 

That’s ridiculous.

 

So you have nothing.

 

We already do those. As I said in an earlier post, it's a balance. We have to balance between the needs of humans and the health of the environment. There is no easy answer. That said, I can't imagine living in the hellhole that a environment "optimized" for humans would be like.

 

I'm very glad that you are not the totalitarian king. You want people to die and suffer.

 

Fostering algae in places that don't naturally have much algae is disastrous. For example, algae chokes out coral reefs.

 

Well, having lived in Florida for many years now, I can be outside in more heat than when I lived in a more northern climate. On the other side, I also feel colder in less cold temperatures.

 

We would do what animals adapted to those areas do--stay out of the heat during the day.

 

When EPA policy benefits human beings, it is not intentional. It is not the Human Protection Agency. It is nice when their policies do benefit human beings, but when the choice is between human welling being and environmental stasis, the EPA is there to advocate for the environment and against human beings. The EPA's mandate is not to protect human beings.

 

Human being would benefit from atmospheric CO2 of 1200ppm and global temperatures as warm as they were during the Roman or even the Phoenician high periods.

 

Those who consider human beings multiplying, filling the Earth and subduing it to be the original sin would ask,
'When was I an enemy of God?'.

 

Your #1 and #4 contradict each other. CO2 is plant food.