Simple question… Is “Net Zero” achievable? I say no, not in a million years little alone with over a hundred different countries with different needs. The only way would be through a world dictatorship. That would also have to happen through another world war. I also think liberals are nutty enough to start wars over it so I wouldn’t count that out. I also think our government will never allow Net Zero either. I’m sure liberal states will try it and all surrounding states need to pass legislation to not send them oil, gas, or diesel when their systems crash. Yup… I would treat them just as Russia is treating the nutty libs in Europe for digging their own grave. how moronic can you be? California had approximately 563,070 light-duty electric vehicle registrations in 2021. That’s out of 14 million registered cars in California. Then they pass laws to go all electric when they don’t have the capacity to even charge the card they do have. What do you think will happen when all 14 million are electric? Not a single law or legislation to increase the energy supply. Yet they’re mandating demand increases. That is utterly moronic. They deserve no help from anyone once they make that kind of bed.
Well, the carbon isn't infinite, so net zero is inevitable unless we all die or are thrown back into pre-industrial technology by some near-extinction event. It's only a question of how and when. Not that it's a small question.
"carbon isn't infinite" That's a weird take. If there is no carbon, there are no living things, including us.
We're talking about carbon emissions. At some point, you run out of more carbon to emit unless carbon is being put back in some way, e.g. in forests or bodies. I suppose maybe conservatives want to endlessly import it from space in some way, lol.
OK I'll admit, when someone says one thing, but really mean another thing, I sometimes find I may not catch your meaning. In fact, I'm going to assume that instead of "carbon emissions" you really mean "fossil fuels" since anything that's biological that we burn are going to release carbon emissions, and we can do that indefinitely. On the other hand, you may have meant something totally different so who knows?
Both really. So the fossil fuels we burn are basically ancient stored carbon energy that, as far as I know, we don't rebuild. It is a net release of carbon - a return to a more carbon-rich past in a way. There's a finite amount of coal and oil as a result, one cannot go net positive with them forever. In contrast, charcoal from forests in Brazil is something that is renewable. You burn a tree, you plant a tree, the "infinite" energy comes from the sun. It can be net zero carbon emissions, but it's still dirty and bad for people's lungs. Here's an interesting article on the topic of carbon and fossil fuels: Could we reboot a modern civilisation without fossil fuels? | Aeon Essays
So to produce this charcoal, you are using trees. After you use the trees, you are replanting them. When the tree grows, the carbon is going back into the tree. Over time, carbon in equals carbon out. The carbon is just being used as a vehicle to harvest the sun's energy. Though unfortunately some of that carbon ends up in people's lungs causing inflammation. The net carbon concept is relevant because the idea is that the climate will change if we return to how carbon rich the atmosphere was in the past, which will cause disruptions in things like where food is grown, how much fresh water is available, etc.
If you stop there it does. But if you're producing charcoal over the long run, you need to plant trees to replace the ones you burned. If you grow as many trees as you burn, the net carbon is zero, ceteris paribus.
So you think we can burn trees? You’re okay with that? Let’s say we put all the burnable oil products back into the ground after we use what is needed for circuit boards, plastics, and all the other stuff. Then someone’s house catches fire. Shingles burn that have oil base in them and we are again away from net zero. secondly why is there not a push for a better electrical grid if this is the goal? Our politicians are screaming for everyone to change cars and for plants to convert to clean energy yet they are failing to add for the added demand. Net zero will never happen if our grid isn’t upgraded. They aren’t even keeping up with population increases little lone mandates demand increases.
I alluded to some of the advantages and disadvantages of burning and planting trees. It's better than oil in terms of being renewable and has potential to be carbon neutral, but pollution from burning wood still causes health problems locally. The "burning trees" system was actually more relevant for if we could rebuild our society if we lost technology after the oil/coal is mostly used up. I mostly used it as an example to illustrate what carbon neutral means. Since we are where we are, things like solar, nuclear, and fusion are more promising. I don't get a lot about what our leaders do. Some of them are idiots, maybe most, when it comes to the actual consequences of policy. We have a poor system of selecting/electing leaders, but that's not this thread. I entered this thread making the point that net positive carbon emissions forever is not possible, and so there is only one correct answer to this poll. It's a matter of physics, not opinion. Should we make a clean and upgraded electric grid? Yes.
I don’t believe solar or wind is viable. Nuclear is the best option. But that won’t be an end all either.
Cheer up! We have been implementing a solar strategy for decades and the solar cells are a fraction of their former cost. For about the same price of what we installed ten years ago, we can install about 6 times as much solar power today.
There is a lot of truth to the theory that you and I and our kids and grandchildren are THE CARBON that Mr. Bill Gates wishes to reduce.....and eliminate........ Bill Gates is Neo - Malthusian.............. Thomas Malthus was an Anglican Priest, (Church of England) who did understand the dark meaning in arguably the most intelligent statement on economics that was ever made... and it was by Moses...... "And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do." (Genesis 11) If we humans can agree on the value of a project..... then that project can be accomplished....... but Malthus was PESSIMISTIC and did not see any possibility of humanity improving and becoming involved in positive projects such as turning deserts green....... Malthus was INCORRECT..... AND HIS BRILLIANT but perhaps sociopathic STUDENT BILL GATES IS ALSO INCORRECT...... AND THE AL GORE CARBON TAX THEORY IS DESIGNED TO DIVERT US AWAY FROM SIMPLE AND EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVES TO THE CARBON TAX THEORY!!!!!!! Will Egypt be turned green? Will the deserts of the Islamic nations blossom like a rose? In the afternoon the Sahara Desert and most deserts near the equator are astonishingly hot but BY THE NEXT MORENING THEY ARE AMAZINGLY COOL..... WHERE DID ALL THAT HEAT GO....................???????? THE HEAT WENT INTO THE ATMOSPHERE!!!!!!!! It seems to me that a solution for the conflicts in the Middle East as well as to climate change that will fit with Isiah chapter thirty five should be considered as an alternative to the Carbon Tax solution to climate change that the political left is obsessed with. https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=5516205155165809 Could this dream that was given to Pastor Robby Dawkins about a year ago set him up to do a series of documentary films that rival "An Inconvenient Truth" by Mr. Al Gore?
Actually....... this question may be an even better one than I thought at first. Does this sound like a nearly "net-zero" situation to you? This near death experience took place in 1985 and was for about two centuries in the future. https://near-death.com/howard-storm-nde/
