He’s so incredibly sure the GOP base is ignorant enough to buy this stupidity it’s infuriating. I mean, he’s not wrong but he knows better and it’s just so insulting.
this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2023
37 points (97.4% liked)
politics
19172 readers
3425 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
"Ok, let's plant a Trillion Trees."
"No, that's woke."
Ugh, how can a US citizen not be a doomer these days.
You can go into the infrastructure sector and take comfort that you will have a job in the underground cities that will be soon be required.
probably by tuning out political discussions.
I can’t tune out the climate.
but you can turn on the AC
carbon capture aka planting trees will actually affect the climate - in the long term, like 500+ years down the road - but you have to plant fast growing trees, harvest them every 50 years (using some method that is carbon negative), and then you have to find something to do with the quadrillions of board feet of lumber (which can only be processed using some carbon negative method). cant burn it, that'd just release the carbon back into the atmosphere. burying it is too much work. maybe use it as feedstock in continent spanning mushroom farms or something?
it works but there's issues with how it works.
Here's the problem, the messaging is "confusing", carbon is not the issue, at least in the North American continent. Estimated CO2 production is less then Estimated CO2 "recovery" from estimated trees. Other greenhouse gases on the other hand is a different story, yet everyone focuses on carbon. Inaccurate messaging is a big problem.
You’re right and you’re wrong.
You’re right that methane emissions are a bigger problem than CO2 and they are drastically underestimated.
You’re wrong in dismissing CO2. Regardless of North American emissions, atmospheric CO2 ppm is increasing and we need it to decrease. Afforestation is one of the only reasonable ways to achieve CO2 reduction. Climate modeling also suggests that more forests could have other beneficial effects(increased rain, local temperature stability in shorter heat spikes) in attenuating extreme weather beyond CO2 drawdown.
view more: next ›