Is This How We Kill off Ourselves?

 Enough with this climate change denial BS.  It is happening. We either deal with it or we die off. Why is it that some swathes of this country, maybe of the world, deny science? I fear they think Jesus will come down and save us like some superhero. If you think so, I suggest you go back to your Bibles to figure out what is wrong with that thinking.  The people of His day could not force him into performing miracles, so why do moderns think they can do differently?

Maybe climate denial is not human hubris or stupidity but a lack of imagination. If so give a look at What sea level rise will do to famous American sites, visualized.

Not all the news is bad. Take time to read Our Climate Faces Catastrophe. But High-Quality Carbon Offsets Are Showing Results from Mother Jones.

The cookstoves have improved health in more than 215,000 rural households so far, and the initiative has contributed to the local economy—the stoves are built from locally sourced cement or adobe bricks. The project has created at least 20 micro-enterprises and 170 jobs.

It’s all overseen by Proyecto Mirador Foundation, and it’s the first project to be vetted and featured by Cool Effect, measurably improving the planet by preventing about 2 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide and equivalent gases from being released. It will reportedly save miles of forests and reduce carbon emissions by about 3 tonnes per stove every year.

Mother Jones also published Is Sucking Carbon Out of the Air the Solution to Our Climate Crisis?:

Of course, governments around the world could go much further than catch-and-release. They could flat-out try to reverse climate change by using direct air capture to grab surplus atmospheric carbon and bury it deep in the Earth—rewinding the Industrial Revolution. Ridding the atmosphere of the billions of tons of so-called legacy carbon we’ve emitted over the past 150 years wouldn’t come cheap. At current prices, nations would have to shell out, collectively, about $5 trillion a year for the rest of the century. But a dire report in August from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned that our climate situation could decline so rapidly that we are left with little choice. Policymakers may well decide that removing all that legacy carbon is worth the cost, Oldham argues. “I personally like the analogy of water treatment,” he says. “When water was a problem with cholera and typhoid, governments worldwide built a water treatment infrastructure. It’s part of what they provide to their citizens. Today we have an air problem, so we need an air-treatment infrastructure.”

Solving climate change with CO2-­sucking machines? It sounds, at first, like something from a Neal Stephenson sci-fi novel—or a particularly delirious Silicon Valley TED Talk. And for years, indeed, DAC resided in mad-scientist territory. Only a handful of startups worldwide were fiddling with prototypes, and few serious investors were paying attention.

That all changed in 2018, with the release of an earlier IPCC report. The panel warned that if we wanted to keep the planet from warming by more than 1.5 degrees Celsius—the goal of the Paris agreement on mitigating climate change—we’d need to slash atmospheric CO2 dramatically. Planting forests would help. Shifting to renewables would be crucial, too. But given humanity’s plodding embrace of wind and solar, the IPCC figured we’d have to start pulling carbon directly out of the atmosphere by 2100. A lot of carbon. Ten billion metric tons per year, equal to nearly a third of our current CO2 output.

Human ingenuity (a God-given talent for those so inclined to think in that way) has the ability to fix our human created errors. We just have to act as if we had the backbone to take responsibility for our actions. Just like you expect me to take responsibility for my actions.