If it is some important, why are China, India and Africa exempt?
Carbon is not the problem. CO2 is NOT carbon. CO2 has none of the characteristics of carbon. Trying to be “carbon neutral” is insane.
Furthermore, water vapor is the strongest greenhouse gas. Are they going to restrict how much water we drink? (That’s coming!)
OK!! Everybody pay attention!
Lesson for today:
1. The sun is 1,300,000 times as big as the earth.
2. The sun is a giant nuclear furnace that controls the climates of all its planets.
3. The earth is one of the sun’s planets.
4. The earth is a speck in comparison to the size of the sun.
5. Inhabitants of the earth are less than specks.
Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?
eu “leaders” are nitwits. Hopefully, euros will come to their senses and rid themselves of these unelected losers soon.
Does “carbon neutral” mean you can be as inefficient as you like as long as you buy imaginary carbon credits from s-hole countries?
Go ahead Yurps! Offer up your economies on the altar of Earth Mother Gaia. Show us beastly Americans how it’s done. Here’s your big chance to “show leadership”. We’ll just be sitting this one out.
Maybe some of you can enjoy this as much as I do... once you prove to a Leftist drone that CO2 increases are not a problem, they quickly move the goalposts and start talking about temperature changes... which are mentioned nowhere in this article.
4 quick questions for busting Climate Change believers...
1. If CO2 concentrations are so important, like world-ending-soon important, like tens of trillions of dollars important... it seems strange that HS science classes aren't doing the very simple experiments to ascertain what levels of CO2 concentration are best for a chosen species of plants. Shouldn't children be educated about this mortal danger, since they won't get to live to see Halley's Comet return? (2061)
2. Many of these studies have been done (cite), and all demonstrate that growth and photosynthesis rates are optimized at about 850-1400ppm CO2. We are at about 400ppm, and rising at about 1.6ppm per year. How is Earth in danger if we are slowly approaching the optimal levels for all plant life?
3. During the Cambrian Period, CO2 levels were over 7000ppm (cite), and plant and animal life thrived. How do you explain the Earth not withering to dust during this era?
4. Since the oceans emit 10-16 times as much CO2 as all human activity combined, shouldn't we be focusing in on the biggest source of CO2 in our efforts to save the planet?
Enjoy!
Oh, I thought it was “settled science” that we’d all be dead by 2050.
The human body is 18% carbon, so one way to reduce it is to kill those who propose these rules.
I wonder if they include the mass of the number of EU denizens euthanized in their calculations.