Unlike the usual view, some actually say good!
Or is this just an April Fool’s joke from 4/1/01?
On the other hand, the notion that increasing atmospheric CO2 is bad and that it needs to be sequestered in earth, wouldn’t you know, gets a boost from the profit motive.
But the notion that CO2 is good goes along with the idea that the more CO2 the plants can absorb, the larger and faster they grow. Thus promoting the greening of the earth! Ah . . . but wait a minute, that’s not good, unless the other elements they need are also increased proportionally. See this:
For those who say it’s bad, why? Because CO2 is the principal “greenhouse gas” and so traps heat.
And, goes the theory, ever since the industrial revolution, our use of fossil fuels has been expanding, which, in turn, releases more and more CO2 into the atmosphere, and heats it up more and more.
Of course, as a lifelong progressive liberal, I bought the “climate change” agenda hook, line, and sinker, the principal marker of which was the scary increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Remember Bill McKibben, his campaign to keep carbon dioxide below 350 ppm? That was in 2009, when he led 350.org’s organization of 5,200 simultaneous demonstrations in 181 countries.
But, as we all know, CO2 levels kept increasing, and are currently projected to reach an average of 417 ppm in 2021.
So what does it mean? Are we really on course to heat the planet, thanks to CO2’s role in expanding greenhouse gases, forever and ever?
But wait a minute, is this really true?
If so, how to parse what happened during 30 years prior to 1970?
Oh but never mind. “The science” is clear. Global warming is on the agenda; it’s the next big thing to be afraid of, now that Covid-19 is waning.
And of course, now that “progressive” “liberal” Buy-den is in office, let’s get that famous, idealistic Green New Deal rolling, eh?
Shut down fossil fuels. Use unreliable wind and solar instead (with their enormous infrastructure costs i.e., their “embedded energy” construction costs, likely fueled by some form of oil or gas!). Oh, but wait! Go for nuclear instead (and ignore it’s toxic byproduct)! Or, if the ufo folks are correct, we will soon see the release of various “free energy” technologies — at no cost to the environment!
Here’s where “the science” (of global warming, i.e., of CO2 levels rising inexorably due to industrialization) is either buttressed by, or at odds with, politics, depending on whether or not you be-LIE-ve the global warming “science.”
And of course, progressive leftist liberals do.
But you know what? I don’t. I confess, I let go of my former political orientation sometime back. When? Certainly by the time of 9/11, which my own intuition told me, immediately, was “an inside job” (in those very words); but even before then, when my heroine Hillary was revealed to be a pedophile, thanks to MK Ultra “presidential level sex slave” Cathy O’Brien’s brave book, Trance Formation of America.
Ever since then, I’ve been skeptical about all so-called certainties. And having lived now 78.4 years, I’ve seen apocalyptic futures come and go, over and over again.
So what about this? What if global cooling is more in the offing than global warming?
And if so . . .
I have no idea, of course, what’s real in any of this. But please bear with me.
Several years after taking the permaculture design course, I was talking to a permaculture teacher and somehow the question of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere being good for plant growth came in one of those moments that, looking back on it now, I realized was a tiny red pill inserted into then still somewhat blue-pilled brain, the idea that since plants need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis, then in fact, the more they get, the larger and faster they grow! Wow! How does this compute with viewing CO2 as a villain?
Of course, (see above) it also turns out that if plants do get more CO2, then they also need a corresponding increase in nitrogen and other nutrients, else they expand structurally because of the carbon, but turn out not to be as nutrient dense as before, and so not as full of nutrients for us when we eat them, either.
In any case, whether CO2 is a hero or a villain seems to be, it depends. Too much, and the plant is thrown out of balance. As usual with nature — harmonious balance of many variables in certain amounts is required, if nature is to be regenerative.
Even so, I find it interesting that the role of CO2 as villain seems to be part and parcel of be-LIE-ving in global warming!
To me, and I’ve said it before, our human need for correct predictions of the future is tied in with our fear of death. That if we can correctly predict, then we make arrangements to avoid at least that particular manner of death!
Likewise with the covid nonsense: those who subscribe to that fear are utterly terrified of dying. Which goes for most of western culture! We westerners are taught to fear death. Death is the big no no. We’re supposed to just grow and grow and grow forever! To hell with the second half of especially our own life cycle!
Furthermore, I’m utterly convinced — and this is due to my own nature as an intensely mysterious being living inside an intensely mysterious body which partakes of the intensely mysterious earth body — that it is literally impossible to truly predict the future of anything except that of automata, where all variables are known and describable. Earth is no automaton. She is alive. And mysterious, the variables which could be used to describe her are infinite.
I.e., THE MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY. Period!
This article has a more balanced, all-too-human view of our capabilities:
Let’s get a grip, fellow humans. Let realize that, as souls partaking in the vast ocean of being, we are infinite, too. And that one day our bodies will die. And that, even then, “death” will not be the end but a new beginning.
Always, the question is, how does nature do it? She comes back to life over and over and over again. So do we: conception, birth, growth, maturity, decay, death, the cycle is endless, as long as our souls are destined to partake in material form.