1. Because they complain about a «global warming» defined by a 0.5° C increase in the average temperature since 1950, but what I see is a «climate change» that means longer periods of dog days — and 40° C instead of 33° C –, but also unexpected periods of freezing or snow. If it only were about 0.5° C, it couldn’t have been such a mess.
2. Because Europe actually used to be much hotter before the Little Ice Age (circa 1250-1850) — this sudden decrease in temperature made Brueghel the Elder paint snow landscapes in the 16th century –, so an increase would only revert to a situation that was perfectly OK for the planet.
3. Because focusing on the global warming means nobody cares about the ozone hole. They even claim the ozone hole had decreased at its smallest size since 2002, but try to compare a summer day without sun with another summer day having the same temperature in the shade, but with sun; when the sun burns, it really, really burns — the UV level is high, and it feels like it’s much, much warmer, just because of the ozone hole. Not to mention the high risk of skin cancer.
4. Because focusing on the CO2 means nobody cares about the other pollutants — the real pollutants, as CO2 is not a pollutant, but a natural biological product. Industrial pollutants and car exhaustion noxious particles are extremely toxic and harmful to life, regardless of their existent or non-existent «greenhouse effect». Those other pollutants have shortened the life expectancy in northern China by 5.5 years, and they might be responsible of the climate change much more than the bloody CO2 and the stupid 0.5° C increase. Think of acid rains and the resulting deforestation.
5. Because getting rid of a part of the CO2 surplus would be easy, should the idiots remember about the photosynthesis — that elementary process that transforms CO2, with the help of water, of the sun, and of the chlorophyll, into oxygen and sugar. All we should do is to reverse the deforestation – even Stalin had afforestation programs, we’re too stupid to do that. Hey, some idiots even claim that «once they die, the trees release the accumulated CO2», without realising that trees DON’T accumulate anything! (Sugars are transformed into cellulose, that’s all.) Oh, and when they die, the CO2 released by their biological decomposition is insignificant if compared to the huge amount of the CO2 processed through photosynthesis during a tree’s life!
6. Because the Kyoto Protocol “Certified Emission Reductions” (CER) aka “carbon credits” are a joke. Were they meant to really determine a uniform and fair reduction in the CO2 emissions, they wouldn’t have been legally tradeable between countries! Once a country has a limited number of “carbon credits”, that’s it! (But no, it isn’t.) It’s all a farce and it actually hinders the development of the third-world countries!
7. Because they still blame the burning of coal, but CO2 aside, the coal is nowadays used infinitely cleaner than in the past. We don’t experience anymore catastrophic smog events like in the Middle Ages or, more recently:
- In London: London-type smog with smoke from burning of coal and other materials include events in Dec. 1873 (270-700 deaths in excess), Jan. 1880 (700-1,100 excess deaths), Dec. 1892 (1000 excess deaths), Nov. 1948 (300 excess deaths), Dec. 1952 (4,000 excess deaths), Jan. 1956 (480 excess deaths), Dec. 1957 (300-800 excess deaths), and Dec. 1962 (340-700 excess deaths).
- In the Meuse Valley, Belgium, Dec. 1-5, 1930: fog, temperature inversions, heavy SO2 emissions from coal combustion sickened 6,000 people and killed 63 in excess to the average rate.
- In Donora, Pennsylvania, Oct. 26-31, 1948: heavy SO2 emissions from coal combustion killed 20 in excess to the average rate, sickened 7,000 out of the town’s 14,000 residents, and at noon it was as dark as at night:
- In Poza Rica, Mexico, Nov. 24, 1950: smog with H2S led to 22 excess deaths and 300 hospitalizations.
- In New York City, Nov. 24-30, 1966: smog with SO2 led to 168 excess deaths.
Here’s how the Fifth Avenue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, looked at 11:00 AM on Nov. 5. 1945:
While the pollution levels in today’s Beijing can be very severe, I don’t think we can still have such situations nowadays.
So the situation is improving — legal norms and technology decrease the pollution. But there are other issues — from deforestation to the still existing ozone hole.
Leave my coal alone. Leave my non-economic light bulbs alone. Stop the “carbon certificates” farce.
Stop the idiocy of storing CO2 either in underground long-term storage facilities, or through “geological sequestration” — like it’s happening today in Germany in places like Ketzin or Schwarze Pumpe. If large amounts of CO2 resurface or escape, they would kill through asphyxiation many innocent people, and they would have no time to escape!
And fucking start planting more trees!
LATE EDIT: Remember that volcano with unpronounceable name, Eyjafjallajökull? When it erupted in 2010 (not in 1821-1823), the weather went a bit cooler, because of the increased albedo. Also, the air traffic has been severely disrupted. As we cannot influence such eruptions, how about we stop flying around the planet like a bunch of idiots, and start using videoconferencing and other modern technologies? Let’s just use the planes as tourists, not as stupid managers or sales agents…