i appreciate your reply. You're very mistaken, but at least you're not making a post and then running away to hide. Your link says nothing about 97% of scientists agreeing the earth is warming due to man. But more importantly, do 97% say that's a problem???
do 97% say we can make the earth cool if we stop CO2 from entering the atmosphere? Not sure if you took 3rd grade science but you're exhaling CO2 right now. I hope Sanders has a plan to limit your CO2 exhaling.
Your link says CO2 has increased by 40% since 1750. Which scientist in the mid 1700s was able to study greenhouse gasses?! And CO2 makes up way under 1% of the atmosphere. I think it could be .0004% but I don't remember offhand. So is a 40% increase good or bad? What is the exact percentage of CO2 we need in the atmosphere? what is out target percentage? You can't say more or less.....scientists need numbers to be specific - so what do they say we "need"? And of course, how can we achieve this? By we, of course, I only mean Americans. Americans limiting coal burning is going to save the planet, that's why you want these policies, right?
im looking forward to your specific answers.
The link that stated 97% was already given above, but here it is:
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Yes, it is true that animals, including ourselves, exhale CO2. However, the CO2 that animals exhale was already in the atmosphere to begin with because the carbon cycle is just that, a
cycle. The CO2 that we exhale gets absorbed into plants and the plants use that carbon to grow their tissues. We eat the plants and take in that carbon. We breath out CO2 and the plants take it back in. The reason fossil fuels are increasing the temperature of the planet is because fossil fuels contain CO2 that has been stored for millions of years and reintroduces it back into the environment when it should have stayed in the ground.
No, scientists in the 1700s were not keeping track of CO2, but scientists have ways of looking back thousands of years by drilling ice cores from the arctic. The air that is trapped in that ice contains a record of what the atmosphere was like at a specific time:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC33751/
Yes, CO2 makes up less than one percent of the atmosphere - .94%. However, the other elements that make up the 99% of the atmosphere (oxygen, nitrogen) do not have heat trapping capabilities. This means that the other 1% of the atmosphere is solely responsible for the greenhouse effect on Earth. By looking at it this way it's easy to see why a seemingly measly 40% increase would drastically influence world climate. If you want more information this link explains the process pretty well:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/if-carbon-dioxide-makes-u/
The current amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 382 parts per million (ppm). If the climate gets to around 400-450 ppm (the current rate is 2 more ppm per year) than the world climate would increase by 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. This level of increase would cause major problems like increased precipitation and drought, increased extreme weather, the great reduction in ocean animals, and instability in regions because of lack of crops and water. These problems could cost billions of dollars over time. Keep in mind that the 3.6 degrees is the world average, some places could have it worse than others. In short, we should keep CO2 ppm below 400 ppm.
There is not just one way to achieve this, but scientists have a few ideas which I'm sure you are familiar with. A carbon tax, cutting subsidies to fossil fuel companies, subsidizing renewable energies like wind and solar, and raising efficiency standards are some of the ideas. Now a carbon tax might sound bad, but as libertarian Jerry Taylor argues:
"Libertarians believe in protecting persons and property from invasion by other parties. The only role of government in the libertarian world is to protect the persons and property of individuals. It doesn’t matter whether the threat comes from a burglar, a rampaging gang, or a smokestack"
Emitting CO2 does pollute and should be regarded as hurting others and their property. These webpages, one an article, the other an interview with Jerry Taylor, are well worth reading if you're interested in the libertarian aspect of climate action:
https://www.edf.org/blog/2013/11/14/libertarian-argument-climate-action
http://www.vox.com/2015/5/12/858827...nced-this-libertarian-to-support-a-carbon-tax
Finally, the amount of emissions reduced by America only will not "save the planet" but they will inspire other countries to take greater action. In addition, America can work with other countries to try and make deals to limit pollution on a global level. Besides, are we just supposed to wait for someone else to make a move?
I hope I answered your questions with enough detail.
