I agree that there should be way more focus on agriculture than merely on transportation and energy production, though CO2 is a huge part of the problem of agriculture also.
It’s not like there’s no information out there. I don’t know about balance, but there sure has been a lot of ‘tree planting’ stuff around. Though I think some of that is misguided too, since a lot of tree planting is inappropriate, like monocrops of inappropriate trees rather than focusing on rewilding. But here are some examples of data out there:
‘Europe’s lost forests: a pollen-based synthesis for the last 11,000 years’
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-18646-7
And here’s some graphics from this highly informative page: Deforestation and Forest Loss - Our World in Data
For the world:
But Europe seems actually not nearly as bad as some other regions over the last century, and forest cover is increasing now:
Though it’s important to note not just where deforestation occurs, but who is actually responsible for it:
And diet should be understood in terms of its environmental impact too. Veganism is quite clearly the environmental option that should be the most important one promoted. This graphic touches on diet at least showing some of the horror of beef:
I would say that especially about forests such as the Amazon, which is one of the primary cloud factories of the planet. The trees produce chemicals which actually seed clouds - most clouds it would seem, are actually seeded by chemicals from trees and ocean microorganisms, not merely water condensation. And clouds reflect heat back out into space. This is key to planet temperatures.
I don’t know who the ‘they’ is that you mention, but I have certainly heard a great deal about the influence of the Sun! That’s at the very heart of the ‘greenhouse effect’, after all.
Well, that is an entirely evidence-based position. Do you not believe in the science agreed by basically all climate scientists in all countries regarding the effects of atmospheric CO2 increase on the global temperature? (The only exceptions I can think of are an extremely tiny number of corporate sponsored ‘scientists’ who are akin to the corporate sponsored ‘doctors’ whose tobacco industry sponsored ‘research’ showed how perfectly safe smoking tobacco was). Here are some graphics:
Source:
That correlated with temperature:
Source: Link between CO2 and Earth’s temperature is well-established, despite claims on Fox News – Climate Feedback
More detailed temperature chart:
Source:
CO₂ and Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Our World in Data
I do think that regular people shouldn’t be demonised for not believing in evidence-based science. But I do believe that politicians and corporations should be demonised for doing so. The oil companies for example whose own scientists informed them back in the 1950’s and 70’s of the impending catastrophic global impacts from CO2 increases caused by those very companies, who then covered that up and lied, just for psychopathic profits - those responsible for such crimes should be imprisoned and stripped of all their assets, in my opinion. And politicians should be banned from receiving any money directly or indirectly from psychopathic companies such as the oil industry or weapons industry or for that matter the pharmaceutical industry, and banned from taking jobs from them after leaving office too. That would radically chance government policy on climate, war etc. Money is the primary driver of climate destruction, so far as I can see.
And that also relates to your point on something we may be able to agree on. The idea that the responsibility lies with the individual, is false. Take plastic recycling for example - that idea was the creation of the plastics industry, and it worked well for them, making exceedingly wasteful people feel good about financing plastics companies to destroy the planet, because they ‘recycle’ their non-reusable plastic rubbish, all the while massively increasing their consumption! This is a con, and it’s really on the politicians to change things to make a real impact. But they are financed by the very demons who profit from destruction.
Fair enough. So far as I understand, a lot of biofuel is environmentally destructive. Carbon credits are another con. And ‘hybrid vehicles’ are so far as I see it, yet another con to prop up the internal combustion vehicle and fossil fuel industries.
There are actually many fuming about this. Otherwise I would not know about it myself. George Monbiot is just one good source of information that comes to mind, he’s a very well known journalist here in the UK and is heavily into promoting rewilding, and bringing good environmental awareness and government criticism. He is also one of the main dudes on the most excellent news channel Double Down News.
I think there is a difference between studying the wealth of evidence-based data and coming to well reasoned conclusions, including through a process of receiving criticism and analysis and debate from well educated peers who are expert in the field; and cherry picking information often from unreliable sources and then projecting a conclusion that may have little to do with reality, and then discussing it with people who are not well educated on the topic. The latter is a common failing, and is deserving of criticism, though should also be sympathised with since complex topics are generally not easy to understand, and education levels are often poor. A lot of people simply don’t know how to do good research and analysis, and that’s understandable.
But this does relate to my original point. Lies are indeed so common. I gave the pandemic as an example, and so much of that comes down to corporate sponsorship, such as the many millions of pounds given by Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies to the Royal Colleges of Medicine in the UK, as I was just reading an investigative piece about yesterday in the British Medical Journal. And their sponsorship of government is intimately linked to that same conning of the public on severe matters of public health and safety. So it’s totally understandable that there is growing public mistrust of science in general. But I find it really sad when that results in many people disbelieving genuine climate science and in response, embracing fossil fuel company propaganda, which seems a rather common phenomenon in the US for example.
On the other hand, there are many good things we can do that can help in some way at least, the situation, for which we do not even need to agree on the science. And the whole ‘landrace gardening’ endeavour is, I think, one of those things. Growing crops that require less energy-intensive input and greater genetic and species diversity, not only works towards helping deal with the climate crisis, but also can save us money, feed us delicious food, and be a whole lot of fun.
Yeah, this is a huge worldwide issue. The media silence on this is criminal. The government silence on this is equally criminal. Horrific. Very different to climate science though. The data is entirely clear that covid vaccination correlates to huge excess death, and that is ongoing, and yet governments refuse to make enquiries, and even medical journals generally refuse to publish extremely high quality research papers. But not all. There are some good very valid studies on this but some top researchers. On climate however, there is global consensus, it’s really clear what’s going on. It’s just that the governments are blatanly ignoring the scientists. At best they talk ‘nicely’ about it, but then continue to subsidise the fossil fuel industry, and fail to make the urgent changes to agriculture needed.
But on the positive side, we can ourselves contribute to ever better ways of growing, and spread these ways locally. Garden by garden, farm by farm, I think we can make a difference. And when more environmentally beneficial (or at least less harmful) methods are shown to be profitable, that can be enough to make a farmer switch. For example we do see more and more adoption of no dig farming. Let’s also push locally, each of us perhaps, for person by person, farm by farm, adoption of endophyte conscious soil organism protecting genetically diverse food growing! Whether that be through conversation, demonstration, or plant breeding.
