cross-posted from: slrpnk.net/post/23170535
Building “alternative” energy infrastructure isn’t enough. To avert climate disaster, fossil fuels need to be restricted, and energy consumption overall needs to fall.
archived (Wayback Machine)
If everyone simply switched from fossil fuels to “clean” energy sources, and nothing else changed, that would actually be suicidal for life on Earth.
CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 1 week ago
I don’t really get why this source first emphasizes that carbon molecules have an effect regardless of source, but then says that it is wrong for humans to “take credit” for photosynthesis. If something, human caused or otherwise causes an increase in plant cover such as to cause an increase in carbon stored in plant biomass, the atmosphere doesn’t care if humans did that or if plants did.
wolfyvegan@slrpnk.net 1 week ago
My understanding is that they want to measure the effect that humans are having on the climate, and so they measure all sources of humans’ emissions, but the amount of photosynthesis currently happening would happen even in the absence of human activity. Including photosynthesis in the accounting for humans’ emissions therefore doesn’t make sense, whereas accounting for deforestation is crucial, as that is a real change due to human activity; even if deforested land reforests itself, the initial emissions would not have occurred if not for humans’ actions.
CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 1 week ago
Sure, but if unforested land is artificially forested, or deforested land is reforested faster than would occur naturally, or human activity causes an increase in plant cover unintentionally (for example, if increased carbon dioxide spurs in increase in plant growth beyond the previous norm), then the photosynthesis done by those extra plants would be caused by humans, surely?