At Davos, the most effective commentary was from Rutger Bregman.
He stated bluntly – taxes, taxes, taxes.
“Like being at a firefighter conference and not allowed to talk about water.”
Given the great action philanthropic action we saw with the Notre Dame, and the crickets during crises like these cyclones, I doubt we can ever get a critical mass of individuals from “developed” nations to put their own money (taxes or otherwise) into supporting developing nations during disasters. People spend money with their hearts or their economic interest and Westerners just don’t have hearts for these nations.
I think it’s a group effort and every bit counts.
One of the heated issues underlying greenhouse theory is whether space is hot or cold.
Greenhouse theory says that without an atmosphere the earth would be exposed to a near zero outer space and become a frozen ice ball at -430 F, 17 K.
Geoengineering increasing the albedo, the ISS’s ammonia refrigerant air conditioners, an air conditioner in the manned maneuvering unit, space suits including thermal underwear with chilled water tubing all provide solid evidence of a hot outer space.
But outer space is neither hot nor cold.
By definition and application temperature is a relative measurement of the molecular kinetic energy in a substance, i.e. solid, liquid, gas. No molecules (vacuum), no temperature. No kinetic energy (absolute zero), no temperature. In the vacuum of outer space the terms temperature, hot, cold are meaningless, like dividing by zero, undefined.
However, any substance capable of molecular kinetic energy (ISS, space walker, satellite, moon, earth) placed in the path of the spherical expanding solar photon gas at the earth’s average orbital distance will be heated per the S-B equation to an equilibrium temperature of: 1,368 W/m^2 = 394 K, 121 C, 250 F.
Like a blanket held up between a camper and campfire the atmosphere reduces the amount of solar energy heating the terrestrial system and cools the earth compared to no atmosphere.
This intuitively obvious and calculated scientific reality refutes the greenhouse theory.
No greenhouse effect, no CO2 global warming and climate changes neither caused nor cured by man.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law gives a radiant emittance. How did you get from a radiant emittance (total power density per unit area) straight to an equilibrium temperature? First of all, finding the power reaching the earth requires knowing the view factor from the sun to the earth, as well as the size of both. Second, this power only becomes an equilibrium temperature once you balance it with the power leaving the earth as a function of temperature (hint: this is what climate models do). The only reference I can find for your suggested equilibrium temperatures is you posting the same comment repeatedly over the past couple years.
I’ve found sources who have done a similar calculation, approximating the Earth as a perfect black body. Then the equilibrium is simply equating the emission from the sun to earth with the emission from the earth to sun (which is T dependent). This results in an equilibrium temperature of 279 K = 6 C. Taking into account the Earth’s albedo, this drops to 255 K (-18 C).
This is true for the #fossil industry. But, we depend on other philanthropies doing the Right Thing and supporting #RealClimateAction, such as the breakthrough innovations coming out of DOE EERE. As an example, PV Robotics (and others) for extremely rapid deployment of enough PV to #SolveClimateChange — that’s right, technologies for a VERY RAPID change to #RE100! Philantropies need to notice and support ALL such innovations so they can break through the din of #fossil lies.
Climate alarmists: all talk no goods. If alt energy worked it wouldn’t be alt energy. Meanwhile they jet about the world, some of the worst hypocrites going.
There is a problem with making the companies that created climate change pay for the mitigation:
What do they pay with? They first need to replace the problem product (oil use) with a non-problem product. The profits from THAT can be used for further mitigation efforts.
Climate change is an economic problem. The only way to get fast solutions is to make it cheaper to find a solution than to continue our present course.
The First cause of climate change was/is fanatical over population. Every additional new born requires an amount of environmental destruction and the creation of additional CO2, In my short life, the earth has added 6.0 billion people and continues to add about 850 million per decade. Yet, discussing over population is not on the table, evidently for political reasons.
Except each person born does not contribute equally to global environmental impact. A child born in India has a very small fraction of the environmental impact that an American child does. If everyone one on the planet existed as Western societies do (and what we see countries like China striving for) we would need SEVERAL EARTHS to support them. And these Western societies are the ones slowing down in population growth through increased education and lower infant mortality rates.
Try: footprintnetwork website to see your own impact.
People who see “Population” as the core issue are just trying to shift blame tbh. Major changes in how “developed” nations operate, from fuel usage to the overconsumption of meat products, is what will really be the key factors in building a sustainable future. Not keeping people from having children or genocide.
We should hold all of these mega conglomerates accountable for the damage they do across the entire globe!
Great article! So true that we need to examine the complicity of donors/companies aiding in climate change work and not just their benevolence. It seems that for the non-profit industry to exist there can never be a true eradication of the social ills said organization hope to eradicate.
Comments are closed.