In the name of Greta

In the name of Greta

In terms of the issue, the issue of global warming is an absolutely scientific problem. It concerns, and on this I think there are no doubts, thermodynamics of the planet Earth, more or less connected with that of the sun. This means that any plan to control global warming makes sense only if it takes into account the scientific discussion.

And so far my position: whatever the answer (by the drop in CO2 emissions until the next predictable crisis, that of CH4, ie, methane), it must be produced by “cold numbers” of “science senz ‘soul”. Because if we say to scientists who so far have dealt with what they have not understood anything, then we are in the situation of the monkey playing with a grenade.

But here comes a kind of annoyance that I’m starting to try, no much against Greta, who has certainly brought the issue to the fore, but against his following, or his fans. Which are taking advantage of it to put their private interest, pushing for solutions that are not solutions, and to make matters worse the situation worse than CO2.

Come to order. First printing. Dear gentlemen, do not work that way. First, it is not true that 97% of scientists agree. For the simple reason that science does not work for a show of hands. It does not change a damn thing if all scientists think one thing and one only thinks otherwise: if ‘ one has evidence and replicable experiments, he wins. To the science of democracy give zero.

97% is not 97% but 97% of the scientists of the publications in which you publish the evidence: facts, figures, measures. Saying that 97% of scientists first push the deniers to hire scientists deniers (and I do not deceive, in the academic world there are fine sold ready to do anything to make a career), but you’re saying false. it is 97% of the evidence, not the 97% of the scientists. One reason you should ask what would happen if all the evidence were produced by a single, prolific scientist. As you see, scientists have no use: you count the evidence contained in the publications.

Second, the climate and the weather are two different things. You are very good to remind us when winter comes cold weather, and the deniers say “but how come it’s cold if there is global warming.” True. But then summer peaks are stored in the same chapter. If the climate and the weather are two different things, always have. Or they never are. You decide. But if we now say that the hot spike proves global warming as evidence in favor, then I will peck the deniers who speak of cold winter peak as evidence to the contrary.

This way to treat ‘ argument is stupid and counterproductive, because in the end boils down to the usual crowd of “pros” and “cons”. But global warming is a problem of applied thermodynamics, not the girls who wallow in city fountains.

Another point: there will be no total extinction in the next ten years. The models that they say are considered so extreme that the calculated probabilities are small. Second, since the CO2 disappears instantly the loop when we cease to produce it, and puts us over 10 years to disappear, if we had only ten years of time to save us from extinction, well … game over. But, as I said because there are no signs of decline in global population or worsening of life expectancy on a global scale, it is unlikely one can predict the extinction of the human race. Maybe it is going to happen, but we can not really predict. The models predict that in 10 years are considered extreme and unlikely.

What happens propinano the history of extinction in 10 years? What happened to those who had predicted the end of the world in 2012. After 2012, nobody fucks them. And pulling out the lie of extinction in 10 years, all you get is to put you in this situation. Since it will be necessary to work for more than 10 years to this problem, see the problem buried with laughter just because you like to fill the front pages it does not seem wise . Also because if you do not see the human population decreased dramatically (by number or life expectancy) already within five years, the deniers will give the trumpets.

In addition to the press, there are several Bausch industrialotti who are jumping on the bandwagon of Greta, beginning to sell unnecessary things if not harmful. The first example is this:

 in the name of Greta
E-scooters for rent, Düsseldorf

That shit does not improve the situation of CO2.

It could do if it were used instead of ‘car. Sure, evidently because they produce less CO2 car, this would be an improvement. It would be an improvement even if they were used in place of diesel fuel to public services, such as bus. NOT an improvement if it is used instead of the tram, and there would be enough to watch the wheels to figure it out. Tip: “Friction per capita”.

But even in cities that have adopted sharing services like those in the photo above, there was no drop in traffic, and you do not see declines in the use of public transport diesel, and not you notice any drop in sales of both vehicles, cars and bus.Idem for electric bicycles, whose spread has not had ANY impact on the number of cars in circulation, nor on the amount of fuel sold.

What does this data?

It means that the electric scooter replaces “walk” and “bicycling.” But it does not replace “I take the car” or “I take the bus.”

And in this case, since an electric scooter produces CO2 (in power plants) and prompts for the construction, it is not a good idea. Going on foot or with a rail means we would have gained.

To tell me that the electric or electric bike scooters are a good idea you will have to show that their taking off from traffic internal combustion engines or, and sells fewer cars endothermic or at least does sell less fuel . But you do not have this data.

So, you just entered another vehicle in traffic introducing CO2 in the air.

Of course, those who produce these vehicles will appeal immediately to Greta. Not my problem: the planet it also gives a fuck Greta, in case you had not noticed.

This is an example of how a lobby of Industrial is going up on Greta wagon in order to sell a solution that is not only useless, but counterproductive.

Another lobby that is going up on Greta wagon is that of vegan food. I’m sorry to say it, but the problem of CO2 related to food consumption depends on one factor: the relationship between population density and surface area, and therefore also the arable land. A country like Germany or Italy, He can not support plant dint of its entire population. This means that the plant must be imported. How much power transportation? There are a few simple numbers: depends on the source, transport and many other things.

So, the idea of ​​the German parliament to raise the tax on meat (pork is produced on site, often in East Germany, or Poland) is likely to lead to increase in imports, ie the transport of food. It is a situation of trade-off, which would require highly sophisticated analysis to decide on what meat to put the ‘VAT. But no: the green populism says “enough to become vegans, and zap”. But an efficient solution requires more complex analysis.

Moreover, you have to wonder what will happen to the current pork producers: They will convert to veganism? Difficult. Simply, they will export the meat rather than sell it on the domestic market. So global CO2 will not subside, on the contrary will add to the CO2 on the transport. Moral: the decision to raise the ‘VAT does not work. It should be something more complex to manage all possible side effects.

Last problem: global warming is not telling the whole truth. And the whole truth is that the problem is not “the lifestyle of the people,” but “the number of people.” Of course, the correlation between CO2 and climate is this:

 in the name of Greta

Impressive. We showed everything. It seems. But no.

 in the name of Greta

Interesting, is not it? And it’s interesting because the problem is not limited to CO2.

We are just emerging from a crisis called “CFCs”, who were responsible for the so-called “ozone hole”. And we entered the CO2 crisis. It will be the last crisis? No, because we know that we have a crisis with the plastic in the sea. It will be the last crisis? No, because we know that there is a problem of methane, based on the fact that it is an increasingly heavy use.

The problem is very simple: the origin common of all crises is the number of human beings.

Do not you think that an ecosystem has an exponential explosion of a single species, but the ecosystem is upset.

I challenge biologists to show a situation in which the species at the top of the food chain increases the number of 8 times and the food chain it remains stable. It does not work.

The thing that we are not saying is that the CO2 is not the first crisis we face, and will not be the last . If the population continues to grow, we will pass from one ecological crisis.

We have overcome the crisis DDT, then that of phosphates in farming, then that of chlorofluorocarbon, now there is the CO2, the plastic is next, and around 9 to 10 billion people methane will not be sustainable (if not before 9 billion).

If we assume something like 12 billion people, we will have the silicon crisis, the crisis of steels and metals in general, the concrete crisis, one of the bricks in general, the crisis of asphalt, a crisis albedo of the land, the lithium crisis and the great crisis of organic sewage. A crisis of shit, I know. There are already the beginnings in some megacities in the world.

And I did not mention the crisis of electromagnetic radiation, including light.

What does this mean? It means that if we approach this way the crisis, one at a time, without wondering what they have in common with all the crises (ie, human demography), we’ll just go from crisis to crisis, and every crisis will leave a scar on the planet.

must begin to pose a problem in this way: FIRST how many people have to live on this planet, and THEN we can ask hOW they should live. Or maybe both together, but we can not continue to believe that the demographic problem is bumpy and everything depends on the lifestyle.

Spoiler: no lifestyle support 25 billion people on the planet.

But this touches a taboo too strong, that of reproduction.

And then …. well, I’ve already done spoiler. But before closing, I would add one thing:

The air conditioners and air conditioners make the situation worse. They cost energy, especially those inside the car. With a refrigerant coefficient of 3, 33%. Remove them from cars and houses.

But this is hard to do, even in the name of Greta. And this should make you think, if you were capable of.

And so I close by saying one thing here:

“cool” is not “important”.

We are taking an important problem and we are addressing “the fashionable side.” We are planning to produce electric cars … making sure that they have a conditioner. We are planning to recycle paper in the offices, which we cool air conditioning: even our homes are air conditioned, but the human body manages easily 36 degrees, and even 40. Anyone who has lived in Greece or Sicily knows: if you do so hard to resist 36 degrees in the office, you are dressed in the wrong way.

so to say something unpopular, but people lived in Greece, Sicily and Tunisia, with temperatures from 36 to 44 degrees, back when there was no air conditioning. The human body do it very well. Unless you’re dressed in the wrong way.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.