Polygon UR Team Aims to Reduce Their CO2 Output for the 2020 Season
PRESS RELEASE: Polygon UR Team
With all the team rumours going around during the off-season, we are announcing that CO2 will be officially cut from POLYGON UR Team in 2020. Yes, you read that right, we have set ourselves a big environmental goal as a team and we are thrilled to share that we will aim for carbon neutrality in the upcoming season.
Why?
The UR team has always aimed to do more than just racing since 2011, we have been supporting a charity by giving away used or leftover gear to communities that are less fortunate. In the past couple of years, there has been a rise of consciousness around climate change. For us, it is clear that human activities and emissions of CO2 are having an impact on global warming.
On the other side, we are also aware that we are practising a sport that is far from being “green”. We know that our lifestyle generates more CO2 than most people do. We also know that the competitive world is about using all the resources available to reach a goal which couldn’t be more opposed to what sustainability means. For us, racing and pursuing our passion is very important so we don’t want to stop or even slow down. What we are doing here is just trying to neutralise the CO2 impact of our team activities. We are not trying to teach a lesson to anyone, we are just communicating our goal which hopefully will inspire more.
Our plan to try and reach this goal is divided into three sub-goals:
1. Be more efficient. This translates into a couple of different actions:
- We will be looking at smaller more efficient team vehicles.
- We will try to fly direct as much as possible and reduce the number of spares we take by finding local support.
- We will try to anticipate our team orders to avoid last-minute air freight shipping.
2. Reduce. Reuse Recycle. Maybe obvious, but not that simple!
- Eliminate single-use plastic
- We are lucky to have Camelbak as a partner to help us with this. We have no excuses to not be using reusable water bottles as well as coffee mugs. Only by using Camelbak water bottles for the whole team, we will keep around 220 plastic bottles from landfill each month;
- use reusable shopping bags instead of plastic bags;
- use reusable cutlery/straws;
- prioritize bulk and avoid over-packaged products
- recycle as much as possible.
- Eat produce that are in season and locally grown (this can reduce our carbon footprint up to 7%)
3. Offset remaining emissions. All the travelling we have to do to get to races and events can only be reduced to a certain point. Here’s what we forecasted for the upcoming season, per person:
- After looking at multiple calculators, we came up with an average of 2,3 tonnes of CO2 per round trip flight/per person. Knowing that we have 8 World Cup stops, 3 Crankworx and a few other events planned, we calculated that we would have around 15 flights over the season. That puts us at 34.5 tons/person.
- We are currently looking into the different options to offset these emissions: Carbon market: Buying carbon credits that put money into sustainable projects is a way to offset CO2 emissions. As the carbon market is in constant evolution and growth, we want to make sure that the money we will invest will have a real impact. Climate Care, Gold Standard and Less are some of the organizations we’ve been digging into. If you work or are involved with an organization like this, please get in touch with us!
- Treeplanting: we are also looking into organizations like Teamtree to offset some of our emissions. As we know, trees can absorb the CO2 and reduce its amount in the atmosphere. We also know that we’ve reached such a high level of CO2 that only planting trees isn’t the only solution, but it is still part of it. Especially knowing that deforestation is still happening at a fast pace.
Where to draw the line?
We know that every bit and piece of our bikes are emitting carbon emissions from production all the way to the end of their life cycle. At this stage, we cannot offset the whole process and that’s why we have decided to focus on offsetting what we can control from our team activities. We hope that by doing this, we will get the ball rolling and that more people will get involved. Also, we didn’t ask for more money from our sponsors to cover the offsetting of our CO2. In fact, our sponsors are reading this news at the same time as we haven’t told any of our partners yet.
If you have any suggestions or ideas, please let us know in the comments.
What’s next for us
This marks the first announcement of the UR team 3.0 which is the evolution of our team. We will reveal more through the next month some changes with Riders, Partners, Events and more.
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
The thing is, you can make a change that is incrementally better than what you're doing even if that new activity isn't perfect.
I was just messing around and made some prototype fenders last week. They're compostable and carbon neutral, not to mention pretty sick looking IMO. Considering doing orders through our site but need to gauge interest first. Check my profile for a pic
Also, as a general principle what are the issues with going renewable? Who hates clean air, water and thriving ecosystems?
www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change
here you go. that list is fairly accurate as there is alot of data to back it up. There are also a load of similar studies done with similar results.
science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686
Why would climate scientists worldwide create an elaborate hoax to fool people into creating a greener planet? And even if it is somehow a hoax, why is going green a bad thing?
ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:b0b53649-5e93-4415-bf07-6b0b1227172f/download_file?file_format=pdf&safe_filename=Reducing_foods_environment_impacts_Science%2B360%2B6392%2B987%2B-%2BAccepted%2BManuscript.pdf&type_of_work=Journal+article
I’m a Christian. I typed that within 90 seconds of reading these comments.
I don’t think atheist are guilty of this.
Engineers, yes. I bet there are a few user names on pinkbike with the word engineer in them.
So I'm going to answer honestly and say ethically animal agriculture is an atrocity, its killing the planet, meat and dairy are generally unhealthy, etc. And in most cases me simply answering THEIR questions is what offends or annoys them. I get accused of pushing it on them while all I've done is answer what they wanted to know, on a subject that wouldn't have even been brought up if not for them questioning what I am eating instead of them simply minding their own business.
How about them Prius drivers?!
You are rather naive about the modern farming industry. Over 70% of the yearly water use world wide is consumed by farms. On average, 60% of that water is wasted due to over feeding. Crops are overfed because their soil doesn't have a living biome which renders most soils as inert and dead. Organic farms used organic soil amendments and food, but they still by and large--we are talking almost 100%--do not maintain soil ecosystems that are alive. Because the soil is dead, they continue to waste water and destroy the earth.
If everyone in the world were to become a vegan or vegetarian today, the global environment would become a giant desert.
I'm not some idiot who just likes to go out and hunt. My family has a 300 acre permaculture farm that includes 50-60 cattle at any given point. We innocculate our soil with fungus and bacteria, have natural flood plains, rotate crops to nourish the soil, feed the soil with different amendments to strengthen it, crop dust with all organic fermented teas to keep the soil ecosystem healthy, etc.
What you don't realize is that just because someone is growing a plant doesn't mean that what they're doing is good for the environment.
Take farmers in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Most will stick to the same methods that they've been using for 1000's of years. Their soil is weak and arid, and relies on huge amounts of water to continue farming. The state department attempted a farming education program in both countries, and it failed miserably because most agronomy businesses around the world only care about profit and not the environment. The same can be said for every major agricultural centers across the US.
You may say that killing an animal is only for survival, but in the appropriate conditions, it's just as efficient and beneficial to the global ecosystem. While I understand that humans have the capability to create more solutions to problems (food) than most animals, I accept that we are a part of the natural hierarchy of consumption.
I hope that someday farmers learn to nourish the planet, whether they're growing plants or raising animals
I don't understand your statement about if everyone became vegan the global environment would become a desert.
Something like half the crops grown worldwide are fed to animals to produce meat and dairy. It would be bad for farmers if everyone went veg, because they would loose their biggest consumer of crops...meat animals.
(btw, I'm not currently veg or vegan but was for 8 years ending 10 years ago)
So while 70% of water consumption goes to agriculture, then about half of it is related to meat production (animals have to eat something, they don't graze on meadows contrary to what the industry portrays).
And this half of water consumption produces several times less actual food than the other half that is used to produce crops directly for human consumption.
The same that goes for water goes also for fuel consumption etc. Not to mention mass use of antibiotics in animal farming, leading to creation of super strains of bacteria resistant to everything.
However we calculate, eating animals is a terribly inefficient and environmentally destructive way of getting nutrition.
This drawing illustrates the scale of industrial farming- xkcd is a webcomic but it's author has scientific background and his pieces are famously well researched:
xkcd.com/1338
Reduce human population, you reduce humanity's impact upon the environment. It's just so obvious.
Carbon output is not the only side effect of animal farming - add pollution due to fossil fuels, methane production, destruction of habitats - this article is an interesting read:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production
Fully agree with the need to reduce, or at least slow down the increase of the human population, as well as reducing consumerism, just as you wrote.
But the fact that a cow is grass fed doesn't mean there is no environmental impact (even leaving ethics aside).
It takes somewhere between 5000 and 20,000 liters of water for 1 kg of beef. For wheat it takes 4 or 5 times less water to make 1 kg. It isn't 100,000 liters but it is still a lot more than for non meat products.
I'm sick of listening to this nonsense being spoken by people who don't have a clue what they are talking about. You are rehashing talking points you don't even understand fully.
There was some propaganda on the Irish national broadcaster website about how to eat in a planet friendly way. There was not a single piece of dairy or beef produce on the 7 day meal planner. In fact not one thing on the menu could actually even be grown in this country. And we have idiots who don't understand the first thing about any form of agriculture, telling us we should give up not only our food security but our single largest industry so we can import all of our food from abroad. It boggles the mind how quickly people have been brainwashed by this stuff.
But just in response to your point about scientists... agriculture is and always has been at the forefront of science. Farmers take on board more advice from their advisors more than any sector I can think of. We are constantly being informed of new techniques, fertilisers, cross breeds, technology all of which comes from scientific peer reviewed studies in agricultural colleges...and you know what? Most of it turns out to be nonsense that they back track upon a few years later. I've been watching it happen for my entire life. If you follow all of the advice of the farm advisory board here you will have suffered from some catastrophic decision making based upon their scientific findings.
Scientists suffer from group think and confirmation bias just like everybody else. And confirmation bias is not worked out of a study if everyone has the same biases.
But please link me to these 11,000 scientists and I'll look into their no doubt groundbreaking and infallible unbiased findings. What are they botanists, food scientists, climate scientists, engineers?
You are only considering grass fed pasture raised beef. That makes up 3% of the beef in the US, at a price that is more than double of grain fed. Not considering the impact that the system which produce the vast majority of beef is creating this argument.
Crops create zero manure. They take from the ground and put absolutely nothing back into it. You become entirely reliant on man made fertilisers which are made from crude oil and other synthetic processes. What do you think happens when a crop is grown in the ground? It takes the nutrients in the soil out of it...a cow or any grazing animal will pass them through their system and put most of them back in. This is really, really basic stuff and none of these vegan activists take any of this into account. Do some research about how emissions from agriculture are calculated, none of the co2 that farmers TAKE from the atmosphere is taken into consideration. A field of maize will absorb a very significant amount of co2.
There are so many half truths out there about this stuff. If their arguments were so solid they wouldn't keep going back to lies.
There are options to feed the soil that doesn't use manure.
You will have to look that up on your own and decide if you believe its viable or not. I'm not trying to get out of talking about it, but I've been down this path many times on other subjects.
The only even temporarily viable artificial fertilizers are heavily used here and where they are used there is a clear reduction in earthworm life and other organic matter such as fungus. I'd certainly be in favour of getting back to a more balanced type of agriculture than what is out there but that's not being spoken about. It's basically a conversation that starts and stops with ending meat consumption as the only acceptable answer and it's a ridiculous concept.
This is the thing about vegans and other anti farming environmentalists. They love to quote studies and no. of scientists who say X or y but then you challenge them on the specifics or the holes in their theories and they have nothing to offer by way of argument. They have to keep it very vague and general where they sound very authoritative. But when it comes down to it, the vast majority are speaking on a subject that they have zero concept of. And it shows.
To say the soil has been fertilized for millions of years with manure is a little disingenuous. Deer running around in the woods and antelope wandering around on grasslands is a lot different than hundreds or thousands of cows in a fenced area.
The existance of huge feedlot farms is a really quite new development, and this is what most people are pushing back against. If all livestock and dairy were raised the way you suggest there would be a huge reduction in availability of beef, dairy and other meat products, and the prices would go up quite a lot. The amount of space to raise animals in this way is a lot more than using the feedlot system and would either further reduce output or consume even more land than it currently does. I would be excited if that kind of system existed as the only option for raising animals(and there wasn't more land used). I would be forced to reduce my consumption by probably half or more due to expense. It would be a step towards sustainability instead of away from it, which is the direction the vast majority of meat and dairy production in the US has been headed for the last 100 years.
I'm not a vegetarian but have been in the past due to concerns with how many resources it uses to eat meat.
The answer is better farming. Not zero farming. But the same people telling us we need to cut emissions (the EU, UN, national governments, etc) are also the same people who are making the family farm unviable and doing everything in their power to favour large scale factory farms.
It's insane. We have an almost entirely grass based system and our land isn't suitable for much else but these vegans and environmentalists are still every bit as malicious towards farmers as they are in the USA, Denmark or anywhere else factory farming is bigger than organic.
Extremes on either end of the scale are terrible. What super activists are yelling about has very little to do with what the majority thinks, the majority is mostly silent and therefore the only noise is from both extremes. I think that if beef went up in price by much at all there would be a lot of people complaining here in the US, and that is what makes it so that there is no actual action to move towards sustainability here.
Not to mention the swathes of rainforest cleared for extensive cow farming.
This!!!
Reasonable, balanced conversation and discourse seems to be a thing of the past. It's A or B and anything in between is wrong.
There are plenty of reasons to change how we farm. Going vegan to save the planet isn't a good one.
In short, there are many things being done to help improve the sustainability of farming. There's no magic bullet.
- use ground-based and/or communal transport wherever possible; between European destinations, it tends to be a much nicer experience anyway. Airports really suck.
- reduce meat and dairy consumption. It takes approximately 20 times the amount of land to produce a single calorie of meat compared to plant-based foods.
- consider cradle-to-cradle product choices. Does it need replacement? If it does, can you recycle the one you have? Can you choose something which you know can be recycled? Preferencing aluminium over carbon seems an obvious opportunity...
- Make sure what can be recycled, is. That means chain rings don't go in the bin. What else?
- Try to use electric or hybrid vehicles for local transport, once you arrive at your destination.
- Make your partners' environmental credentials a part of the decision making process to work with them. What can they do to help you with your goals? The camelbak example is good, though perhaps an easy win.
- Think about your choices as individuals, in your home and personal lives. It's much easier to sustain a team ethic if each of you is already mindful and motivated about your environmental choices.
It's rewarding to feel that you are making a difference - take the time to notice and celebrate it, and it'll feel like a benefit rather than a chore!
I am curious to see were this will lead.
Oh, and f*ck paper straws.
It was almost as if every rider had a personal BMW 5 series support car.
You’re right about it being a terrible spectator sport. Walking round town I heard a ton of different languages and just thought wow. Those guys have driven here from Italy to stand around in the rain and briefly watch some guys ride past them at the other side of the barriers.
Football. Great sport, the fans are generally not my cup of tea, but it’s easy to see why stadium sports are popular.
use your bike 5 instead of 2 years
buy used stuff
The focus should be on being environmentally conscious when producing new products by using sustainable manufacturing.
At the end of the day, being CO2 neutral and environmentally conscious costs a lot of money. Consumers complain all the time about expensive products, yet at the same time push companies to be 'green' and also support higher salaries for racers and expect them to put money into grassroots racing amongst many other things.
You can't have it all.
But ddmonkey referred to "everyone" and that's what I was referring to
If you would like to point out that in your opinion climate change is not a problem, then argue that, but don't say that it does not exist.
Your topics of deforestation, loss of biodiversity, and pollution is brought up by scientists and citizens for more than 30 years. So how can you clim they are not?
With the biggest polluters, do you mean by absolute number of capita?
Absolute: China, USA; India
Capita: SaudiArabia (10th intotal), Australia (15th in total), USA (2nd in total)
www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions
China #1, India #2, US military #3.
What made you come to the conclusion that only the elite would benefit from reduced pollution? This statement against the elites is actually rather silly, no? Who is this group that is so untouchable? Of course carbon taxation would not only benefit some rich people. Cleaner air would do me just fine. Why is the UN fraudulent? Is there something better? We through around statements very easily with never having been exposed to it. Is it fantastic? Probably not but the only platform we have to actually try to bring humanity together. Let’s not bash everything all the time but try to see the benefits and tackle the negatives.
Beside that, the government, and some major companies, such as Alibaba, have planted numerous trees in the north and northwest area of China. According to the UN, Alibaba's Ant Forest project has planted "around 122 million trees in some of China’s driest areas, including in arid regions in Inner Mongolia, Gansu, Qinghai and Shanxi. The trees cover an area of 112,000 hectares (1.68 million mu); the project has become China’s largest private sector tree-planting initiative." (www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/press-release/chinese-initiative-ant-forest-wins-un-champions-earth-award)
And according to NASA, "China and India are responsible for one-third of the world's new plants and trees during the past two decades, according to a recent study using NASA satellite data." (www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2019-03-04/china-india-lead-the-way-in-making-the-world-greener)
So, yes, China has been criticized for the pollution and greenhouse gas emission for a long time. However, the government and ordinary Chinese people has been improving the greeness of the country all the time while some country are busy bombing others (every Alipay user can donate to plant trees in Northwest China). Of course we everyone should consider ourselves a member of the nature, and to protect it. And I think the MTB fans has the strongest rights to say that we love the nature and would defend it at our most.
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/if-earth-has-warmed-and-cooled-throughout-history-what-makes-scientists-think-that-humans-are-causing-global-warming-now
climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/?fbclid=IwAR3r67d9TE6MvwsaJYiOQzACLmsFoYm1euasghWI9QSj7cQwbe9Fb5E83hk
The sad part is most of you are arguing your position with hardly any knowledge of physics, biology, or math.
Not to say I don't recycle, but I am not going nuts worrying about my impact. Life is short enough as it is.
From technology aspect, western countries have leading edge new energy technology, and those countries with big amount co2 emission should communicate and learn from western countries on how to improve the cleaness of their energy consuming. But also we all need to be aware, that are those so-called clean energy really clean? There are too many electric car companies, but are they really ready to deal with the wasted batteries, or they just want to get money from investors? (That's another topic of course.)
On the other hand, if we look at the co2 emission per capita, the US is more than twice the amount of China. So individually speaking, how about you guys learn from other country to consume less energy and materials, and to use more public transport, instead of having the A/C set to lowest temperature in the summer, leaving all excess powered lights on and driving 5 minutes to the supermarket only to buy a bottle of water, then come back and criticizing other countries are using too much energy?
Also, PB is a mtb news site. This is a team announcement, so news of sorts. I'm not sure they picked this up as a piece of singular propaganda rather than post a media release.
Positives -
Tree planting - as long as this is managed well, planted properly (no ditches ala FC 1950, which caused many an increased flood risk) and the correct species are used for the area then fantastic.
Recycling - should be done as standard, but good.
--
Dubious -
Offsetting . Not terrible, and Gold Standard verified are a better bet than most but this still doesn't address the issues we face.
---
At 35.5 tons per person, per year, that gives you a C02 emissions per person that is nearly 5x the UK average.[2014, citation SGR report] However, the UK footprint does rise to 14.4t per head when we introduce the the total footprint which includes importation of product, manufacturing etc..
Given that we need to see the figures per person closer to 3t, this is merely a continuation of an unsustainable model, which cannot be offset.
Of course we don't want to stop or slow down, but we need to start re-framing our cultural expectation of life, which is continually reinforced by nearly every pro-athlete and team out there. Year round global travel = success.
Not travelling the world is not necessarily a negative - if we can help create vibrant communities and economies nearer our homes / create more trails / look at circular product lifespans we can build something to be proud of.
Solutions that would be progressive:
Give each member a staff a carbon credit limit - work to 3t as a business, per staff member.
Look at the output of the team house / offices - It's energy supply, how it is marketed to international visitors and so on. I am assuming this has been done or is being done.
Instead of flying staff out to each race, only take core staff. You could hire videographers / media on a regional basis. Use local crew. Riders may not like the like the changing personell, but they have to suck it up.
Have you read the Patagonia case study on the shipping audit they had done in 2015 (I think) ...?
A good book to read is Naomi Kliene - This changes everything. It’s an interesting opinion that carries some weight even upon critical analysis.
This could be, as you say, less parts allowed to be used per team, concerted team pressure on the UCI to stream line events in terms of travel logistics and so on and potentially place pressure on any manufacturers who are flouting environmental standards with sporting penalties.
It’s a hot topic - and individual choices are not going to solve this problem. I’d love to see a team publicly back progressive Government and governing body policies, as these will dictate the success or failure of how this is tackled and Instigate real change , but as I said to start with, I commend you .
@ride.for.humanity
www.instagram.com/p/B4YooXyHEAR/?igshid=167p6gnjx0zry
www.instagram.com/p/B4YooXyHEAR/?igshid=167p6gnjx0zry
HAHA! That's a good one! More like "Carbon Market: Buying carbon credits that put money into the pockets of well connected political and industry grifters who invented this multi-billion dollar scam, like Al Gore."
It seems logical to me that the type of people who are interested in such activities should put their time and efforts into planting trees. Everywhere I drive there are fields, parks, housing estates with lots of open spaces, town centres with lots of roundabouts and grass. Why not cover them all with trees instead of protesting to people who don't share your hysteria?
What exactly is carbon offsetting? Paying someone to plant trees on your behalf? If it is, why not do it yourself? If it's something else, would someone explain it to me please?
Personally I'm not a climate alarmist. I don't believe humans have the right to eternal survival. There are too many of us and we should consider cutting down our population voluntarily in order to help the other 1.3 billion known species we share the earth with. Nothing drastic. My suggestion would be climate alarmists and those Extinction Rebels make the decision for themselves to not have children. They could even devote some effort into trying to persuade people in third world countries not to have kids. In my opinion, that would do more good than telling me I shouldn't go on a plane. If every breeding couple on Earth had just one child, the population problem would be over in 80 years without anyone having to forego beef.
Which brings me to my next point. 2000 years ago the plans the world over were reportedly covered with cattle. Are there more cows farting now than there were before humans killed all the wild ones? I keep hearing about cow farts being a major source of CO2. Does anyone know the historical bovid population figures from the past 2000 years?
Much of the tripe you have written sounds like election propagada fron Nigel Farage, he has also spouted the same rubbish that protestors should instead be planting trees, I am not sure if either of you realise just how idiotic you sound, though at least he is doing it to rouse his halfwitted base, not sure you can say the same.
In short, plant trees in the UK to prevent potential global climate crisis and prevent the pesky third world from reproducing so we can all keep eating that delicious beef.
Odd guy.
Your suggestion that humans should pay the price of climate change, first of all, will disproportionately affect those in lower socioeconomic brackets already — those who live in volatile, vulnerable areas because they have to and do not have the money to move simply when they want to. So you and your family and friends may not pay this supposedly positive price of their lives and wellbeing, but people the world over will, and already are.
Second, blaming “third world countries” for having too many babies, and claiming that convincing them to have fewer is wrong, and whiffs of eugenics. Westerners contribute a massive amount more pollution and carbon emissions to the globe — the “modernized” world powers climate change, whether by driving, flying, shipping our food, or by creating the industries that we export to countries and regions who we then blame for damaging the environment, e.g. India’s textiles market or China’s trash burning.
Finally, if you would try listening to the experts on the subject (who are being paid remarkably little; and have nothing to gain from alarmism; tenured scholars and professors and writers) you would find that your oh-so-easy 80-year plan isn’t enough, and the world would be irreversibly changed by then. We have until 2050 to fix where we are going, if that.
And your beef thing: 2000 years ago, there was not a massive beef industry that powered industrial farming and cultivation, shipping, refrigeration, etc. No one will tell you that climate change is all due to farts. Nor will they tell you that you have to cut beef entirely if you don’t want to. I think the figure of red meat intake reduction worldwide to make a significant dent in emissions is 30%. Skip it one meal a day.
I'm not a big fan of Farage. I find myself agreeing with Piers Morgan a lot, but I don't think he's alone in his views. It's more of just a common sense approach.
I'm not going to say it's a fact because I don't know the stats on people's views worldwide, but I think it's likely that the majority of the human population (by that I mean more than 50%) either doesn't know or doesn't care about the so called "Climate Emergency". Ergo, there is not much any of us can do about it. To be honest, I don't care if humans become extinct in the future. It's just not something I worry about at all.
Given that the population of Earth is 1.3 billion, I doubt a few climate strike activists walking down the street and chanting is going to make any difference in the grand scheme of things. We should all just calm down and accept the fact that a tiny vocal minority cannot influence the thoughts, feelings or behaviour of over a billion people around the globe.
I would prefer you don't reply to this because you've previously shown that you're not prepared to be civil. If you do reply, can you please refrain from insulting me? That would be great. Thanks.
For somebody willing to give out such views, that many will find offensive (such as suggesting people from the UK should try and convince the 'developing' world to to stop reproducing) you really seem to take offense to being 'insulted', its no wonder you find yourself agreeing with Piers Morgan, as I said, repulsive.
Didnt you write this? - "They could even devote some effort into trying to persuade people in third world countries not to have kids"
Do you have memory issues, a split personality perhaps?
I often hear that if everybody lived like the US we'd need 6 planets. 3 if everybody lived like France. China is the buggest polluter but per individual it's much less than the US.
Third world countries have lot of kids but they're poor, there's a high rate of child mortality, etc, they're mostly farmers who don't use the earth resources unlike "developped" countries. Of course if they want to live like developped countries it will only be worse.
Energetic-wise, each of us (people from developped countries) has about 400 slave-equivalent with all the energy we use. A simple toaster is the equivalent of a few riders pedalling (or one track champion).
We are all pharaos.
wikipedia gives fertility rate of 1.74 for the UK, and an average of 1.59 for Europe (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_European_Union).
Deaths from non-weather related natural disasters (hurricanes, floods, droughts, etc; not earthquakes or volcanoes) have been on the decline for a hundred years and are at a record low for modern history, despite a growing human population.
There has not been an increase in hurricanes, in both the Eastern and Western hemispheres, over the last 100 years.
There has not been a global increase in wild fires in the last 100 years.
Food production is growing far faster than population, and food is now more available and cheaper than at any point in human history. It is projected (by the UN) that global cultivated land will actually start to decline in the next 3-5 years from increased per-acre yields.
Non-geriatric disease, of almost all kinds, are on the decline (except for affluent communities where vaccination rates are dropping)
Global violence is at a 30 year low, despite the current wars around the world.
Global war and regional conflict is down at a 100 year low
I could go on
Read around here: www.epa.gov/climate-indicators
Also I buy steel frames which can be repaired and recycled if I ever get rid of them - however I tend to keep my frames for a long time and then sell. I haven't binned a single frame in nearly 30 years riding - they have all been sold.
This is my main problem with carbon is that while it can probably be repaired I am not sure if it can be recycled (at least they don't at my local recycling centre - which you can do with Al / cromo). I get carbon is lighter and stiffer but does it make it ride better - the jury is out.
I've been flooded by a hurricane and it was the first this town had been hit since 1963 yet people see the close call as the "new norm". No...it's a numbers game...storms go by but eventually one is going to take a path that your in line with...just how it goes. And I can confidently state that the amount of days I've surfed during hurricane season has dropped massively in the last ten years. Why? because LESS storms going by us. I actually stopped traveling for surf during hurricane season because I love surfing at home when there are good waves....this season I paddled out once...ONCE!! It's all so overblown and people love to spill out words to fit the narrative and sound like they give a big shit about the Earth...then they wrap their plastic wrapped chicken in a plastic bag at the store and drive away in their massive SUV. It's cool this team is making "efforts", it's all pretty basic stuff really, but, if you actually consider how many people and nations have zero concern about their world and how they affect it...well, none of this really matters, sadly. Oh, I will also add I surfed and rode trails under the supposed hole in the ozone for 5 weeks a couple years ago...I didn't get sunburned once, in fact I didn't even get as tan as I do in other places with a "hole"
The population of the world is about 7.5bn (sorry I wrote 1.3bn up there, I have China on the brain) of which 1.5bn, or 20%, lives in developed countries. The other 80%, or 6.5bn, lives in developing countries. The birth rate in developed countries is around 2.1 children per woman, and 2.3 (after child mortality) in developing countries. Therefore it seems to me that the problem with overpopulation is more significant in developing countries. If someone was to try to convince people to not reproduce, it would have a more significant effect to overall global population if the convincing was done in developing countries. I said convince people not to. I did not say prevent them from doing so. No one has the right to prevent others from reproducing. I believe also said if every human couple decided to have only one child – I did not apply that part to developing countries only. It’s a fact that everyone alive to day will not be alive in 100 years – close enough as makes no difference. We can literally end the climate emergency in 100 years if we simply stop breeding, or even cut our breeding in half.
The second point, excessive consumption. Not many people are going to voluntarily reduce their quality of life. A man who has no fridge is not going to decide he doesn’t need a fridge now because the climate emergency might affect him in 30 years. He might be dead in 30 years. A man with no car is not going to stop wanting one. A man with a BMW is not going to stop wanting a Porsche. A family that has never been on a plane is not going to decide to go on holiday on a bus once they have the means to buy a plane ticket. As someone pointed out, developed countries are relatively much bigger polluters per capita than developing countries but the greed of man is never going to abate. In 30 years those developing countries are only going to be polluting more, not less.
As for Piers Morgan – he says a lot of stuff to get a response but he also says things like “The world is not going to end in 2030” which seems refreshingly obvious in today’s media environment.
I also believe humans are very adaptable. Humans literally walked from Kenya all around the world. If they did that, they can walk from somewhere that gets submerged by rising sea levels to somewhere else. There are plenty of places in the world where no one lives because it’s too cold.
Many organizations and information outlets have an agenda for one reason or another and therefore what you read may not be the absolute truth, or even real. You should never hold one source as gospel
Yes, people have desires and the great thing with the current discussion, Greta, Fridays for future, etc is that it is shifting people’s desires towards not wanting the Porsche. It rather the clean air. If we manage to change people’s desires by saying that it is of value to invest into a clean environment instead of a. Biber car, then we are in a good way.
And no, Piers Morgan is still a tool. Nobody really is saying that the world is ending 2030. The argument always is that it will be more difficult for humans to live on it, especially with the numbers that we are. He though takes it to the other extreme that he is separate because he is the only intelligent person.
I'll always pick up the scummy cigarette butts at the beach, use my plastic containers til they split in half, repair any and all pieces of equipment til they scream to be left alone, but I am logical about the state of things and what is going on outside my conscious little bubble. And I do think there are a lot of kids(teens) that are growing up with a new awareness that is great to see...whether or not it sticks with them all is another thing, as well I see plenty more that have blatant disregard or thought about people and the world around them. So, I guess it's kind of a crap shoot as far as what's going to happen, but i also don't think it's going to get as bad as many like to say, and not nearly as quick...unless we have a nuclear armageddon!
Your observation that there are less and weaker weather cycles is a single source from your observations in your area and are not based on data and not covering the USA. You can’t just say that the EPA made up the results because you don’t like the data.
There have always been large storms and there always will be.
Also, I never said the "EPA made up the results" and I "don't like the data". By you rephrasing me incorrectly you simply come off as someone that has an agenda and is unwilling to be open minded to other information.
Anyone can read words and look at graphs.....I live in the real world and my life has not been more affected by an increase of massive hurricanes. In fact this season was boring. Last season besides one that came close was also...boring. The year before that..same thing. I got flooded but then things went quiet.
If it makes you happy to gt freaked out and spout stuff just because you read something then have at it...I offered my view of what is actually happen in real life...living in a place that gets these storms..this is my reality.
The West coast of the US isn't a busy hurricane area, and yes, I know there are other areas with cyclones(the other hurricane name), and because I have a natural interest in these storms I'm pretty aware of anything big that's happening elsewhere
You also said that organisations, referring to the epa, because that was the topic we had, have agendas and that “what you read may not be the absolute truth, or even real.” “Even real” is the equivalent to making up results. So you now agree that the data for. The epa is correct? I don’t get it. You have a single observation fro a single perspective. You. Not even quantified but from memory. You are incorrectly suggesting that your single observation of the weather is equal to the entire world climate. This is not correct.
In the key points they claim:
- “cyclone intensity has risen noticeably over the past 20 years”
- “fluctuating cyclone intensity for most of the mid- to late 20th century, followed by a noticeable increase since 1995”
Now whether this is associated with climate change or an indication of it, I don’t know, but I am just citing the data that is out there. It might be a natural fluctuation, since the data collection period is rather small.
www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-tropical-cyclone-activity
ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters
You'll notice that there really isn't an increase in any weather-related natural disasters over the last 100 years. Whats even better than that is the number of disaster-related deaths have dropped dramatically as we live richer, safer, more technology driven lives. Gapminder has good data on this (the organization that Hans Rosling started): www.gapminder.org/topics/natural-disasters
If we also take out all non-weather related deaths from natural disasters, its even more dramatic of a decline:
mothernature.com/2018/03/inconvenient-data-fewer-and-fewer-people-die-from-climate-related-natural-disasters
This is why I struggle with the phrase "climate crisis" when humans are thriving on our planet to a greater extent than ever in history.
You have been doing "environmental" practices since I was a little kid and I won't stop...it's part of who I am, but just because I believe in being kind to the earth doesn't mean I'm going to jump on the any info without testing against other ideas....my mind is open...you should try it
Still, the decline of glaciers has been highly over estimated and exaggerated. Glacier National Park used to have signs saying all their glaciers will be gone by 2020. Al Gore predicted an ice-free north pole several times. The Polar bear population is the highest its been in 40 years.
AGW is a coordinated hoax started 40 years ago and pushed with the UN, Globalist interests and a completely corrupt media. It is dangerous as it destroys economies, innovation and creates chaos to allow Marxists an opportunity to sell a solution that doesn't exist.
Human impact is less than ants on a terrestrial scale. Solar flare cycles, earth tilt and volcanic activity are the drivers and have been through history. The inconvenient truth is that none of the catastrophic impacts have ever happened that are predicted by the hoaxers. Requiring them to constantly shift their narratives and ramp up the propaganda. Just look at media you see on this with a critical thinkers mind. You'll soon see it is bullshit.
Water shortages....too many people in cities using too much water. For example...Miami has been pulling from lakes in C. Florida for a while causing concerns for the rest of the state, and massively depleting the lakes. Amazingly the lakes that were pretty much dry two years ago are now really high with water.
Wildfires....you do know the fires that recently occurred in the Amazon was started by man??
Drought...it happens. And as pointed out prior, other areas have more water.
Rising sea levels? This is super debatable. If you look at graphs and records they say one thing...talk to someone living on the coast and they will say nothing has changed(I've done this, and I live at the beach). There is also a natural thing called "erosion". This is why homes fall off sand dunes into the ocean. The water movement pulls and shifts sand to different areas..always has always will. Where I live they dredge our beaches every 3 years to increase the beach size...it's an awful thing to do, but, we gotta save the real estate from nature! Then over the next few years sand gets pulled away again. The morons all want to blame their home collapsing or the road falling in on "global warming". No...how about don't build your home on top of soft sand at the coastline! Look at maps from a long time ago and you can see how much larger the land masses were, as well, where I sit at this moment was once underwater. People collect shark teeth in the forests in the middle of the state...not because they rained from the sky but because fish used to live over that area...in water.
There's a lot more to the reasons than just one cause.
But absolutely, think about your own impact, don't be wasteful...it comes down to being a considerate human for the people around you and your world.
Global drought is at a hundred year low- this can be seen by both access to clean water and crop yields. People with no access to clean water is dropping, and dropping fast. Its projected (by the UN) to essentially end in the next decade. Crop yields, which require irrigation, are the highest they've ever been in human history. For the first time ever, less land in needed to cultivate and feed humanity, and greenspaces are growing because less land is being farmed every year.
Accepting obvious facts and not denying truth would be the first step for me. And it seems that is what Polygon does, so props to them.
I will ask you one simple question. What catastrophic prediction they AGW hoaxers have predicted that as actually happened? Name one.
The most massive investments in real estate are happening around the globe and most are at sea level cities and resorts. If any of this BS is real do you think the financial institutions who perform their due diligence on lending their investor's huge amounts of money, would even consider such long term investments in areas that are projected to be underwater soon? Exactly. Its all a lie.
There is a massive amount of money in selling this to you with carbon offset banks, sustainable energy schemes, EV's, etc.
All while the loudest of them collect it and buy seaside mansions. Think about it. When in doubt follow the money.
Look at it this way. If all the CO2 in our atmosphere was water contained in a 55gal drum. Mankind's entire contribution from its various generating sources is the equivalent of a single drop. Wrap your head around that. We are insignificant. CO2 was selecting as the bully stick since it is contained in virtually everything we touch and do. This allows the hoaxers to vilify it and they have been twisting it into ever more complex knots to convince you of how evil it is. Even to the extent that you stop eating animal protein. My god man. That is f*cking retarded. Next they will tell you to stop having babies and eat the dead. Oh wait they already did that.
"So the issue is not if the climate will change, because it always has and will, but can humanity deal with the rapid shift that is associated with it due to its actions."
The answer to this question is absolutely yes.
There are many sources for this, but here is a graph.
climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide
royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes
If you want to claim that this level is caused by activity other than humans than please provide evidence.
First, when people (not me) say "climate change is a hoax", they mean anthropomorphic climate change.
Second, the human cost of climate change, whether anthropomorphic or not, is grossly overstated. Some climate scientists even argue that a warmer earth with more CO2 will further increase crop yields and per-acre output, allowing for less land to be cultivated and more acres returned as wild spaces.
People say its clear that climate change is a threat to humanity. These same people, like Paul Ehlrich, Al Gore, etc have made predictions for the past 40 years that have not only not come to pass, they have been wildly incorrect. What has happened is that the Earth is more habitable for homo sapiens than it has ever been since we first evolved. Despite the growing population, food is less scarce than at any time in human history. Deaths from disease is at the lowest rate in human history. Deaths from natural disasters, especially weather related natural disasters, is at a 100 year low. No famine has ever happened in a country with a modern, technological economy. More and more countries are becoming technology based, and famines/droughts are at an all time low.
So when someone like AOC says the world is going to end in twelve years unless you give them totalitarian control over our lives, you can see why some of us might be skeptical.
I have read up on lots of 'pro climate change' stuff, but nothing of real merit from scientists suggesting otherwise - care to help me and anyone else that cares out here as you have stated a lot of info.
But a lot of people that say it is a hoax also say that climate change has nothing to do with human activity, and what we see is normal and we are only exiting an ice age (although we should apparently enter one). Unless both sides agree to use the correct terminology and not just spit at each other, we will get nowhere, because inevitably, things will change in the future.
All the points that you bring up regarding the quality of human life are attributable to human advancements and management procedures, and is unlikely due to the planet warming by 1 degree C in the last 100 years. In fact, improved living standards etc can probably be attributed to economic globalisation, which has brought millions out of poverty.
No, AOC should not say that the world will end in 12 years, its 10 (just joking), because the world will go on, but unlike your optimism, I predict that there will be a large impact on people’s lives as well as on the environment. And that is absolutely something to discuss, whether the climate changes that will occur are manageable or not, whether increased sea levels will impact cities or not, whether the increased atmospheric heat will remove some agricultural areas, while freeing up others, etc. But we have to stop debating whether the climate is changing at all. The fact that we have increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere by almost 25% in the last 150 years should make us think what the possible ramifications are, given that we have a good understanding of the physics what this leads to.
Leaving all the possible implications of climate change aside, I would appreciate the possibility of improved air quality, reduced dependance on fossil fuel giants, less pollution, etc, because while some decry that implementing change will cost us economically, I think it provides a fantastic opportunity for new industries. We humans are not so stupid that we can’t come up with better ideas, but for that, the old often has to be removed, just like in nature it self.
What I have heard is that by this point (12 yrs) we will be unable to reverse the 'damage' we have caused / we will not be able to prevent the then inevitable predicted changes - note how I state predicted as thats all these are.
As I have asked chasejj - care to share some sources for this info, I am getnuinely interested in reading the 'other side' of things from a scientific perspective but there seems to be a slow uptake - I dont mean the opposite version of someone like Al Gore as you state either, he is a spokesman not a scientist, take what people like that say with a pinch of salt.
realclimatescience.com
We really need some form of unbiased info for such a debate , and I mean both sides of the argument when I say that.
Your comment about everything in mainstream media being bullshit and an incoming chaos makes me question your view of any facts, from any source being realistic unless they align with our pre determined beliefs - it’s almost a conspiracy about a conspiracy.
Sure, don’t believe everything the ms media puts out but then who do you trust and why? Why would you trust a website saying something different? do you trust sources even if funded by organisations who stand directly to gain? Get what I mean?
Sounds like we have formed ‘cults’ here to me.
How about today's scientist claiming that climate is actually affected by humanity? Should we persecute them as well for their "wrong" findings?!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHk8nn0nw18
Her "Green New Deal" bans air travel, bans meat, bans many aspects of the free market, bans fossil fuels that power 70% of our lives, etc. I would call that totalitarian.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_taxation_in_the_United_States
And the idea behind a CO2 tax is to put a tax on emission and give proceedings back to the costumer. It was first proposed by two republican politicians. And what is actually so bad about taxation? Surely it depends what you do with it, no? Especially if you want to live in a society..
Ridiculous.
That said, forgive me but the rest of my opinion, or that at best the actions taken are only palliative, while in the worst (therefore in greater numbers) they are only marketing actions. Obviously mine is a general discourse relating to large groups and producers and perhaps it is not the case to face the problem in a mountaibike mag.
Pathetic when corporations virtue signal this propaganda in desperation to increase sales to the sheep.
When they tell us that we are being squeezed financially under the cover of the fight against climate change, that is the purest form of projection there is. Unfortunately it is working on enough people to make any hope of reversing the demise of our species (which is already slim as f*ck) almost non-existent. Which begs the question, "is it worth the bother, we're all going to die anyway?", but also the question "is that what they want us to think?". Why would they want us to think that there's nothing we can do? Is the objective the destruction of less wealthy populations in vulnerable regions, whether climate change is natural or helped by man, this idea that we need to get down to about a billion people on earth to get things stable? Is this a white supremacy play on a global scale? Are the climate change lobby just shills for the great replacement scheme (I guarantee someone is thinking this right now)? I don't know, I think betting on chaos being your friend is a little iffy.
Anyway thanks for coming to my Ted talk.
Must admit that, yes, fast cars are nice, but I wouldn't cry myself to sleep every night if they all turned electric and renewables became 100% of our energy mix overnight. The brown air that sometimes floats above my nearest city conditions that thought.
This is why I will never own an electric car. It is a technical jail in a sense.
BTW I wonder if there is even one person here who is ready to change opinion when presented with the facts, or is everyone just reading with the intention to respond, not to understand.
@jaame IMHO only science is able to provide objective data, but then we need to use common sense to sift reliable science from incompetent/biased science. All media outlets are more or less biased per definition, so the safest way is to get info from reputable science journals, where publications have to meet very stringent research quality standards. It takes lots of time and effort, so sometimes you just have to use common sense and trust someone who does this for you... trust and verify from time to time
@jaame: sounds fair. I'm no example either.
**Heat map on China/India is pretty alarming...especially net-new plants coming online soon or planned. People focus on a per-person footprint, which only tells a portion of the story and makes some Western countries look brutal due to lower populations. China also funds a massive build in net-new coal factories around the world not to mention their own...nobody talks about that (yes they are doing a few "green" projects as well). Hey Greta and minions, go there and visit those governments actually stealing your future...
We can obviously all live cleaner...like Polygon...trying...but putting the bulk of the burden on the Western World isn't going to solve "climate change". AND if your are a true believer that humans are causing things then the ONLY solution is, LESS HUMANS which is NOT going to happen so we are realistically doomed as population is not going to slow down (7.5+B now and in just the next 30 years projected to be almost +/- 10 BILLION)
Paper straws and electric cars, ya that is the answer...oh and planting trees because if you get rid of all the fossil fuels that we use to cook and heat homes there won't be any trees around because people would cut them all down to eat and stay warm. Could go on and on...tackle the BIG overpopulated countries, that will be the biggest impact.
I'll also note that their calculations are a bit mind-blowing. 34 tons of carbon per athlete, per year is more than double the emissions of an average American (16 tons), 4 times greater than the average European (~8 tons), and 17 times that of the average Indonesian (~2 tons) where Polygon bikes is headquartered. This is for air travel emissions alone. Apply this to the qualifying racers in a World Cup final this adds up to 1.2 megatons of emissions a year just for the riders that qualify for a world cup final; that is roughly the annual emissions of the Maldives, a country of roughly 300,000 people. If racers and sponsors were really interested in sustainability, the best thing they could do is emphasize local and regional race series and host World Cups once every 4 years.
Look in your own back yards and start there....do you go to Costco and buy flats of small plastic water bottles, live 5 minutes from work but too scared to walk or bike there instead.....how about those awesome drive thru's that are full of cars sitting in a line up waiting for some corporate shit food that is filling them. start in you own backyard and at least just .........START
FWIW- Prehistoric records indicate when huge swings in CO2 were in our atmosphere pant life and animals did fantastically well. One mans challenge is another mans bounty.
For example EWS, UCI DH and Crankworks could all run in Whistler at the same time. That would really cut emissions and allow athletes and companies to combine resources. It would also enable people like Martin Maes to do a full season in both DH and EWS.
Here in NZ, we sold all (afaik) of our recyclable plastics to china for them to recycle. Apparently the actual percentage of plastic that would actually be recycled is very low. Then all the plastic that isnt worth recycling will be disposed of in probably a far less careful manner than going into a landfill locally.
I also wonder how much of our aluminium does actually get recycled: recyclable materials doesn't guarantee that they do get recycled. That article the other day about the bike where 60-70% of the aluminium was recycled was interesting: why not 100% ?
www.dw.com/en/how-eco-friendly-are-electric-cars/a-19441437
Just for information: The refinery here in Schwechat emits as much CO2 in one year as 1.700.000! (Yeah 1,7million) cars all driving aprox. 15.000km.
And this doesnt include getting the oil to Austria and than to the cars.
So please, stop advocating extremely wrong facts.
Batteries with 200-400.000km have 90-80% max. capacity left- show me modern cars that do this without needing immense repairs.
What 'extremly wrong facts' do I advocate exactly? All I'm saying is BEVs are not the holy grail of eco-friendliness, contrary to what lots of people think. Power from cole, gas etc., mining of lithium, the recycling of the batteries after EOL. Just to name a few. Sure theres many shades of grey, but i's not like ICE cars a all black and BEVs are all white, again, contrary to what people think and are told.
i don't want to prove you wrong, just saying that there is a wide scope within electric cars
Stop bringing something new every year so people reduce their anxiety to consume.
1. La Playa De la Corona in Trinidad
2. Hula inn - Maui
3. Grandes Chevalierre - Chamonix
Okay, I got started for you:
www.wsj.com/graphics/climate-change-forcing-insurance-industry-recalculate
grist.org/article/insurance-experts-rank-climate-change-as-top-risk-for-2019
www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/as-white-house-questions-climate-change-us-military-is-planning-for-it/2019/04/08/78142546-57c0-11e9-814f-e2f46684196e_story.html
www.globalchange.gov/agency/department-defense
Though it pains me you're a fellow mountain biker. Never understood pro-pollution bikers.
But here's my honest question: Do you believe smog is real? How about all the polluted rivers? How about all the plastic everywhere, especially the oceans, where it will soon outnumber actual fish?
Do you believe any of that or it also alarmist?
Ignorant people ... maybe its your mom that shouldnt have reproduced.
I also think that humans are going to carry on being greedy as they have for hundreds of years. No one is going to switch to green solutions until there is a financially viable alternative, and right now there isn't one.
The world is not going to end in my lifetime or the lifetimes of my children. If what they say in the news is true (and honestly, judging by the truth I see in the majority of news stories I doubt it is) and by 2030, or 2050, or whatever year it is this week, my children think the world is going to end then they can choose to not have any kids.
I love the flora and fauna. Humans are very bad for the flora and fauna. If humans become extinct, there is going to be a lot of very happy flora and fauna!
Direct long haul flights are usually less ecologically efficient due to higher take off weight (more fuel).
gogreentravelgreen.com/why-nonstop-direct-flights-better-for-environment-than-layover-stopover-flights
CRC : what the fok
Good job they think green
On a serious note: Plant more trees.
No but seriously, I really appreciate your move and your balanced approach also seen here in your replies under this article. My favourite team from now on!
Problem being, it wont be you that has to worry about it as if it is 'real' the worst effects will only come to light when you are dead, but your offspring can deal with it then, right?
All I said is that I hope climate change isnt real to the extent it is suggested to be and that if it is real we wont see the effects of it.
I have my own opinion but thats irrelevant and I dont want to attempt to convince somebody who has already made their mind up.
Good luck with your 'research' - just make sure you look into the source (in terms of political and financial origin) of the 'science' you are staking your families future on.
All I am aware of is hundreds of scientists all saying the opposite so I would really like to read this kind of report wherer 500 real scientists all agree that there is no climate issue.
academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biz088/5610806
the other big problem is that when a reasonable person says 'hold on, instead of talking about there being too much plant food in the atmosphere.. why can't we have a reasonable conversation about the impact of things like HAARP, weather modification and the march towards a global electromagnetic 5G gird the likes of which the world has never even imagined, let alone seen' they get shut down immediately.
what i also find amazing is that people are like 'Haarp and weather mod isn't real you tinfoiler' or '5G is perfectly safe, they said so' (lol) yet at the same time they say 'co2 is going to kill us all'. despite the fact the earth churns out more co2 in about a week than we do in a year.
why aren't people willing to stop and think about the political implications and power grab involved in whats being promoted, instead of getting all gooey about polar bears that would eat them as soon as look at them? (apparently polar bears are on the rise, depending who you listen to)
isn't that all this is really, at the end of the day, a big game of 'who do you trust'?