lichess.org
Donate

CO2

#1
I want to share my thoughts, I don't know if they proceed, are correct, or not, but I decide to share with you.

If a $1.000 carbon tax would be applied to every company, for each ton of emission, unless they remove the CO2 somehow, they would all remove it entirely, because the costs to remove are lower than $1.000, and companies seek profit.

If a $50 tax is applied, they would make some efforts to reduce the emission, since it costs money, but they wouldn't remove everything, because the costs to remove the carbon are higher than $50.

I belive that companies that seek profit would be the most efficient on reducing the carbon rates or finding the cheapest way to remove it. I believe the effort could go towards them, equally, to everyone, and gradually, until it's solved.

I also believe today that CO2 can increase the temperature by some degrees and cause much more harm than good for both us and most of life-forms inside the planet earth.
#2
An american comedian came to a pretty dumb conclusion regarding Canada. The guy cherry pick the year where wildfire season was the most destructive ever recorded in Canada to proclaim the majority of cities emitting the most CO2 in North America in 2023 were in Canada. So according to this idiot everything is way better in USA than Canada.

The idiot proclaimed something more dumb. According to him Canada's is worse than USA's because Canada's Health System expenditure as a percentage of gross domestic product is too high. He took data that compared countries having Universal Public Free Care. So USA was excluded from the list. This dumb ass concluded that USA's is spending a lower percentage of GDP compared to Canada.

It takes less than less than 5 seconds to fact check this here:

www.statista.com/statistics/268826/health-expenditure-as-gdp-percentage-in-oecd-countries/

According to the idiot why Canada is spiraling down? The wokes are to blame!!! The dumb ass cherry picked an event that occurred at one school in Ontario to support his theory blaming the wokes.

Rotfl

science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/
#3
@weplaychess90 said in #1:
> I want to share my thoughts, I don't know if they proceed, are correct, or not, but I decide to share with you.
>
> If a $1.000 carbon tax would be applied to every company, for each ton of emission, unless they remove the CO2 somehow, they would all remove it entirely, because the costs to remove are lower than $1.000, and companies seek profit.
>
> If a $50 tax is applied, they would make some efforts to reduce the emission, since it costs money, but they wouldn't remove everything, because the costs to remove the carbon are higher than $50.
>
> I belive that companies that seek profit would be the most efficient on reducing the carbon rates or finding the cheapest way to remove it. I believe the effort could go towards them, equally, to everyone, and gradually, until it's solved.
>

I personally think that since fossil fuels are so easy to use , very effective at what they do, and easy to get, they’ll prolly just charge the buyers of the end product. Additionally, what good does it do to get rid of a very inexpensive and efficient fuel source? Although I could be wrong, the removal of fossil fuel usage probably won’t do much good for the world in general, especially if it’s just one country doing it.

> I also believe today that CO2 can increase the temperature by some degrees and cause much more harm than good for both us and most of life-forms inside the planet earth.

As far as we know, CO2 isn’t even causing major heating problems. I mean, we’ve only been recording the world temperature for about 100 years, which is not long enough to set a precedent for what the world temperature “should be”. There is no evidence to suggest that this warming isn’t just a normal cycle of heating and cooling that the earth does. Additionally, there heating could increase the ability for crops and animals to live in otherwise inhospitable climates, such as mountain ranges. If the ocean were to rise, the atmosphere would also rise slightly allowing oxegyn levels to be higher at higher altitudes, also allowing for Better living conditions of people, animals, and plants.

It is, I suppose, equally likely that the opposite is true, but the “global warming is a good thing “ theory is not talked about very often, and i think people should hear about it
#6
@InkyDarkBird said in #5:
> @dstne I suggest you read science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/, and then come back here.

Maybe dstne is a comedian, actor and TV host who has a net worth of $140 million and do not effing care about things like climate change, Commies' Health System and always blame the wokes? ;-P
#7
co2 tax is a good idea if high enough and if the tax is redistributed to the people, so that esp poor people, people not emmitting much, gain.

but there are other ideas also, like why would you tax, when you can forbid. asbestos wasnt taxed but outlawed.

@dstne: global warming is no good. yes, we need some greenhouse effect for not having a snowball earth. but as humans we are fitted to a certain environment and temperature. and as we populated the earth very much, having a global warming means more and more areas become too hot to survive, big cities are are swallowed by rising ocean levels, many people will become refugees or die. so i dunno where the “global warming is a good thing“ theory comes from. probably some oil company or flat earth think tank ;) i dont know where to start, but lets pick a random information from your post: when you say we measure temp. only for like 100 years, that doesnt mean we dont know the temperature before. you want to read up en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_(climate).
#8
Wow my comment incited quite the response!

@bfchessguy said in #4:
> Here we go again! lol

Double lol :)

@InkyDarkBird said in #5:
> @dstne I suggest you read science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/, and then come back here.

Noice, I still like my theory. Doesn’t mean I’m not wrong, just that I don’t always take the media at face value.

@bfchessguy said in #6:
> Maybe dstne is a comedian, actor and TV host who has a net worth of $140 million and do not effing care about things like climate change, Commies' Health System and always blame the wokes? ;-P

lol sorry but no. I’m not a comedian by any means, but if you think I’m funny, I’m good with that.

@mortmann said in #7:
> @dstne: global warming is no good. yes, we need some greenhouse effect for not having a snowball earth. but as humans we are fitted to a certain environment and temperature. and as we populated the earth very much, having a global warming means more and more areas become too hot to survive, big cities are are swallowed by rising ocean levels, many people will become refugees or die. so i dunno where the “global warming is a good thing“ theory comes from. probably some oil company or flat earth think tank ;) i dont know where to start, but lets pick a random information from your post: when you say we measure temp. only for like 100 years, that doesnt mean we dont know the temperature before. you want to read up en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_(climate).

Ok. Thanks for the input i personally am not worried, just waiting for the Lord. If global warming is a real threat, Jesus will return before it happens to destroy humanity. Note: I wasnt trying to invoke controversy, just say some things most ppl don’t think about And instead just accept what the “smart” people say.
#9
@dstne said in #8:
> Ok. Thanks for the input i personally am not worried, just waiting for the Lord. If global warming is a real threat, Jesus will return before it happens to destroy humanity. Note: I wasnt trying to invoke controversy, just say some things most ppl don’t think about And instead just accept what the “smart” people say.

so you like theories :) so my theory is, that some ppl are waiting too hard for the lord, and because they think they wont live that long they try to end the earth with global warming or nukes so that their beloved jesus returns. very smart or very dangerous. esp since i dont think there is a lord. and if there were a lord he must be very evil, else he would long have stopped the madness of humans killing each other with industrial means. but lets keep it a co2 and global warming discussion.