The reason I dont care is because to be honest I could care less what happens to anyone or anything after I die.
So imagine right now, some major event affected you, and you know it was due to people (now passed away) who had the chance to stop it, for very little sacrifice. Personally, I would be angry. We need to think more holistic (?) and think about future generations. Just as you would happily invest in real estate, knowing in 20-30 years your children will benefit when it's value increases, why not invest in a clean, sustainable, and ultimately, fair chance of a life equal or better than we are experiencing.
So their carbon deposits will be emitted into the athmosphere
either way. (no matter if in 50 or 200 years)
Not necessarily. Lowering dependencies on fossil fuel sources (carbon emission sources) will hopefully give rise to alternate, sustainable technologies. These may supersede fossil fuel usage, and ultimately render them as a worse alternative of the two. It gives us more time to do what we do best: Solve problems.
Even if Europe really tries hard to reduce the emissions,
there are many thirs world countries that will use up
the less costly fossile fuels then, as long as they are still
available.
Thats why we must work together for it to work successfully. Even so, countries who are highly developed IMO should be attempting to lead the world to do the correct thing - not push the problem onto developing nations. We should be searching for a solution...
Another topic, which is overlooked:
Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas.
Cows and rice-fields emit huge amounts of that.
should they be also "forbidden"?
I am no expert on this stuff, but there are many chemicals that act as greenhouse gasses (methane, CO2, HFCs). The aim is not to forbid them, but to make it knowledge that they are harming the environment, and that an alternative need to be found. In the sense of agriculture or animals, we cannot 'change' them from emitting it, but we can attempt to recycle or use it.
@EvilSOB:
Are any of the following false (paraphrasing 'Heat'):
1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, right? ^^
2) We are releasing more CO2 (combustion of fossil fuels a major one)
3) More CO2 (Q2) means more heat retention (Q1), right?
How can that, albeit minimal and far too general, be incorrect?
HE doesnt even understand it, and so makes a fool of himself trying to explain it.
So because you do not know how a computer works on a binary/electronic level you cannot educate people about how effective they are at number crunching? I'm sure even if he had a degree in a relevant field, he would still be questioned.
At least he is trying to persuade, driven by passion and a deep belief in what he speaks. Going by what you said, does that not mean one cannot argue against it if one didn't know the molecular chemistry of the gases, etc?
Cheers,
Adrian
