If planetary warming as fact is not already obvious, it will become
so soon, and what are the 'powers that be' going to do, as it eventually
becomes evident, not from an act of logic on their part, since all
processes in that category are submerged in wishful thinking, but from
the natural destructive forces which will result from the warming, in
which finally it will no longer be possible to ignore.
The facts of the problem are not difficult to understand. It is simply that to much carbon is being put into the atmosphere by the burning of fuels, and
there is to much of the destruction of what takes carbon out of the atmosphere such as forests. The problem is carbon emissions and green house gasses, the consumption of energy and the burning of fossil fuels. And thus the
solution is also not difficult to comprehend. It is to burn less fuel and destroy less of what absorbs carbon from the atmosphere. The question is how much less. If the level of green house gasses that are already in the atmosphere last one hundred or one thousand years, then the level of havoc as weather conditions thereby caused, should continue equally as long, to remain at a level compensable to that moment in time when human created carbon emissions drop to zero.
The cause of the problem is not so much the sheer volume of the human
population, now probably the most populace species on the planet aside from
insects, although these numbers if they continue to rise will degrade the
natural environment to the point of inhabitability, but in terms of the
green house affect, the cause of the problem is machines. Every car on the planet puts its own weight in carbon into the atmosphere annually. Every toaster, refrigerator, computer, air conditioner and every electrical appliance does the same from the use of energy derived from power plants.
Of the many reasons nothing will be done, the first is that there is a
refusal to face and admit there is a problem. This is because if the cause of the problem is not difficult to understand, the solution is not either, and everyone knows what it is, which is to reduce the standard of living across the board. But even if everyone agreed with that, how could it be done, if for instance the following conditions exist?
AFTER THE FACT (1 OF 4)