"Canada’s wildfire crisis could be a preview of the future: An expert explains why more of the U.S. could be seeing air quality problems rise in the future" | My Q&A with Zeeshan Aleem for @msnbc https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/wildfire-canada-smoke-air-quality-us-rcna88184
"could"? The problem is that laypeople may hear "could" as "well then, it might not".
Canada's wildlife crisis will definitely be a preview of the future (Now is that future!).
@Empiricism_Reloaded @MichaelEMann @msnbc "As long as we quit burning Fossil Fuels by 2030 there is still plenty of time to sell our Books" ~Michael E Mann.
@Bargdaffy @MichaelEMann @msnbc
I am considering writing a book about how to mitigate climate change. But, not many folk would read it because it would explain the solutions ;-)
@Empiricism_Reloaded @MichaelEMann @msnbc yeah, that book would have only one chapter, STOP burning Fossil Fuels.
@Bargdaffy @MichaelEMann @msnbc
Stopping only burning "fossil" fuels would not be enough - if humans continued to burn carbon-based fuels (e.g., biofuels or wood fuel).
Therefore, STOP burning carbon would be the appropriate book title.
Also, don't burn books because they also contain the element carbon.
@Empiricism_Reloaded @MichaelEMann @msnbc Well let's just say Stopping Burning of Fossil Fuels would be a very good start, how is that?
@Bargdaffy @MichaelEMann @msnbc
Though not if fossil fuels (carbon-based fuels), for example, in power stations or for heating people's homes, were replaced with wood fuel.
"For the same amount of energy, burning wood emits more CO2 than coal." https://www.dsawsp.org/environment/climate
@Empiricism_Reloaded @MichaelEMann @msnbc Right, but you just cannot emit at Scale and Scope the amount of GHGs by burning wood compared to Fossil Fuels. Please, a Wood Fired Pharmaceutical Plant? C'mon there is not enough energy per unit to even have Wood as a standard for today's economies. One more stupid remark from you and I am done, Ok?
@Bargdaffy @MichaelEMann @msnbc
I don't care what your personal agenda is (neither does the planet's climate)
The linked-too essay clearly explains what needs to happen if humans are to have a chance of mitigating climate change. And that's much more than "only" stopping burning carbon-based fuels (all of them, in general).
To be clear, I'm not saying that many people on social media will actually want to live in a sustainable society - many people want to continue consuming resources at an unsustainable rate (I include you in that analysis - so you're done then? denial won't mitigate climate change either).
The general obvious solution (for the honest amongst us) https://qoto.org/@Empiricism_Reloaded/110511036586999020
