I just don't think the
>> lever is that good. i.e. it isn't the major driver - if at all. It
>> may well be that temperature is what drives CO2, not the other way around...
If we accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which is the putative mechanism (i.e. it is not just an observed correlation) then it's possibly both. But intuitively (i.e. I am not a plantologist) if higher temperatures make plants grow more overall, then CO2 takeup will rise and provide some mitigation.
Quite possible that other factors than CO2 both consequent and independent of human activity are resulting in higher temperatures, but that does not of itself make mean that our contribution, if there is one, should not be reduced. In fact, anything we can do to reduce warming is even more important.
But the thing we need to get is surely that we cannot afford to be wrong if we do nothing.
Frankly I am appalled by the vox pop deniers' arguments I come across - "there have always been warm periods and cold periods", "something will turn up, it always has before", "human ingenuity will create new energy sources/find a way to fix it" etc.
Relying on exponential economic growth and expecting any kind of sustainability is lunacy, yet that seems to be the policy of nearly all governments. Even 2% average growth will double consumption in c. 35 years. If that isn't 'denial' I don't know what is.
|
