Hello Ibrahim; A small number of wealthy countries caused and along with a few emerging economies are continuing to cause the growing problem. It is also true that we are all in the same boat together.

It is my own opinion that the poor, impacted countries MUST get help mitigating the effects that they have no control over. Those "emitter" countries MUST help the poor effected countries AND they must immediately treat the problem like the crisis that it is. The president of the worst emitter, USA, must be called to account for his willful obstruction by the rest of the world.

We actually know what the problem is and we know how to mitigate and perhaps reduce the threat. And, most maddeningly, we have the technology to do it. Let's get on with it. Best regards, Jim Des Lauriers

James Des Lauriers

You put your finger on the wound. I agree totally with you that emerging economies like China and India are contributing heavily to the problem, they should be liable as well.

Dear collegues

Normally, carbon credit markets concept was cerated for this reasons. But, in my opinion, this is not a good solution. More details about this subject can be found here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_credit

Let's focus on the actions that individuals can take...peoples' behavior will guide the actions of our politicians. The popular literature on climate change is replete with suggestions. Dietary choices, transportation habits, energy-use choices...etc. TALK WITH OTHERS about what you are doing.

a. Do you use a bicycle?

b. If you own a car, is it more car than is required?

c. Does any/some of your electricity come from renewable sources?

d. ...?

Best regards, Jim Des Lauriers

The polluters should pay! Since it is clear that climate change is brought about by pollution (CO2 from emissions and water vapour from evaporation of the sea as a result of warmer water). Those who make the air warmer by polluting the air should pay for damages to poorer countries, like Philippines, Mozambique, etc. This penalty can be in the form of investment for building sustainable energy methods of energy production, for example.

There is absolutely no evidence that man-made CO2 is responsible for a rise of temperature on Earth. Man-made CO2 production is 5% of the Natural CO2 production, yearly.

Greenpeace leader talking: "The only constant... is change. That's true about life. And it's true about the climate. The climate has been constantly changing since the earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago. For example, in just the past 2000 years, we have seen the Roman Warm Period, when it was warmer than today...Then came the cooler Dark Ages... Followed by the Medieval Warm period, when it was at least as warm as today... Then we had the Little Ice Age -- that drove the Vikings out of Greenland. And, most recently, a gradual 300-year warming to the present day. That's a lot of changes. And, of course, not one of them was caused by humans. During the past 400,000 years, there have been four major periods of glaciation -- meaning that vast sheets of ice covered a good part of the globe -- interrupted by brief interglacial periods. We are in one of those periods right now. This is all part of the Pleistocene Ice Age which began in earnest two and a half million years ago. It's still going on, which means that we are still living in an ice age. That's the reason there's so much ice at the poles."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkdbSxyXftc

Another commentator here suggested that a 5% rate of CO2 increase is trivial and couldn't have any effect on the atmosphere. Human contribution to the CO2 budget may be 5% of the total. It is, however, 5% in EXCESS of the historical budget. Adding 5% per year is a massive rate of increase and the literature is unequivocal about those effects.

The commentator my wish to be specific about one of the supposed flaws in the evidence about the atmospheric interactions. In anticipation, Jim Des Lauriers

Dear Jim, it is necessary to take our calculator here, to see if it makes any sense at all to reduce man-made CO2.

1) Yearly produced man-made CO2 is 5% of the yearly Naturally produced CO2.

Let that sink in.

2) Doubling the total CO2 concentration on Earth gives a global temperature rise of 0.4°C. You read it well. So, doubling the total CO2, when using only man-made CO2 means that the man-made part must be 20 times the one we have now. Let that sink in.

Where does this come from?

When looking at "100+ Papers Find Extremely Low CO2 Climate Sensitivity", you will find for some of the papers something like:

(2X CO2 = 0.4ºC) (2X AnthroCO2 = 0.02ºC)

This means that in the above case, the human-made CO2 impact is 5% of the total impact.

https://notrickszone.com/50-papers-low-sensitivity/