We've all heard about global warming and its potential threats to our planet. Over the years, data collected since the industrial revolution shows a significant rise in the average global temperature, estimated to be around 1.2 degrees Celsius (2.2 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than pre-industrial levels.

Scientists link the temperature rise primarily to the emission of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane. They say that despite their low concentrations in the atmosphere (carbon dioxide at just 0.03% and methane even lower at about 1.8 parts per million) these gases have a substantial impact on global temperatures. The burning of fossil fuels, a major source of these emissions, is often blamed for driving climate change.

I don’t think they are presenting a true picture before us. We know that coal and fossil fuels, the main sources of carbon dioxide emissions, formed over millions of years during the Carboniferous era. Back then, carbon levels were likely higher than that are today, yet the Earth supported flourishing ecosystems and life was abundant here. If carbon dioxide had been a bad thing, how life could have been flourished during those periods?

This historical perspective challenges the idea that carbon dioxide is inherently harmful. In reality, carbon is essential for life, forming the basis of organic matter. Instead of demonizing carbon dioxide, we should recognize its crucial role in the natural cycle.

Addressing rising temperatures and combating climate change is a complex task influenced by various factors, including land use and deforestation. However, our scientists and politicians often blame emission of carbon dioxide and present it as the main culprit to enforce their hidden agendas.

Their proposed solutions, such as banning fossil fuel-powered vehicles and promoting electric vehicles, oversimplify the issue. By implementing policies to phase out conventional vehicles or heavily taxing them, they're essentially pushing people to invest in newer, more expensive electric vehicles. Isn’t it sound weird that when people need more money, they’ll work more but emit less greenhouse gases because they drive EVs?

It is obvious that this approach burdens the common people, forcing them to spend more money on new vehicles that may become obsolete in a few years. Ultimately, it's a way for the government to siphon money from the average citizen to favor the wealthy.

Moreover, electric vehicles are not a silver bullet solution. While they may produce fewer emissions on the road, they still rely on electricity generated from fossil fuels in many cases. Additionally, the production of electric vehicle batteries requires resources like lithium, leading to further environmental impacts such as deforestation for mining and establishing factories.

It is easier to blame greenhouse gases for our problems. Solutions provided by so called scientists and politicians may seem environmentally friendly on the surface, they fail to address the root causes of climate change, such as land use and deforestation, which are often overlooked in favor of simplistic solutions. That’s why people need to be more aware of the protests promoted by the people who are running the whole system. I’ll write about the solutions as well in my upcoming posts.

Thanks!