Moreover, assuming (something I do not believe) that neither the CO2 nor the other gases of human origin (for that is where it is coming from: no human responsibility) is at the origin of the Warming how long do you think that growth, as we know it in the twentieth century, that is to say essentially based on exhaustion and looting of natural resources, is possible?
Be careful, I'm not talking about decrease (I don't really like these guys) but ANOTHER growth where what would be "looted" would be counted! Is it too much to ask to change this shitty GDP, the basis of all economic decisions in our world?
https://www.econologie.com/forums/ressources ... t6257.html
Otherwise, if I do not agree on the innocence of CO2, I agree with you thatit's not just CO2 in life and we tend to do it too much! We are talking almost more than that ...
And yes, it's a way of HUNTING other problems, I notice it frequently on forums (especially when it becomes an ultra marketing argument to sell, for example, "clean" cars because they release just 20% less CO2).
You talk about CO2 from breathing: it does not intervene directly in the greenhouse effect because it comes from the plant carbon cycle and it stays in the plant cycle. But indirectly the person who eats, for example, more meat than another will reject more GHG via his diet ... but it is not the CO2 of his breath!
Gift: https://www.econologie.com/forums/alimentati ... t8851.html
