The views expressed in this article are those of the contributors.
Published here February 2020

Bryan McConachy: Bryan's Pitch
Max: Response | Scope of Proposed Climate Change | Justification | The No-project Option
Helen Cooke: Helen Cooke's Perspective


This is an easy one. A lot of personal grief, even deaths, and costly damages are done as a result of the climate forces. But whether the world would be better off in the long run, i.e., over centuries, could be questionable. For example, we know that forest fires are a part of natural rejuvenation, and storms at sea contribute to refreshing the oceans, while hurricanes serve to refresh the atmosphere.[5]

But why do we focus on carbon, the basic building block of life? I suggest that the real target is the selection of noxious gases that are associated with the burning of fossil fuels to derive energy, especially for travel and similar purposes. If this is true, then our first step should be to permanently ground all aircraft, ban all cars, buses and similar modes of transport, and buy shares in bicycles and canoes.

And since the major source of periodic pollution, far in excess of the sources just mentioned, comes from nature's own volcano discharges, we should take immediate steps to quash all pending volcanic eruptions.


The main alternative seems to be to do nothing. And since our analysis establishes that solving the problem as described is virtually impossible due to conflicts between different areas, then it is probably the only option.

Scope of Proposed Climate Change  Scope of Proposed Climate Change

5. Or at least redistribute the natural resources that we have.
Home | Issacons | PM Glossary | Papers & Books | Max's Musings
Guest Articles | Contact Info | Search My Site | Site Map | Top of Page