As an aside, I wish we could learn to rephrase our mentions of carbon. When we use words: capture, sink, sequester, remove, we’re implying an enemy. But carbon is a natural element important to earth systems. I think we should aim for “carbon cycling”, ideally achieved via nature-based solutions.

In a way, he’s not wrong to be concerned about impact to economic stability of a region. On the other hand, there is evidence of a switch working, coming from one of the most oil & gas heavy proponent regions, Texas. Check out the surprise learned in this podcast podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/v...

Hmm, maybe I misunderstood your point. Your response tells me nothing other than you disagree. Please explain.

Humanity tends to make grave assumptions about the planet systems, possibly not even thinking about it and thinking more human-centric. We aim for carbon capture, carbon removal. The planet already does this and the carbon is part of a cycle, e.g., food for growing more plants.

Smart? 🤔😉

It’s tough to watch this happen from afar. Can’t imagine the experiences of those living it.

I just dismiss those comments. Consider the context, “postings on social media”. Those are streams of consciousness posts from people feeling they’re safe in posting their free thoughts, unaccountable. So I ignore them. People are different 1:1. Don’t give up!

I believe “convincing others of climate change” is not a useful approach. It’s better to engage people from in their own communities and environments where they see first hand what is happening. Local organizations (I’m a part of Friends of the Reedy River, for example) can educate via volunteerism.

We are a social species, after all.

I love the perspective. The tech community, one I’ve retired from, is largely full of hubris, aiming to solve world problems, most of which they have little to no understanding. From a principal perspective I suggest their aim with their tools should be “supportive”, not “substitute”.