Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

I’m not saying it’s not a problem at all, but in general, we should focus our efforts on reducing emissions with high permanence. We’re already committed to an approximate sea level rise of about one meter over the next century, due in large part by CO2’s long half-life in atmosphere, up to 1000 years. By comparison, Methane’s half-life is about 12 years, and H2’s (which I did look up) is only 2 years. This makes it much less of a problem to deal with - not technically but socially.

The problem is that if we are still belching CO2 into the atmosphere in 2050 and find ourselves facing devastating cat6 hurricanes and global famine, the collective “oh shit” moment might spur action, but it’s unlikely to have any positive effect within a century, which would not bode well for civilization. By comparison, if we replaced our CO2 emissions with H2, that same “oh shit” moment could spur action that would mostly resolve things within a decade.

I view these alarmist articles about short-lived emissions the same way I see anti-nuclear rhetoric - a problem to be solved eventually, but not one that should stop us from taking advantage of its massive benefits.