Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I blame Trump

and Bob Stoops

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/climate-change-plastic-pollution

In September, the US consultancy A.T. Kearney asked 1,500 Germans what they thought had the strongest impact on reducing the carbon dioxide (CO2) footprint of an average person. Of the seven choices listed, 22 per cent of them thought that cutting out plastic bags had the biggest impact on reducing CO2 – more than any other option. In reality, this saved the least of any of the proposed lifestyle changes: a reduction of just three kilograms of CO2 per person per year. Cutting out meat would reduce emissions by 450 kilograms, but respondents put it second-bottom in their ranking of the most impactful things they could do to reduce CO2 emissions.

In other words, we drastically overestimate the environmental impact of the small changes we are prepared to make, while underestimating the impact of changes that seem more extreme. These results weren’t from a scientific study – so take them with a pinch of salt – but they imply that our beliefs conform to what we think is tolerable, not what is best for the environment.

Stupid Germans!

OAM, please take note.

if we cut out plastic bags Im guessing wed make them out of paper which would kill more trees

trees take in co2 and give off oxygen

fewer trees would add to the co2 buildup

could make bags out of hemp

like rope!

except I think youre still dealing with plants

Is there any thought that WWII might have been the big contributor in the 1940s?

It correlates, and it's plausible it threw a lot of stuff up into the air, including contrails.  Aerosols at high altitude may deflect solar radiation significantly.

Of course, we dropped more ordinance on Vietnam than Germany/Japan by a good measure.

It makes sense to me to make some effort to limiting GHG, especially from coal, but we just might need to think about some alternatives given that the world isn't going to meet the Paris requirements, which in event are judged as being inadequate by a large factor.

So let's imagine the US invests say a trillion dollars in combating climate change, to pick a round figure.  And in a decade we discover that out efforts have removed only a tenth of a percent of the CO2 in the air that would otherwise be there.

Good investment?  I'd say not.  And the 0.1% figure if being quite generous.  On the other hand, we could use the money to prepare for the inevitable by building dams and dikes and what not, as @badgerfan advises.