I hear what you're saying but I feel like it kind of misses the point.
The whole point of lowering CO2 is lower the temperature. That's why temperature is the headline number. Anybody trying to save the planet understands targeting CO2 is the best way to do that. Changing how we talk about it won't change the problems we are facing.
@JMBragg @davidho no, because the problem is by far, very far, the CO2 concentration. you solve the CO2 and fix the climate.
(waiting for the pedantic saying "GHG equivalent is is 25 for methane and 298 for N2O": yeah we know. try to go beyond the obvious)
if you really want to fix it, you put your hands on the physical CO2.
if you want to chat forever and do nothing you escape in the non-scientific metaverse of GHG equivalents, certifications and #greenwashing : that's accounting not science
Personally I'd advise reading the histories of any other situation where a small(ish) group of people was trying to force a large change that the people in control of a society were opposed to: resistance movements, guerilla groups, asymmetric warfare. Even groups whose aims you don't agree with might have lessons to learn from.
Classic non-violent civil disobedience has its place, but it is definitely not enough.
We are in a war for life, but we're still at the stage where most people don't realise it - they think it's a misunderstanding.
If you want more detail, we need to switch to encrypted channels of communication!
@davidho I‘ve given some thought about how they may call us.
And I think that they will use a name we already give us: „The Consumers“ .
Only that they will mean it in a different way, in the true way. Consumers of the natural world, consumers of other species, consumers of cultures which aren’t consumers, consumers of the future.
In his book Ishmael, Daniel Quinn calls those of our culture Takers.
Hungry Ghosts
@davidho what ”future generations”?
(Said with humour and sarcasm in an attempt to hide despair)