Okay, I'm watching a video of a professor dismissing the extent of climate change (it's for school). Basically, he says something like that : "Carbon emissions are overestimated, maybe of a half. SO we've still got 50years, a lot of time and we don't need to rush."
Well, he's saying that current estimations are false, and just say "I guess they may be 50% of what we currently think". If he knows current figures are imprecise, why doesn't he give more precise ones ? And btw, it's already been 50 years since the first measures to tackle climate change have been taken, and the general situation is not good-looking.
climate change Afficher plus
Okay, maybe windmill farms damages biodiversity. Maybe it destroys some areas. But are coal farms any better ? Are coal mines destroing villages more genuine ? You've got three choices there :
1. cut energy consumption, and shut down both renwables and fossil plants, accepting to lose a lot of technical progress
2. business as usual, we don't care neither about climate change and biodiversity
3. We accept to have an imperfect solution, tackle one problem, and assess the impact on the biodiversity, meaning some animals will still be killed but efforts are made to keep the numbers low