Not ready, no. Too much drifting.

There are very few places that do not have electricity. Those that do not have electricity, it is usually because the people there did not want electricity. The same applies to high-speed internet. It is possible to get high-speed internet by satellite. It is expensive. But it is possible.

Most things are easier to do now than they were when they first came out. And sources of electricity could be many. We could use nuclear for electricity or water or wind or solar or would or oil until it ran out or natural gas until it ran out or possibly even satellite power transmission.

For some reason the future is hard to predict. Some people expect more progress than they see. Other see less progress than they expected. To be honest nobody expected an internet of any sort back in the sixties. Many thought fusion power would be up and running all over the world by now. A lot of us have we expected to be blasted to bits so we’d be out of the running.

We have had presidents who understood that there have been pandemics in the past and will be pandemics in the future. We recently had a President Who maintained that nobody had ever seen of or heard of dependent before. But then he lied about a lot of things other things too. We never know who’s going to be leading us and if they’ll be simple-minded, honest or dishonest, or bright.

The planet will probably still be here. Some parts may be easier to live in than others as they already are but where they are in the future maybe somewhere else. There’s a fair chance some currently dry places will be underwater. I understand Greenland’s getting a lot greener.

David for better crystal balls

You’re absolutely right. I ignored the carbon cost associated with the manufacture, transport, installation, and maintenance of solar panels. Just like I ignored the carbon cost associated with mining and transporting coal, and the construction and maintenance of coal power plants.

Let’s stick to comparing apples to apples instead of chasing red herrings.

“Trees aren’t magic. They don’t make carbon dioxide disappear. They strip it from the air and store it, until the tree decomposes…
As long as this solar farm stays operational for more than 2 years, it will have completely made up for the carbon investment, and any additional power produced would be ‘carbon free’.”

You completely ignored the substantial carbon cost that went into the manufacture, transportation, installation, and maintenance of the solar farm and it’s components. Solar farms aren’t magic either. They don’t appear out of nothing. I’m not saying they don’t work out to a net positive eventually, but your analysis was critically lacking. It might be fun to talk down to people you disdain, but being snarky doesn’t correlate to being correct.

That didn’t sound right, so I did a bit of digging to find out where you got your information. The study you are citing actually says 4.5-40.7 tons of carbon per *hectare*, not per tree.

The area cleared was about 1/5 of a hectare, so we’re looking at something closer to 0.9-5.1 tons of carbon.

It should be obvious this is wrong. We have trees around our home which are over ten years old which do not weigh 46 tons, say nothing to 407 tons. In fact even though there is much variety in agreed on weights, one claims:
“The average weight for pine is 5,232 pounds and hardwood 5,758 pounds.”

Just to be clear, that’s less than three tons. Something which weighs less than three tons can not possibly remove four tons or more of carbon dioxide from the air, say nothing to 40 tons especially not per year. Per acre? Maybe. Per tree? Ain’t no way.

That said, carry on with your learned arguments.

David for Conservation of Matter (since it’s the law)