An Associated Press story out of Germany says there is growing evidence that power plants, buildings, cars, truck, ships and planes are likely to emit so much CO2 that the targets of the Paris Agreement are not going to be met.
I find myself wondering on other greenhouse emissions. Isn't agriculture suppose to account for a third of all greenhouse emissions? Aren't termites now considered a major contributor? And, volcanos? If such things as these are bigger contributors to greenhouse emissions, why are we just targeting power plants and cars and such?
But, the same, I am lost as to why we -- as a world -- are not doing more to curb the use of fossil fuels. If it just be fossil fuels that we are so concerned about, replace them. From all that I know, they are replaceable. Take the automobile: It is not as if the electric car has not been developed. Why not replace -- largely -- the gasoline car with the electric one?
Are we too shy with what we are doing? Should we not be considering bans (at least limited bans) on gasoline cars and coal power plants?
Or, are we letting our fear of jobs override our concern of greenhouse emissions? Yes, jobs are important, but are we cutting off our nose to spite our face? Are we so overly concerned with jobs that we are failing to act on greenhouse emissions even though it is a must?
This is not good news, that we are not going to meet the Paris Agreement targets. My thought is, the Paris Agreement targets are not aggresive enough, to begin with. If the news is that we aren't meeting these goals, we should rehuddle and come up with more aggresive measures to battle greenhouse gases.