sure we may need to decarbonize. but an arms race between how much you can pump into the air and how much i can remove is a stupid strategy. if too much carbon in the atmosphere is net negative, maybe we should revise whatever processes cause us to release that much? but i think any attempt there will necessarily demand that we put brakes on the false progress march (powered by capitalist greed). men with tiny dicks and assortments of self-help sex toys need the ‘billionaire’ drug injected into their veins, to prop up their self-worth so any attempt to pause the certified dollar-churning processes will be defeated, easily. but i digress.

if too much carbon in the atmosphere is bad, stop putting too much into it. or maybe it’s not necessarily bad but we’re stuck with a global warming narrative that’s wrong, on net, but hard to recant? i don’t know. what i do know is that virtue signaling is a moth-gathering flame. see america.