may be slowing

Toutes ces combustions ont produit environ 3 milliards de tonnes d'émissions de dioxyde de carbone, selon le rapport, soit près de quatre fois plus que le secteur mondial de l'aviation la même année.

Pour mettre cela en perspective, ces émissions sont équivalentes à la production annuelle d’environ 652 millions de véhicules de tourisme typiques . C'est comme si la moitié du parc automobile mondial doublait soudainement sa conduite en un an.
 
Contrairement aux voitures, les arbres peuvent repousser et récupérer une partie de ce carbone, mais cela peut prendre des décennies et, à mesure que les incendies deviennent plus fréquents, la récupération permanente du carbone n'est pas certaine. « En attendant, le temps nous manque pour prévenir les dommages irréversibles dus au changement climatique », indique le rapport.

Project 2025
 
(...)
 
Climate change mitigation
 
Project 2025 advises a future Republican president to go further than merely nullifying President Joe Biden's executive orders on climate change.[45] It proposes abandoning strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions responsible for climate change, including by repealing regulations that curb emissions, downsizing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and abolishing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which the project calls "one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry."[33][84][85][86]
 
In particular, the EPA's Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights would be closed,[68][87] and the EPA's staff, including the science advisor, would be selected based on managerial skills rather than scientific qualifications.[68] States would be prevented from adopting stricter regulations on vehicular emissions, like California has done.[33] Regulations on the fossil fuel industry would be relaxed as well.[17] For example, restrictions on oil drilling imposed by the Bureau of Land Management would be removed.[85]
 
Heritage Foundation energy and climate director Diana Furchtgott-Roth has suggested that Americans consume more natural gas, despite concerns among climatologists that this would increase leaks of methane (CH4), a greenhouse gas more potent than carbon dioxide (CO2) in the short term.[33] Project 2025's blueprint includes repealing the Inflation Reduction Act, which offers US$370 billion for clean technology, closing the Loan Programs Office and the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations at the Department of Energy, eliminating climate change mitigation from the agenda of the National Security Council, and encouraging allied nations to use fossil fuels.[33][68]
 
The blueprint declares that the federal government has an "obligation to develop vast oil and gas and coal resources" and supports Arctic drilling.[33][68] Under this blueprint, the expansion of the national grid would be blocked and the transition towards renewable energy stymied.[45] Mandy Gunasekara, a contributor to the project, acknowledges the reality of human-made climate change, but considers it to be politicized and overstated.[88] On the other hand, project director Paul Dans only accepts that climate change is real, but rejects the possibility of human activities causing it.[33]
 
Project 2025 would reverse a 2009 finding from the EPA that determined that carbon dioxide emissions are harmful to human health, preventing the federal government from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.[33][45] It further recommends incentives for members of the general public "to identify scientific flaws and research misconduct" and to legally challenge research in climatology.[45] The climate section of the report was written by several authors, including Mandy Gunasekara, the EPA's former chief of staff who considers herself principal to the United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement in 2017. Bernard McNamee, a lawyer who has advised several fossil fuel companies, drafted the section of Project 2025 describing the EPA's role. Four of the report's top authors have publicly engaged in climate change denial.[33][45] McNamee dismisses climate change mitigation as "progressive" policy.[45]
 
Republican climate advocates have disagreed with Project 2025's climate policy. Joseph Rainey Center for Public Policy president Sarah Hunt considered supporting the Inflation Reduction Act crucial, and Utah representative John Curtis stated it was vital that Republicans "engage in supporting good energy and climate policy". American Conservation Coalition founder Benji Backer noted growing consensus among younger Republicans that climate change is human-induced and called the project wrongheaded.[33]
 
(...)

tu te souviens ?......l'almanach......des sports ?

Un accord qui "n'agit pas sur les causes"
 
"C'est un accord schizophrénique", lance François Gemenne, auteur de "L'écologie n'est pas un consensus" (Fayard). "On est d'accord pour payer pour les dommages causés par le réchauffement climatique, mais d'un autre côté on refuse d'en faire davantage pour essayer de limiter ces dommages".