I watched an episode of Chris Hayes where they were talking about another issue, but Chris Hayes made a passing comment about the level of CO2 in the air that I thought was interesting. It occurred to me that it was the sort of thing that really devoted more time.
I'm writing a letter to the show to ask them to cover it in the future. This is the letter I have written so far.
Dear Chris HayesI haven't sent the letter yet, but I will find an email to send it to. I really think this is the sort of conversation they should be having on network television. If anyone has any ideas to contribute on the best way to
I am a fan of your show. I admire the way that you stick to facts. You made a comment on your show that I found interesting, but then the conversation moved elsewhere. I tried to look up what you spoke of, but so far I'm not really able to locate a good reference. If you were ever able to devote more of your time on air to that comment, I think it would be worthwhile.
You said during that conversation that the ground can absorb so much carbon every year, so it isn't actually true that we would need to negate all sources of carbon dioxide pollution, just some of them. I am almost certainly not remembering what you said entirely correctly, but that was the sense I got of it. I wasn't able to replay the comment so I can only go by my own memory.
People talk about going over the 400 ppm mark all the time, and they talk somewhat about how oil contributes. Of course it's true that plants will absorb some of that and eventually it will return to the soil, but how much? Obviously not nearly enough is getting absorbed and we have a massive problem, but I think it's dangerous that we only talk about the specifics in that moment that we are trying to convince someone to burn less oil. By doing this, we are essentially giving Republicans the staging they need.
If people understand some of the counterbalances that can help us to fix things once we have gotten our over-consumption under control, they may feel less helpless. Conservatives frequently try to describe the world environmentalists talk about as being hopeless, and tell their supporters they must believe climate change is a lie, because the alternative is too horrible to contemplate. They frequently use this strategy.
I would absolutely watch a show that talked about what a minimal level of carbon dioxide production might be. If we don't know have numbers for that yet, we can still invite scientists to talk about where they think it might be, and why that much CO2 could be reabsorbed. Nobody on the networks ever seems to want to have that conversation, and I think it is a problem. It leads to an unhealthy conversation about the climate.
Please do not invite a denialist to that show. On other nights it may be appropriate to give balance, but not on that show. That's the sort of conversation that could never be finished with a denialist present. He would gish gallop his way into the conversation, and the scientists present would be occupied for the rest of the night trying to correct the record.