As I do on occasion, I'm going to google this on through with questions and answers which pique my interest and, in my opinion, help my audience to understand the gist of what is going on in our world and take it as their own personal call to action because there is way more to this damned plane of existence than cryptocurrency, I hate to constantly amend these articles but I felt that you need to know, and my futures need to know that automobile consumers, which we all know emit CO2, And cows and gas stovetops emit methane, which is way more effective at and that a way smaller amount of us knew was silently killing us, elicit next to no reaction from the populous. We all know that the key variable is price, but enjoy your F150, you deserve it. California dairy farms will soon be able to feed their cows seaweed to fight climate change after the state Department of Food and Agriculture approved the use of a seaweed feed shown to reduce methane emissions from cows. ""Methane is naturally destroyed by both chemical and biological processes, including reaction with atmospheric hydroxyl [OH] and chlorine, and by methane-consuming bacteria (methanotrophs) in soil and water. This results in a lifetime in the air of 9. 1 ± 0. 9 years [12]. T Thus, we face an important question—given methane is being removed from the air anyway, why trouble to do this artificially? It may be preferable to dedicate the cost and energy involved in methane removal to the task of stopping methane emissions, which would accomplish the same end result of lessening, halting, or reversing the growth of methane-driven climate warming, or, alternatively, simply to ignore methane and dedicate all efforts to CO2 removal. To answer this question, the specific methods of removing methane must be examined. ''Methane removal from the air can be enhanced by a variety of techniques. But all methods of methane removal have energy and environmental costs and need capital investment. In order to achieve useful removal, it is necessary either to process a significant fraction of the atmosphere very cheaply, in less than a decade, or else carefully to prioritize targeting of specific air masses for methane removal in high concentration areas. ''We must also distinguish between destruction and extraction. Due to methane's high GWP (Global Warming Potential,) compared to carbon dioxide, in order to reduce most of the warming impact, it is not necessary to extract the gas (as is needed for CO2 removal) but simply to destroy it by oxidation. CO2 is produced by methane's oxidative destruction, but this has only roughly 3% of the 100-yr climate-warming potential. PPut another way, methane destruction by oxidizing it to CO2 reduces its 20-yr warming impact by 99%, or, if considered on a 100-yr warming impact timescale, by 97%. MMoreover, the waste CO2 may itself be later removed by atmospheric CO2 capture technologies under investigation elsewhere. "
So basically the problem of climate change on an extremely basic level deals with carbon dioxide and methane, the latter being almost universally ignored. There are probably a crap load of other externalities, at least I think I spelled that right, that skew the picture but those are the main two that the powers that be feel free to divulge to us. Why can't sincere prayer be coupled with the works of the capable? There are always dillemas for your capable minds to tackle instead of dreaming and preparing for that melancholy suicidal ride into the martian sunset that you swear we'll all be able to take.

Amen.