Over the course of the last several decades, there have been numerous suggestions regarding how we can best tackle the idea of “climate change”, a theory previously known as “global warming”.
Much of the hullabaloo came as a direct result of former Vice President Al Gore and his film An Inconvenient Truth. This was the watershed moment for the climate change movement, and the former veep has continued to push the issue with ever-more desperate dialogue.
This week was no exception.
In the interview with MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell, Gore declared that technology created by the so called Climate TRACE coalition will monitor greenhouse gas emissions and root out the culprits.
“We get data consistently from 300 existing satellites, more than 11,000 ground-based, air-based, sea-based sensors, multiple internet data streams and using artificial intelligence,” Gore explained, adding
“All that information is combined, visible light, infrared, all of the other information that is brought in, and we can now accurately determine where the greenhouse gas emissions are coming from.”
Of course, there is something to be said for Al Gore and his fellow wealthmongers’ impact on the global climate.
New research by the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) and the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) has found that by 2030, the carbon footprints of the wealthiest 1% of humanity are on track to be 30 times larger than the size compatible with limiting global warming to 1.5°C by the end of the century, the Paris Agreement’s more ambitious temperature target.
The report notes that should current trends continue, the richest 1% will account for 16% of global CO2 emissions in 2030.
The paper notes that “They increasingly drive the extent of global inequality, and likely have a greater impact on the political and social acceptability of national emissions reduction efforts,” adding “It is therefore notable that in all of the major emitting countries, the richest 10% and 1% nationally are set to have per capita consumption footprints substantially above the 1.5⁰C global per capita level.”
And let’s not forget about the energy cost of all of this surveillance either, with a great deal of American electricity still being generated by not-so-green means.