Do you think direct action is way better for the environment than carbon credits and carbon capture?

Today we have too many cowards not willing to ask the hard questions about the environment. This goes along with the flow mentality will not stand in 2023.?Well, I'm Generation X and I grew up with Ralph Nader and Erin Brockovich.

I've distilled down to the heart of our environmental problems.?We have used nature to build a society away from nature.?We have become so disconnected from nature that we lost respect for it.

I imagine that if we worshipped the water, air, and land like the indigenous we would treat it better than we do. We treat the earth like savages and then call ourselves civilized.??

Is direct action to help the environment better than carbon credits and carbon capture?

Direct action refers to taking specific, tangible steps to reduce one's own carbon footprint or to mitigate the effects of climate change. Examples of direct action might include installing solar panels, insulating one's home, or participating in a beach clean-up.

Carbon credits are a financial instrument that allows a company or individual to offset their carbon emissions by funding emissions reduction projects elsewhere. Carbon capture refers to the process of capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power plants and other industrial sources before they are released into the atmosphere.

There are a few potential drawbacks to relying on carbon credits and carbon capture as a primary strategy for addressing climate change:

Carbon credits can be difficult to quantify and verify. It's not always clear how much carbon has been reduced as a result of a particular credits purchase.

Carbon capture technologies are still in the early stages of development and are not yet widely available. They are also expensive to implement and may not be practical for all industries.

Carbon credits and carbon capture do not necessarily reduce overall carbon emissions. They allow companies and individuals to continue emitting CO2 as long as they purchase credits or use carbon capture technology.

For these reasons, many people believe that direct action is a more effective way to address climate change. By taking specific steps to reduce one's own carbon footprint, individuals and companies can have a direct and tangible impact on the environment.

Is planting trees and capturing rainwater more sustainable than weather manipulation and chem trails?

Planting trees and capturing rainwater are both examples of direct action that can help to address climate change and promote sustainability. Trees absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they grow, and they also provide a range of other environmental benefits, such as reducing erosion, improving air quality, and providing habitat for wildlife. Capturing rainwater allows for the reuse of a natural resource and can help to reduce the demand for treated, municipally supplied water.

Weather manipulation and chemtrails (a conspiracy theory that suggests that certain aircraft are releasing chemicals into the atmosphere for nefarious purposes) are not considered to be sustainable or effective strategies for addressing climate change. There is no scientific evidence to support the idea that chemtrails are real, and weather manipulation techniques, while they may be theoretically possible, are not currently practical or widely available. In any case, intentionally manipulating the weather carries a few risks and uncertainties, and it is not a reliable or sustainable way to address climate change.

How are regenerative farming practices better than monocrop farming strategies?

Regenerative farming practices are those that aim to improve the overall health and fertility of the soil, as well as to support the long-term productivity of the land. These practices can include techniques such as cover cropping, crop rotation, and the use of compost and other organic matter to enrich the soil.

In contrast, monocrop farming involves growing a single crop over a large area, without rotating to other crops or incorporating other diversity into the farming system. Monocrop farming can be less sustainable in the long term because it can lead to soil degradation and reduced soil fertility, as the same crops are grown year after year without the opportunity for the soil to recover.

There are several reasons why regenerative farming practices may be considered superior to monocrop farming:

Soil health: Regenerative farming practices can improve the overall health and fertility of the soil, which can lead to increased crop yields and long-term sustainability. Monocrop farming, on the other hand, can lead to soil degradation over time.

Biodiversity: Regenerative farming practices often involve incorporating a diversity of crops and other plants into the farming system, which can help to support biodiversity and the overall health of the ecosystem. Monocrop farming, by contrast, relies on a single crop and can contribute to a loss of biodiversity.

Carbon sequestration: Some regenerative farming practices, such as cover cropping and the use of compost, can help to sequester carbon in the soil, mitigating the effects of climate change. Monocrop farming may not have the same carbon sequestration potential.

In my opinion, carbon credits and carbon capture is fugazi just like crypto. It’s vaporware. Direct action is way better for the environment, but because the financial models do not make shareholders wealthy, nobody commits. Shareholder will not survive without food, water, and clean air.

In conclusion, educate yourself. Documentaries like Kiss the Ground, The Earthing Movie, Can You Dig This? Plant some trees! Capture the rain. Make some compost, and plant food!??Shout out to ChatGPT Kiss The Ground Ron Finley Woody Harrelson Ralph Nader and Erin Brockovich