Samantha Suppiah has serious racial issues, that undermine her ability to see the world with a clear lens. My family (wife, children, and grandchildren) consists of native-born Africans, African Americans, native born Asians, Asian Americans, native born Haitians, Haitian Americans and yes American born whites. We are totally sick of the constant racial narrative that progressive liberals try to impose on society. We are Americans by birth or by choice, no other stereotyping label need be applied.

Obama is descended from white plantation owners through his white mother and Tim Scott, descended from slaves is referred to as "Uncle Tim" by progressive liberals because he does not buy into their racial narratives. The whole thing is pretty offensive. For those who prefer to look forward instead of trying to divide us into identity groups, the future can be very bright. Both individuals do share something in common, they have proclaimed their skin color does not define. them. So why does Suppiah feel so compelled to do define people based on skin color... where I grew up that is racism. So, let's leave racism to the racists, including Ms. Suppiah, and focus on fixing the planet.

If you have invested enough time in the global warming debate including corresponding with the climate experts at the IPCC as I have, you will find that consistent with the film, Kiss the Ground, too much of the land that we have dedicated to "farming" single crops and thus underutilized as a resource. That is a problem since ecosystems don't work well under that paradigm... the earth is designed to operate as balanced systems. Simply said, we have "outgrown" our current farming methods and need to adopt new ones, that add a massive number of plants to the planet.

"Animals and Plants are the Ying Yang of the carbon cycle and man is just one of the animals."

As humans we have learned how to use more carbon energy than other animals (all animals use carbon energy) due to technology. And so, as humans we need to invest in the "balancing" technology that will allow plants to catch up with us.

Simply said, it is not that we have been emitting to much CO2 into the atmosphere, but rather the planet needs more plants and one place to add plants is within the virtual deserts of modern farms.

Presently, the earth has fallen out of balance in the carbon cycle largely due burning limestone to make cement (limestone is stored carbon from small animals that died millions of years ago) and the burning of fossil fuels (carbon fuel sequestered by plants millions of years ago). Meanwhile, we have also suppressed the planet's ability to sequester carbon by underutilizing much of the land especially farmland where we use pesticides and herbicides to limit plant growth outside the single crop being grown.

The problem is politicians are not framing the issue, they are trying to force the answer. about 10 years ago, the planet sequestered around 788 gigatons of CO2 annually. The planet produced around 771 gigatons of CO2 annually excluding man. So, without humans adding CO2 to the air, the planet would experience a CO2 deficit. But humans at that time were producing around 29 gigatons of CO2, putting the planet out of balance by 12 billion gigatons of CO2. That number has since increased. But the point remains that human activity is causing the delta, even if we are not the primary producers of CO2. Better farming techniques could close the CO2 delta by as much as 20%. Could address at least another 20% of the CO2 delta. Replacing 33% of the carbon fuels with solar power would reduce the delta by 25%.

Now we get to the real boom... substituting "manufactured" carbon fuels for fossil fuels would reduce CO2 emissions enough to put the planet back in balance.

Solar and wind would revert to a niche power source where it makes sense, thus preserving the rare elements used to make batteries and solar panels and minimize the environmental waste of turbine blades.

Instead, governments seem bent on pursuing a flawed global strategy that revolves around solar and wind energy. I am not against solar and wind per se, I power my house and two cars with 32 solar panels, but they are simply not a real answer. Nor is conservation, which is never going to sell among the poor on the planet that need more energy to raise their standards of living. So, why are politicians pushing these dumb options.

Of all the methods to harness energy, the carbon cycle is the one "Mother Nature" adopted because it is the "cleanest". Our problem is not CO2 emissions per se but balancing the carbon cycle. Sadly, most people translate that into less carbon emissions rather than more carbon sequestration.

A simple comparison...

A person earns $250 a week and spends $275 a week. A consultant tells him, he needs to cut his spending by $25/week or he will go broke. Instead, the person learns a new skill (technology), that helps him to earn $300 a week. Which was the better approach?