In fact, there are almost no genuine climate change deniers. Most of the climate change deniers are actually climate solutions deniers.

People do believe that 2024 was the hottest year on record. What they don't like is the idea of having to spend money on cooling the planet.

They do not like the idea of giving up meat and dairy, giving up cooking on gas stoves, stopping flying, using public transport, using less energy, and so on.

They do not like the idea of upending their life for a problem of the future which might turn out not to be a big problem at all.

If people can become millionaires by solving the global warming problem, there will be no climate change deniers. This is exactly what "Save The Planet Foundation" plans to do.

The obvious answer is that we should cool the planet if it is getting too hot. Unfortunately, the world leaders have decided to do exactly the opposite. They have agreed to heat the planet even more. Their solution for global warming is more global warming.

In fact, the correct name for the global warming crisis should be Carbon Crisis.

The excessive amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is causing global warming which in turn is causing climate change.

If the radiation of the Sun were to reduce by just the right amount to restore the preindustrial temperature, we would still have the problem of ocean acidity caused by the excessive amounts of CO2 in the water of the ocean killing coral reefs and other marine life which could lead to ecological collapse.

In fact, the acidity problem will become worse at lower temperature of water.

It is comical that no one is talking about how much to cool our overheated planet, but how far we can heat it without killing all life on the planet. Because everyone is brainwashed that we cannot cool the planet; the best we can do is limit the temperature rise. We cannot prevent the destruction of the planet; we can only limit its destruction.

No one has defined how much destruction of the planet would be acceptable. No matter how much the planet gets destroyed, the world leaders can pat themselves on the back by claiming that things could have been worse.

No one can guarantee that there would be no ecological collapse if we permanently raise the CO2 level much beyond what the planet has seen in the past 800,00 years during which all plants and animals have evolved.

Only Save The Planet Foundation will really save the planet by restoring the preindustrial CO2 level of the planet.

There is absolutely no climate emergency. We have 75 years to cool the planet back to its normal temperature by the year 2100.

Seventy five years is like eternity in the life of a technology. We already have the technology for cooling the planet - Carbon Dioxide Removal ( CDR ). All we need is money for CDR.

Only Save The Planet Foundation has a solution for the money problem.

Climate emergency has been manufactured by the world leaders by their decision to heat the planet instead of cooling it. Now the scientists are worried that the temperature of the planet might exceed the tipping point beyond which there could be runaway global warming because of the thawing of permafrost which could lead to the next tipping point and so on till it leads to mass extinction.

It is like turning on heating instead of cooling during hot weather and then worrying about dying of heatstroke.

Is it not a foolish idea to heat the planet if there is even the remotest chance of mass extinction?

Because they do not want to spend money on cooling the planet.

It will cost between $100 trillion and $200 trillion to limit global warming by achieving net-zero emissions.

It will cost another $100 to $200 trillion to prevent global warming.

Here is the math.

The world has already dumped 1.7 trillion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere since the dawn of the industrial age. The world would end up dumping another 300 billion tons or more by the time we achieve net-zero emissions. A total of 2 trillion tons of CO2.

If the average cost of Carbon Dioxide Removal ( CDR ) over the next 75 years is $50 per ton, the total cost of restoring the preindustrial CO2 level would be $100 trillion. If the average cost is $100 per ton, the total cost of CDR would be $200 trillion.

This means that the total cost of preventing global warming could be as high as $400 trillion, since , as mentioned earlier, the cost of achieving net-zero would be between $100 trillion and $200 trillion.

The global sovereign debt is $100 trillion. It is wishful thinking to believe that the countries would be willing to borrow another $200 to $400 trillion on top of the already huge debt which is 100% of global GDP.

In fact, it is quite likely that the world will not even achieve net-zero because the countries are not likely to be able to spend the huge amount of money needed to achieve net-zero emissions.

Yes. The tragedy of humanity is that the people and corporations of the world are amazingly rich, as the math shows later, but the governments are all broke.

We can keep on blaming the politicians for the lack of political will but the real problem is the political system which does not allow the governments to collect enough in taxes to pay for even the expenses of the country, let alone the planet.

Take the case of the US, the richest country. It has a huge debt of $36 trillion. It has no money for saving Social Security and Medicare, let alone Amazon forests, glaciers, Greenland ice sheet, coral reefs, and so on.

If the richest country cannot spend on the planet, how can we expect poorer countries to spend?

Now let us see how rich are the people and corporations of the world.

The global GDP is $105 trillion growing at the rate of over 3% per year, The cumulative GDP in 75 years would be about $30,000 trillion.

$105X(1.03^75-1)/0.03 ‎ = $28,626.24

As explained earlier, we just need between $100 trillion and $200 trillion to cool the planet back to its normal temperature after the world has achieved net-zero emissions.

Not being able to spend just $100 trillion or $200 trillion out of a GDP of $30,000 trillion is like a patient with an income of $30,000 per year not being able to spend just $200 per year on medication for a fatal disease.

If the authoritarian China were the only country in the world, it would have no problem spending $200 trillion out of a GDP of $30,000 trillion. The CCP would not be worried about losing an election to the opposite party.

The political system of the world is not suitable for solving any global problem that would require a huge amount of money.

The Ad revenue per consumer for the US is about $2,000 per year. This figure is just $120 for the 5 billion consumers of the rest of the world. If the cost of maintenance of the App is about 50% of the revenue, the profit is only $60 per member per year. Which means that each US consumer is investing $2,000 per year while a consumer from the rest of the world is investing only $60 per year. The portfolio for the US consumers after 30 years would be $3.8 million.

$2000X1.20^30X((1.05/1.20)^30 - 1)/((1.05/1.20) -1) ‎ = $3,728,869.94

The portfolio for the rest of the world would be $110,000 per person.

$60X1.20^30X((1.05/1.20)^30 - 1)/((1.05/1.20) -1) ‎ = $111,866.10

The members from the rest of the world would only make $110,000 after 30 years.

This tiny amount may be of no interest to the citizens of other countries. It would be difficult to convince even 200 million people in the US to sign up, let alone 5 billion people of the entire world.

Yes. In the year 2024 the global venture capital investment touched $368 billion. The revenue of Save The Planet Foundation from adverting service would be about $400 billion per year growing at the rate of 5% per year. It could alone provide venture capital for the entire world.

The Paris Climate Accord should be a non-pollution treaty. No country should be allowed to dump its industrial waste - CO2 and other gases into the air. Every country should remove all the CO2 it has dumped since the dawn of the industrial age.

The Paris Climate Accord does exactly the opposite. It lets every country dump an unlimited amount of CO2 into the air before stopping dumping altogether - achieving net-zero, by a date of the country's choice. China hopes to achieve net-zero by 2060 and India by 2070.

How is the date relevant? What is relevant is the total amount a country ends up dumping since the dawn of the industrial age by the time it achieves net-zero. That amount should be zero.

It would also be a fair agreement. Under the current agreement the US and China would end up trashing the atmosphere with impunity and still pat themselves on the back for achieving net-zero emissions.

It is very likely that the temperature of the planet will cross the tipping point beyond which there would be runaway global warming caused by the thawing of permafrost which would then lead to the next tipping point and so on leading to mass extinction.

The Paris Climate Accord is the ultimate example of human stupidity. Your blood should boil at this stupidity of the world leaders. This agreement proves Albert Einstein right:

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

The reason is simple - Global Debt crisis.

Most of the world's governments are broke. The global sovereign debt is $100 trillion which is 100% of global GDP. There is no appetite for borrowing another few hundred trillion dollars to solve a problem of the future.

In fact, no global problem that would require a huge amount of money can be solved by the world governments.

The world governments have to save themselves from the looming debt bomb first.

Only Save The Planet Foundation has a solution for the money problem.

Yes. Save The Planet Foundation is the only enterprise willing to take up the responsibility of restoring and keeping the planet at its normal temperature forever by keeping the CO2 at its preindustrial level irrespective of the action of the fossil fuel industry, the oil producing countries, the fossil fuel consuming countries, the world leaders, and the public.

It will simply take longer to restore the normal temperature if the Paris Climate Accord fails to achieve net-zero emissions.

Here is the math.

The current emission is 36 billion tons per year. Suppose the world is able to reduce emissions to an average of 20 billion tons per year over the next 75 years.

The total amount of CO2 dumped in the next 75 years would be 75X20 ‎ = 1,500 billion tons or 1.5 trillion tons.

Our legacy emission is 1.7 trillion tons. The total amount of CO2 dumped by the year 2100 would be 1.7+1.5 ‎ = 3.2 trillion

The cost of removing 3.2 trillion tons at an average cost of $50 per ton would be:

$50x3.2 ‎ = $160.00 trillion to be spent over 50 years, or about $3 trillion per year.

Save The Planet Foundation will have an endowment fund of over $100 trillion. It would be easy to spend $3 trillion per year with such a huge endowment fund.

The advertisers can provide a question and its answer they expect from the consumer.

The consumers will be tested on a sampling basis whether they can recall the Ad they just watched. The consumer's answer is compared with the advertiser's answer. Using AI, the service will determine how close the answer is compared to the advertiser’s answer.

No competing advertising service can ensure that the consumers can recall the Ad simply by watching it once. There would be no reason for the advertisers to use any legacy advertising service.

You might wonder why people will not use AI itself to keep on clicking on messages. Some people will but the Foundation will physically interview these people when they win a $100 million or a $1 billion prize. It would be easy to find out if they can recall the Ads they had just seen. In the worst case, they can be given a lie detector test asking them if they have ever used an AI agent. With $100 million or $1 billion at stake, no one is likely to cheat.

Because the income from advertising revenue would not be enough to remove enough CO2.

In any case, it makes sense to start removing CO2 only after the world has achieved net-zero emissions. If the Foundation starts spending on CDR right away, the world leaders are likely to give up on achieving net-zero.

The world has still not exceeded the carbon budget - the total mount of CO2 we can dump into the air to stay below the tipping point - beyond which there could be runaway global warming. it will take some time before we cross the tipping point.

Even if the planet crosses the tipping point for a few years, the planet is not going to blow up. As long as we achieve net-negative emissions quickly enough after crossing the tipping point, we are safe.

AGI taking away all the jobs is also not going to happen within a few years.

It is very unlikely that AI based on Large Language Models ( LLMs ) will lead to AGI simply by increasing computing power. The present developers are not going to give up even after having burnt an unlimited amount of money. When venture funds dry up, a new breed of inventors will come up with a new approach for achieving AGI,

Even after AGI gets developed, it will only help to take away white collar jobs that can be done over the Internet.

To replace blue collar jobs, we will need millions or even billions of humanoid robots which will take time. The industry is underestimating the complexity of the human body. Every single point in the human body can sense pressure and temperature. Try cleaning a wine glass with a cloth. Even humans can break it if they put too much pressure. It will take many iterations of humanoid architecture before a good humanoid as good as humans is produced.

We have enough time before AI takes away all the jobs. But rest assured, it is going to happen.

It is quite possible that people will ignore it as yet another scam on the Internet. That would be the tragedy of humanity. Because no one else in the world can solve the global warming problem as well as the problem of AI.

You expect the fossil fuel industry to put itself out of business. You expect the oil producing countries to leave their financial assets locked underground. You expect the politicians to risk losing an election by raising taxes to solve the global warming problem.

You expect altruism from everyone but you yourself are not even willing to take the risk of signing up because it might turn out to be a scam.

Most of you have almost no chance of ever becoming a millionaire. You keep on buying lottery tickets to become a millionaire even though you have such a tiny chance.

You are getting a free ticket for a $100 million lottery every month or every few months all your life just for signing up. What do you have to lose?

Not only you should sign up yourself but ask all your friends and family to sign up too. If any of the people you have referred wins the $1 billion lottery, you will win $100 million too.

You will also be doing the altruistic act of saving humanity from mass extinction.

The service will only start if almost every mobile phone user signs up.

Either everyone becomes a multi-millionaire, or no one.

Your destiny is literary in your hands, in fact your fingers.

No, It will be a 501(C)(3) corporation. But only after we have launched the service. It might take a year to get the approval from the IRS.