CO2 in air measures approximately 420 molecules per million molecules of air (ppm) or 0.0420% of air, making CO2 a trace gas in air. That CO2 gas is existentially necessary for life on earth. All green plants grow and survive by absorbing CO2 for photosynthesis from the air or water. The human contribution to that total net CO2 amount due to fossil fuels and all other human sources is estimated to be about 5% or less of the total net CO2 but unmeasurably small against the large variability in ~420 ppm background. CO2 gas does not accumulate in air. Increases in CO2 in air cause an offsetting equal increase in solubility of CO2 in water everywhere until the equilibrium is restored for the local surface temperature. Similarly, any reductions in CO2 by sequestration etc result in less CO2 solubility in water everywhere, resulting in CO2 emission from water to air exceeding CO2 absorptions into water until the equilibrium is restored for the local surface temperature. There is a short time lag (i.e., difference) between the rate of emission and the rate of absorption due to the large difference in densities of air and water.

Given the following statement from UN IPCC, it is illogical, unreasonable, malfeasant and/or misfeasant for governments, representatives, bureaucrats, UN IPCC, corporations, NGO’s, academia, etc to pursue reduction of gas CO2 in air such as the extremely expensive “net zero” plans. They rely on an assumed consensus without doing diligence required by their positions. Advocacy without due diligence is either malfeasant, misfeasant or both. In some cases, probably there is fraud. As far as I am aware, in such cases there is no statute of limitations.

The IPCC in its third report (2001) conceded: “In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. UN IPCC (Chapter 14, Section 14.2.2.2. )]”

Since “long term prediction of future climate states is not possible,” then how is not misfeasant or malfeasant to be spending billions of dollars per year to reduce CO2? And asking citizens to spend trillions of dollars per year out to 2050 in the future? “Net Zero” appears to be financially wrong and existentially dangerous to all life.

Massive class action cases are ahead. If there is justice, damages to the eventual plaintiff groups are already in the billions of dollars. Fraud is probable, which usually means payments for damages are tripled. But all of that money means nothing if geoengineering clouds and climate for net zero kills plant life.

Definition:

A ‘malfeasant’ is an individual who commits malfeasance. Malfeasance refers to the commission of an unlawful act or the performance of a lawful act in an unlawful manner, often by a public official. It’s a term used to describe the misuse of a public position for personal gain or other nefarious purposes.

‘Misfeasance’ is a legal term referring to the improper performance of a lawful action. It’s the act of doing something that is legally permissible but doing it in a wrong or improper manner, which may result in harm or damage. Unlike malfeasance, misfeasance doesn’t involve doing something unlawful; it’s more about the incorrect way in which a lawful action is carried out.