To what extent is the CO2 generated from burning oil and gas as fuels contributing to global warming, as maintained by environmental activists claiming there is a “scientific consensus” that there is only 10 years left to head off climate catastrophe from human caused climate change?

The contribution of the CO₂ from burning so-called fossil fuels is trivial and an insignificant factor in the climate overall. You are in between glacial periods and warming of the planet is normal. There are outside forces contributing to somewhat greater temperature to a mild extent. That is the result of solar activity, not what is happening on the Earth per se, nor will eliminating carbon emissions have a significant impact on this slight warming. It is not dangerous and, in fact, CO₂ in particular is a blessing through promoting greater plant life and the production of oxygen that is needed by all the aerobic species, humans included. To make CO₂ a villain is a red herring, so to speak, and a propaganda message designed to manipulate people through raising fear and pretending to have the answers and to have people look to the politician engaging in this drumbeat as a savior who has the clarity of vision and the determination and drive to tackle the problem no matter what it might take, and save the day, and save the planet in the bargain. Not only is this an irrelevant undertaking, the solutions are worse than the problem, because they will lead to economic catastrophe and everyone will suffer. This is not to say that reckless use of natural resources and wanton pollution are not deserving attention or attempts to control them. It is very much the case that humans need to be good stewards of the environment for many, many, reasons because there will be an impact on human well‑being and longevity as well from too much pollution as a result of automobile traffic. And this can be true with coal-fired power plants without stringent pollution controls on the emissions. But life is always about a balance of this sort. This was still true in the olden times when people burned firewood to survive the winters and had their life shortened from inhaling so much wood smoke. But the answer was not to ban fires, it was simply to develop greater understanding and discernment so better answers could be found. There is nothing wrong with championing alternative fuels for conservation and lowered pollution, but this must be economically feasible and agreed to, and not imposed as a major hardship before the economy can support the approach. There are many ways to have one’s life hampered. Acts of government rank with natural disasters in their adverse consequences, and this can be food for thought of great value.