Innermost exoplanet around a star referred to as TRAPPIST-1. It's not so nearby as to be in our solar system.

There are 7 known exoplanets around this star, which is a little over 40 light years away. TRAPPIST-1 appears to be named after the telescope that initially discovered it in 1999. It would appear in the sky adjacent to the Aquarius constellation, on the side near Pisces.

But it is an ultra-cool red dwarf. Not quite 9% the sun's mass, and slightly larger in volume than Jupiter. (On the order of 100 times the mass of Jupiter.) You're unlikely to see it with the naked eye.

The suspicion due to understandings of such a star, is that the planets would all be tidally locked, and any atmospheres would have been blown away by their star early on. Using the assumption of tidal lock, the known orbital distance, and some imaging technique newly possible with the James Webb telescope, they have probably confirmed that there is no atmosphere. But supposedly there is a margin of error due to the limits of the imaging, that it could possibly have atmosphere up to 0.1 times as dense as Earth's.

The amount of carbon that plants can capture is literally negligible.

The amount plants capture is already engaged in what you might term the Carbon Cycle. Which also demonstrates that plants' and animals' direct emissions are literally negligible, because these processes and the plants' recapture are or were exactly equivalent, and balanced.

Add to this hundreds of billions of tons of carbon from coal, natural gas, and oil, and that's the problem. This amount of carbon was formerly buried, out-of-the-way, below ground. Now it's in the air, and dissolved in the ocean. The plants are preoccupied with the amount of carbon there used to be in the air. This extra amount is beyond them.

But it's also unlikely Arizona is going to make hundreds of billions of tons of concrete, to sequester the difference.

But it won't affect the warming levels of co2 this side of the industrial revolution.

Before we started burning fossil fuels, there was this thing called a carbon cycle. Carbon gets emitted by lifeforms, through various methods including decay, as well as by digestion/respiration. And that same exact carbon gets recollected by lifeforms, usually plants. Those plants were collectively eaten by animals, or decayed straightaway, and were the cyclical source of the carbon in the air, just as well as being the cyclical recovery system.

If we removed what you might call a carbon bank, such as a tropical forest, then we've disrupted that original carbon cycle (in addition to the harm from burning fossil fuels). If we put the forest back, it isn't undoing our industrial revolution. It's only returning a proper piece of that slightly older carbon cycle.

Only the best genetics all across the board for tomorrow's wage slaves.

We owe our corporate masters at least this much.

--

Because of course there are still only X spots for college and even more limited "successful positions" afterward. The rest still get shitty jobs.

Not to mention, what's the point, when abortion is being criminalized across the country anyway. "Your embryo has 0% chance of going to college. Don't try and fight it. Sucks to be you!"

There are already window films that come in rolls. Some are tinted, like aftermarket car tint, and some are reflective. They can make a significant difference.

It's difficult to achieve perfection on older windows, because there's probably grit stuck on the glass like cement, that's nearly invisible but could still try and cause bubbles.

But there's probably tips all over the internet if you look. I've used sewing needles to put a teeny hole that the trapped air can escape through when the film is squeegeed, with decent effect.

And overall, you'll have a much more pleasant, even temperature across the room. And the bills go down. Overall I think it's worth it, even though perfection was out of (my) reach.

The supremely wealthy have no need to pay for your services. There's nothing they really need, that they would pay for. They just hang a little bit of money to lure in more.

The mildly wealthy are losing their money to the surpremely wealthy, but think you're the problem. They won't pay you for services unless they absolutely have to.

The less-than-wealthy have nothing to pay you with.

Higher taxes for the supremely wealthy and a different tax structure modified the incentives of the wealthy, and are what got the country out of the depression. Essentially, pay the government much extra, if you aren't paying people. Doesn't ultimately affect the owners of oil, coal, steel, and other incredibly basic commodities. All money flows right back to them, since there's a guaranteed need for these things, by everybody.

But in the interim, either they were paying people more, or the government was taxing these supremely wealthy. And for this brief period where such funds were not in their coffers, those taxes were invested in public works. So the money was paid to people such as in the photo, who are then customers, and the money continues to circulate.

--

Money spent does not go in the garbage.

Money hoarded, however, is effectively pulled out of circulation.

And for the lot who like to bicker on this last point, saying the wealthy add money when they "invest": it's like using a minnow to catch a trout. You wouldn't say you're adding fish to the water, when you're simply using bait to retrieve more.

When large companies invest in an area, they only improve the area for a moment, if at all, during some construction phase. Because of course, the whole purpose of their investment is to draw more money toward themselves. Over time huge companies are a drain. The walmarts, the McDonald's, and forth, syphon money out of regions (some faster than others), and you're left with poor areas.

Who do you sell to when nobody gets paid?

"It's okay, there are other companies that will start up and hire these people, and because of incentives that totally exist within capitalism, they won't be as stingy with pay."