Steve
Member
That’s half the problem.Because the topic of this thread is global warming?
What exactly does that mean for us?
That’s half the problem.Because the topic of this thread is global warming?
What exactly does that mean for us?
A fee and dividend scheme (tax carbon but return the taxed money directly to taxpayers), along with encouraging (directing, if necessary) a shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy, eliminating (or simply minimising) animal agriculture, especially at industrial scales, plus encouraging various other means of lowering carbon emissions too numerous to have to mind, let alone list.
The planet's climate shifting so rapidly from one to which we and much other life on this planet are well-adjusted, to one to which we and other life are poorly-adjusted that we are unable to contain a major loss of life, resources, and "habitat" in general. Surely you knew this already though?
Hopeful? It'll take more than a lot of CO2 to make Australia that green LoneShaman
You will not receive a return on these things.
It would not stop the very real toxic pollution that is a result of the civilized world.
be realistic, there is no replacement at this point in time for fossil fuels.
I am not for yet more government theft
If this were all that was at stake it would not be as bad, however the solution that is being formulated is far grander than just that.
That is just not true.
What of soil depletion, pesticide run offs, dead zones in the oceans, deforestation, plastics, toxic building materials, land fills, polluted water ways, depleted uranium etc.... ?
All of these are second fiddle to the Co2 that is greening the planet!
What of soil depletion, pesticide run offs, dead zones in the oceans, deforestation, plastics, toxic building materials, land fills, polluted water ways, depleted uranium etc.... ?
Well, you might form that opinion if you took seriously only the minority rather than accepting consensus.
Those all need to be addressed too. It's not an either-or situation, it's a both-and.
I've addressed this already. It's not as simple as you make out. Excess CO2 only helps plant life up to a point. Then it becomes a problem.
I would love to hear how a greener Earth is a problem. You did not address it at all, except to imply it will poison the planet as in the water intoxication analogy. Will the Earth suffer vegetation toxicity? Can you point me to some published papers?
Let me guess, there is a limit to greening and the amount of Co2 absorbed by plant life. Then we have to once again contend with the excess. And around and around we go. Am I right?
Norby notes the results scientists produce in labs are generally not what happens in the vastly more complex world outside; many other factors are involved in plant growth in untended forests, fields and other ecosystems. For example, “nitrogen is often in short enough supply that it’s the primary controller of how much biomass is produced” in an ecosystem, he says. “If nitrogen is limited, the benefit of the CO2 increase is limited…. You can’t just look at CO2, because the overall context really matters.”
while rising carbon dioxide might seem like a boon for agriculture, Moore also emphasizes any potential positive effects cannot be considered in isolation, and will likely be outweighed by many drawbacks. “Even with the benefit of CO2 fertilization, when you start getting up to 1 to 2 degrees of warming, you see negative effects,” she says. “There are a lot of different pathways by which temperature can negatively affect crop yield: soil moisture deficit [or] heat directly damaging the plants and interfering with their reproductive process.” On top of all that, Moore points out increased CO2 also benefits weeds that compete with farm plants.
Rising CO2’s effect on crops could also harm human health. “We know unequivocally that when you grow food at elevated CO2 levels in fields, it becomes less nutritious,” notes Samuel Myers, principal research scientist in environmental health at Harvard University. “[Food crops] lose significant amounts of iron and zinc—and grains [also] lose protein.”
Please, I get it, as I said before. You have made up your mind. I won't waste my time. I have heard your argument. Consensus. OK, I get it.
These are the type of things most people agree on, there’s no real big debate about these sort of things. Those like me that are undecided can concentrate on them while leaving others to decide if man made CO2 levels are heating the planet up. There’s enough work for everyone here I think.
Clean energy is better than coal fuelled power stations.
Wave energy.
Heat from volcanoes.
Wind turbines. Etc
Nuclear has been very useful so far, but having watched the mini series ‘Chernobyl’ recently, it should not be taken for granted. I’d rather it wasn’t the main source, in fact I’d rather it wasn’t used at all. But would I be content without it? I doubt it.
I’ve little interest or knowledge about such topics, but although I’m on the fence about GW I’d be interested in starting to learn more.
Naive? Impractical? A Waste?
If the proponents are right, surely it will need effort in all these aspects if we’re to move forward. I’d be quite willing to sacrifice quite a bit of 21st century luxuries to achieve a more balanced world. I’m not the enemy, I’m a sceptical but ‘open to suggestions’ friend.
potentially dangerous wide sweeping GOVERNMENT policies
Ok Laird.
What do you think I’d have to change if I were to fully agree, and go along with you?
What Dr. Mototaka Nakamura stated is one of the most powerfully true statements I have heard.
I'll simply repeat what I wrote to you privately:
The most important action we can take, in my view, is to support policies which lead to reduced carbon emissions. Following that, we ought to put our money where our mouths are and limit our own carbon emissions. There are all sorts of ways to do that with which you will probably already be familiar.
Here's an article in Scientific American which addresses this issue: Ask the Experts: Does Rising CO2 Benefit Plants?
Some key excerpts:
Please, don't put that on me whilst implicitly exculpating yourself. Your mind is just as made up as mine is. I have tried to offer a reasonable approach which cuts through the hype of partisanship, by appealing to those who are more qualified to assess the state of play than you and I, but you are determined to preference the hysterical minority who see those qualified scientists as hoaxers. That's on you.
One thing I can do, is tell someone how difficult it is to find out even the most basic of info about where our energy actually comes from
Which information exactly are you looking for, Steve? The breakdown of the sources of the power grid, i.e., X% coal, Y% solar, Z% nuclear, etc etc?
That fluid dynamics must play a major role, it's a no brainier really.Ooookay. And you base this assessment on exactly what other than gut feel and its agreement with your preconceptions?