| Author |
Message |
    
Cowboy
Citizen
Username: Cowboy
Post Number: 340
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 12:08 pm: |     |
Uh oh! Bad news for you eco-radicals. A study conducted in the Amazon Basin has shown that the earth puts a natural brake on global warming. The growth rate of trees in the Basin has almost doubled in recent decades. Nifty the way things work, isn't it?
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_864774.html?menu=news.latestheadlines
This might be great news. And yes, I am concerned about the environment. What I disagree with is all the far out methodologies that are proposed to deal with the problems we face. I agree that we need to insure that we keep our environment clean. Doing it appropriately and responsibly is my concern. |
wharfrat
Citizen
Username: Wharfrat
Post Number: 965
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 12:35 pm: | |
Hey Partner-
Nifty conclusion you've reached there. Unforetunately, you excerpted BUT a small portion of the report.
Did you really read the whole article, or stop when you got to the part about the growth rate of trees? |
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 2246
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 12:43 pm: | |
Cowboy continues to struggle with the big picture. Anyway, Cowboy, the growth rate bodes well for a recovery of tropical forests. In the meantime, chainsaws are still cutting faster than trees are growing in the tropics. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1949
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 1:08 pm: | |
What would you propose as an appropriate and responsible method? |
Cowboy
Citizen
Username: Cowboy
Post Number: 346
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 1:18 pm: | |
Wharfrat, indeed you are familiar with the Oxygen/Carbon Dioxide Cycle. Have you ever noticed the dramatic increase in the pace of algae growth rates when surface water temperatures rise? Think of it as the earth’s very own immune system. Let’s protect that first and foremost. By keeping it healthy, perhaps it can cure some of it’s own ills.
Tom, I’m a strong advocate of reducing harmful emission levels. I suggest applying techniques of using economic incentives as opposed to command and control. Kyoto style programs will not work because getting governments to agree is difficult if not impossible. Therefore, why not continue to use what works, let the free market decide.
|
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 2250
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 1:29 pm: | |
One problem with the free market approach alone is that the global business cycle operates on a different frequency than global environmental cycles and we could all be screwed by the time a free market solution solves the problem. |
Cowboy
Citizen
Username: Cowboy
Post Number: 351
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 2:13 pm: | |
Not if incentives are allowed and employed appropriately. Cap and Trade programs like the one's available under the "Acid Rain" Program can work better. Take for example the instance of allowing a domestic source credits for installing state of the art abatement equipment in a China facility. These credits may not clean the air domestically, but they certainly will have a dramatic impact on the air quality in China.
Much of the Third World generates power very inefficiently. Domestic sources tend to be much cleaner. Yes, you can point out numerous exceptions, but dollar for dollar, you will get a bigger bang for your buck if efficiencies were made in Third World sources.
This would allow for the cycles tjohn mentions to become more in sync. It makes sense. It does little to prevent eco-radicals from attacking industry though. They seem more interested in seeing businesses pressured and with it jobs lost. |
Addy
Citizen
Username: Addy
Post Number: 41
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 2:24 pm: | |
Cowboy, you sound fairly informed. Do you work in the energy sector? If so, do your personal business interests dictate your opinions or do you really believe people seeking a clean environment are "radicals"? As I see it as a Republican and a resident of NJ, we need to balance things out. We're on the receiving end of a lot of pollution from the midwest and it drives up health care costs. |
Cowboy
Citizen
Username: Cowboy
Post Number: 355
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 5:32 pm: | |
Addy, health care costs may actually be influenced to a greater degree by legal issues. For example, the obstetric profession has been under severe pressure here in NJ due more to increased insurance rates, thought to have resulted from higher legal fees associated with defending against lawsuits, rather than the quality of our air.
However, regarding your queery, "do your personal business interests dictate your opinions." No, in fact I suspect that in my case it is the other way around. In other words my business interests are dictated by my personal opinions.
"Do you really believe people seeking a clean environment are "radicals"?" No. Everyone is concerned, or should be, about a clean environment. It's our home, let's take care of it. The problem seems to lie in the methodology. That is what sets the Environmental Whackos apart. They see a factory only for the pollution it emits, rather than for the jobs it creates and the service it provides and the measure of the quality of life it may impact. As a result they all too frequently choose to attack every problem from a limited perspective.
What's really significant is when you can view the larger picture and implement methods of encouraging the situation to fix itself. Competition, when available, is usually the better solution. In the case of electric power it becomes especially difficult. Power Plants are costly and difficult to replace. Just try finding a suitable location for one these days. Forget about which method of generation you might consider. Hey, even Senator Kennedy and Walter Cronkite are against having wind powered generation obscure their views of Nantucket Sound.
|
wharfrat
Citizen
Username: Wharfrat
Post Number: 966
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 6:24 pm: | |
Cowboy,
I think I'm alot more familiar with the CO2/O cycle than you are.
For instance, your algae metaphor is so off as to be laughable. As water temps. rise oxygen depletion leads to lake eutrophication. If temps. don't stabilize soluble oxygen rapidly diminshes, and animals that feed on algae die.
Algae growth, death and deterioration fill the lake bottom with sediment. As this process continues unabated, a once vital ecosystem turns into a swamp, marsh, and grassland.
Dude, stick to punchin' dogies, you are out of your league. |
Cowboy
Citizen
Username: Cowboy
Post Number: 356
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 1:21 pm: | |
I am very curious Dr. Wharfrat. It is Doctor isn’t it? You seem to take offense with my post suggesting that my comments were untrue. Why? In what way were my comments regarding algae formation incorrect or, as you put it laughable? If I am out of my league, please correct me. My intention was to provide knowledge and provoke thought, not bruise your major league ego.
Wharfy Dude, I am not a scientist, and perhaps you are. However, your clever response was not only uncalled for, but quite frankly very rude. Do you feel threatened by me? The comments I made regarding the rate of algae growth stem from personal observations. Are you willing to dispute that the rate of growth of algae is increased as water temperature rises? Or that CO2 is broken down by photosynthesis in plants such as algae?
Remember, I was not discussing thermal pollution. While it is true that increased levels of algae can lead to eutrophication, (a big word for excessive algae blooms) if unabated, that was not my point. Eutrophication typically occurs in smaller bodies of water. BTW, excess nitrate can also cause eutrophication, but that's for another time.
Let’s think bigger, let’s think more in terms of oceans.
Many people fear that polar ice caps will melt and water levels of the planet will increase as higher temperatures occur, “global warming.” What do you have to say about the potential stabilizing effect caused by the earth’s own proven ability to reduce CO2 levels by increasing plant life? Think of it as the earth’s very own immune system.
And BTW I rather enjoy punching doggies, especially “hotdogies.” And there isn’t enough mustard in the world to cover …
|
notehead
Citizen
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 922
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 1:56 pm: | |
Of course plant growth picks up in response to increased concentrations of carbon dioxide. This has been known for decades. Meanwhile, efforts to curb the rapid deforestation of the Amazon Basin are largely ineffectual. (Incidentally, this area is sometimes called "the lungs of the Earth" but this is not really true - far more global gas exchange occurs via oceanic and terrestrial algae and bacteria.)
Also, the oceans also tend to slowly but steadily absorb more carbon dioxide when atmospheric concentrations increase. In fact, one plan for CO2 "sequestration" involves chemically binding massive quantities of it to inert materials which would be deposited in deep ocean trenches, since the ocean would be in no hurry to give that CO2 up.
It is foolish to give too much weight to any one study or theory. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will incorporate all solid science to date on the subject in its next major report, which is due sometime this year and will, hopefully, be accepted as the best and most trustworthy piece on the topic. |
Addy
Citizen
Username: Addy
Post Number: 42
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 1:59 pm: | |
Let's not knock the possibility Maplewood may become waterfront property. |
notehead
Citizen
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 923
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 2:05 pm: | |
If that happens, I will start a business leading scuba expeditions thru the submerged ruins of Newark. |
Cowboy
Citizen
Username: Cowboy
Post Number: 363
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 2:54 pm: | |
Agreed Notehead, "It is foolish to give too much weight to any one study or theory."
An overall strategy that employs mechanisims that seek to take advantage of the strengths inherent in capitalism, by creating economic incentives for participants makes the best sense.
I am still waiting to be debunked by the Wharfman, or surprised by an apology. |
wharfrat
Citizen
Username: Wharfrat
Post Number: 970
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 6:32 pm: | |
Cowboy-
Your discussion/hypothesis that increased plant life will stabilize Earth's climate/reduce the levels of CO2 in the attmosphere is unsustained by current research.
Currently increasing levels of greenhouse gases like CO2 and sulfuric acid, and rapid deforestation in the Amazon Basin, and other places are contributing to what you euphemistically call "climate change."
You started another thread with a similar topic, not too long ago in the old soapbox, and I wrote this response to your postulation.
Evidence that global warming is real and human activity is the cause-
1-Atmospheric concentration of CO2 from fossil fuel use is up 30% since the beginning of the industrial revolution. This is the highest concentration in 450,000 years, preceding the last ice age-the Peistocene Era.
2-Greenhouse gas methane has increased 145% in the same period.
3-Nitrous oxide up 15% (bring back dorm life ;-)
4-As notehead shows with his graph, the 1990’s are the warmest in recorded history.
Consequently, the arctic ice pack has thinned 40% in last 20 years, the Alps have lost 1/2 glacial mass since 19th century, the snow peak on Mt. Kilamanjaro is receding and will be gone in 15 yrs. In addition, shrubs are growing on Arctic tundra, mosquitos which thrive in tropic climates are carrying diseases to temperate climate zones, both north and south of the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn.
The damage this is causing to the eco-system will eventually impact our way of life. According to the International Panel on Climate Control, computer models are predicting a rise in avg. temps up to 6 degrees C, shifting climate zones towards each of the poles, disrupting agriculture, watersheds, snowpack.
Ultimately, the danger from global warming is not to the Earth itself, it's the dominant species on the planet, us.
In addition, evidence that global warming is real is found in the geologic record in the following ways.
Earth's climate cyclically gets warmer and colder. The geologic record tells scientists that Earth regularly goes through an ice age, about every 20,000 years.
The last one was about 10,000 years ago. Long term climate records, again measured by testing the amount of oxygen atoms bonded to the atomic structure of rocks and minerals shows that over the last 2 millenia Earth's temperature has been getting increasingly cooler.
This mirrors the rate of temperature decrease that preceded previous ice ages.
Never before in a cooling cycle has Earth seen a significantly measured spike in global temperatures. This is clearly attributed to the increase in greenhouse gases, directly attributable to the rapid industrialization of modern societies through out the world.
|
notehead
Citizen
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 929
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 12:24 am: | |
The main problem with asking the American government to provide business with the proper financial incentives to find cleaner ways to do stuff is this: the government doesn't want to. We unfortunately have situations where the people who are supposed to regulate industries and come up with the clever plans to convince them to change their ways are very much in the pocket of those industries.
You might think that the common sense of paying less to solve a problem now instead of paying more to solve a bigger problem later would have convinced more American industries to voluntarily implement cleaner production methods. But it hasn't. Many European countries have, through a combination of government incentives, clever technologies, and a greater respect for science, made significant progress in reducing pollution... and their industries are not going bankrupt. Rather, they are in ever-better condition to compete in a world where petroleum will increasingly become prohibitively expensive. |
Cowboy
Citizen
Username: Cowboy
Post Number: 366
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 4:06 pm: | |
Wharfrat, thanks for nothing. Your eagerness to find fault with my posts has obviously failed. What was so laughable? I may not know all that you do, but I still do not see what was laughable in that post. Perhaps you were just being rude.
Notehead, stop right there. Why do you always think in terms of the government's role?
Please stop that automatic pilot way of thinking. And though European countries may try, they will never have the impact on the world that does the USA.
Allow yourself to consider another way of thinking for a moment. Providing economic incentives isn't always the government's role. That leads to more complex laws and loopholes and playing games with taxes and such.
Instead, why not encourage sound environmental policy by tweeking the competitive juices of business and investors. Pave the way for rewarding responsible environmental behavior and watch how swiftly results are felt.
If you give yourself a real chance to follow along this line of thinking, you will be surprised at the potential. Remember, bigger government is not the goal, yet it somehow gets to be. Especially by those in charge of it. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1979
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 10:44 am: | |
who'd run the cap and trade program you mention on Feb. 11 if not a government?
Of course bigger government is not the goal. A better environment is the goal. Please try and show a little intellectual honesty. |
Cowboy
Citizen
Username: Cowboy
Post Number: 373
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 12:13 pm: | |
Tom just exactly what is that comment, "Please try and show a little intellectual honesty," supposed to mean?
When you ask who'd run the Cap and Trade Program, I think you mean oversee it? The EPA is the enforcement arm of our environmental laws, along with the courts. However, when you get right down to it, isn't it really supply and demand that allows it to work?
So, the basic economic engine of supply and demand truly run Cap and Trade. |
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 2882
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 12:26 pm: | |
Cowboy, do you ever get together with Jur050 and Imb4u, who are the only other posters who bring up Cap and Trade? |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1983
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 12:30 pm: | |
only if some governmental body enforces a cap. Otherwise, it's just more spew.
By intellectual honesty I mean, if we say we want a better environment don't tell us what we really want is bigger government. |
notehead
Citizen
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 930
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 1:33 pm: | |
Cowboy, I wrote of the government's role because that is what I thought you were proposing: a newer or stronger system of economic programs from the government to achieve positive environmental results. As Tom points out: who could put such a system in place and make sure all players abide by the rules, if not the government? How could "supply and demand" bring any change in the situation without some external force first altering some parameters of the situation? Without some kind of agressive program imposed by the government, we'll end up with exactly the situation we have now. |
Cowboy
Citizen
Username: Cowboy
Post Number: 377
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 2:59 pm: | |
Nohero, I look forward to connecting with anyone interested in Cap and Trade and will email both you mentioned.
Notehead asks, "Who could put such a system in place and make sure all players abide by the rules, if not the government?" The private sector can accomplish such things. The Chicago Climate Exchange, for example, was created to promote responsible management of CO2.
Regulated exchanges, like the NYSE do a much better job of fueling our economy than does government. Getting businesses to recognize the important developmental role that an exchange might play regarding emissions could serve to bring about great change in the situation we currently have.
|
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4694
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 3:43 pm: | |
Cowboy, don't know what planet you have been visiting for the last year or so, but the NYSE isn't exactly a paragon of virtue as far as self reulation is concerned.  |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1991
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 3:47 pm: | |
Companies decide to be on the NYSE, and subject to its strictures. They can choose another exchange, go over-the-counter, or stay private and not be subject to any of them.
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page