CO2 is good for our lives!!!!

[ramza]

HAHAHAHAHAHA! Those capitalists...................

 

http://streams.cei.org/

[taks]

uh, CO2 is plant food... you know that, right?

 

taks

[ramza]

Yeah, but excessive amounts of CO2 is not a good thing either...

 

By watching this clip, I got the impression that they were telling us to keep polluting our planet, just for the sake of safeguarding our comfortable lives.

[taks]

Yeah, but excessive amounts of CO2 is not a good thing either...

the problem, however, is that there is no definition of "excessive" out there when it comes to CO2 in the atmosphere. our current levels are less than 1/10th what they have been during recent ice ages even (and probably only 1% of peak values in the distant past). good/bad value judgements on CO2 are a waste of energy.

 

By watching this clip, I got the impression that they were telling us to keep polluting our planet, just for the sake of safeguarding our comfortable lives.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i suppose it depends upon point of view...

 

taks

[Dark_Raven]

Sounds like some people have been taking in too much CO2 to come to that conclusion.

[taks]

which conclusion would that be?

 

taks

[ramza]

Yeah, but excessive amounts of CO2 is not a good thing either...

the problem, however, is that there is no definition of "excessive" out there when it comes to CO2 in the atmosphere. our current levels are less than 1/10th what they have been during recent ice ages even (and probably only 1% of peak values in the distant past). good/bad value judgements on CO2 are a waste of energy.

 

By watching this clip, I got the impression that they were telling us to keep polluting our planet, just for the sake of safeguarding our comfortable lives.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i suppose it depends upon point of view...

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ya know, don't you feel concerned when you see all these campaigns about the need to reduce the emissions of CO2 so that we can have healthier lives? CO2 IS a bad thing, especially when forest are diminishing (I am thinking about the Amazon forest in particular).

 

What is striking to me is that the US don't seem to care about what could happen to this planet, as long as they can make money. Making efforts so as to reduce the CO2 emissions would be a waste of money, so big companies try to make us think that CO2 is necessary for our lives. The US is the only industrialised country that hasn't ratified the Kyoto protocol. Isn't that shocking? Doesn't that show how far capitalism has gone in the US? (BTW, I am "liberal" but I don't like the concept of capitalism a la USA).

[taks]

Ya know, don't you feel concerned when you see all these campaigns about the need to reduce the emissions of CO2 so that we can have healthier lives?

read the thread on the ozone where we discuss hype.

 

CO2 IS a bad thing, especially when forest are diminishing (I am thinking about the Amazon forest in particular).

no, it's not. show me what is bad about CO2, particularly noting that human life evolved at a time when CO2 levels were MUCH higher than they are today. remember, current levels are measure in parts per million (ppm). the running estimate is about 350 ppm, or 0.035% of the atmosphere. CO2 is essential for life on this planet, it is not a pollutant no matter how many newspapers claim otherwise.

 

you really should try to understand the science behind your claims before making them.

 

What is striking to me is that the US don't seem to care about what could happen to this planet, as long as they can make money. Making efforts so as to reduce the CO2 emissions would be a waste of money, so big companies try to make us think that CO2 is necessary for our lives.

the US? funny, but all of europe and asia are making BIG money trading carbon credits. it turns out their so-called "environmentalism" is nothing more than a big capitalistic trading scheme. pot. kettle. black.

 

btw, the US cares plenty and the reasons we aren't force feeding nonsense on our public (yet) is not because it is simply a waste of money. it is because there is no benefit.

 

The US is the only industrialised country that hasn't ratified the Kyoto protocol. Isn't that shocking?

and most that have have already stated that it is worthless, it will cost TRILLIONS with ZERO benefit. is that shocking? most countries are already talking about getting out of it, btw, so the US won't be alone shortly.

 

Doesn't that show how far capitalism has gone in the US? (BTW, I am "liberal" but I don't like the concept of capitalism a la USA).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

so, is this rant about protecting the environment or your hatred of capitalism and the US? seems i am right about agendas.

 

really...

 

taks

[astr0creep]

CO2 is essential to life:

 

Plants, including trees, consume the C and reject the O2 in the air for us to breathe. It's called photosynthesis.

 

However, since there are less plants and trees every minute of every day... Well, you get the picture.

 

[taks]

However, since there are less plants and trees every minute of every day... Well, you get the picture.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

well, yes and no. it's not like we're cutting trees down without replacement. certainly not ALL plant-life is being replaced, but much of it is (fly over washington and you can see the new growth, btw).

 

also, plants and trees are not the only carbon sinks in the world.

 

taks

[astr0creep]

However, since there are less plants and trees every minute of every day... Well, you get the picture.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

well, yes and no. it's not like we're cutting trees down without replacement. certainly not ALL plant-life is being replaced, but much of it is (fly over washington and you can see the new growth, btw).

 

also, plants and trees are not the only carbon sinks in the world.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, trees are being replaced. In some places. I'm more worried about the rain forest, the "lung of the earth", which is not being replaced(fast enough).

There is also a difference in replacing trees for the purpose of keeping the environment healthy and for pretty landscaping...

 

Plants are not the only carbon sinks, no. But how many species/organisms release oxygen as a result of CO2 consumption(I'm just asking out of curiosity)? And are they compensating for the loss of vegetation?

[alanschu]

Any interesting factoid I heard was that the amount of area covered by forests in the US has increased over the past 10-20 years.

[astr0creep]

Any interesting factoid I heard was that the amount of area covered by forests in the US has increased over the past 10-20 years.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And in the rest of the world? You know, beyond the forbidden zone of the US frontier?

[alanschu]

I don't know.

 

I just find it funny because the activists in the US still claim that the US is destroying its forests and an unprecedented rate.

 

The thing about trees....as long as there is money to be made off of them, I have a feeling they will always be around.

[astr0creep]

The thing about trees....as long as there is money to be made off of them, I have a feeling they will always be around.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Good point... Like oil?

[alanschu]

Oil is significantly less renewable than trees.

 

Having said that, when Oil becomes scarce, investment in other forms of energy will increase.

 

 

I'm actually not too worried about an impending end of the world. I think human beings are a bit narcissistic, and overestimate their influence on the planet.

[taks]

I'm more worried about the rain forest, the "lung of the earth", which is not being replaced(fast enough).

the US has a very large rainforest in the northwest, btw.

 

There is also a difference in replacing trees for the purpose of keeping the environment healthy and for pretty landscaping...

i wasn't referring to landscaping trees. they do replant to create new crops as alanschu pointed out. also, he is right that the US has more tree cover than in the past.

 

Plants are not the only carbon sinks, no. But how many species/organisms release oxygen as a result of CO2 consumption(I'm just asking out of curiosity)? And are they compensating for the loss of vegetation?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i don't know the answers to these questions. from what i understand, the O2 content in the atmosphere has been relatively constant. CO2 varies wildly (historically) and currently makes up less than 0.035% anyway and at current rates, probably will double by the time we run out of fossil fuels. i'm not sure it matters for quite a long time if replacement compensates, and by then, human CO2 production will have leveled off and eventually, be due only to respiration.

 

taks

Edited May 23, 2006 by taks

[taks]

I think human beings are a bit narcissistic, and overestimate their influence on the planet.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i've always felt this way. the problem is that is very easy to use our little influence to scare people into certain behaviors. the average joe does not understand what we can (or cannot) actually do to the planet, and that is prime fodder for behavior control through fear.

 

taks

[astr0creep]

What is "the average joe" anyway? Is anyone here not an "average Joe"?

[alanschu]

Given the fact that some of us actually seem to have done a bit of research on the topic, I'd say we're decidedly less average joe on this subject.

 

I don't think it's a stretch to assume that many people just take what is fed to them on this subject, without doing any critical assessment of it.

[taks]

what alanschu said.

 

lots of things can differentiate people from the average. high IQ, high education, extreme distrust of any institution (not just government) or just plain innate curiosity resulting in research into a subject (though the latter is often related to one or any of the first three).

 

realistically, however, the "average joe" is simply the standard run-of-the-mill guy that doesn't care about the details. he hears the news, assumes somebody must've done the research and then takes it for granted that it must be right. that we're even in here posting on the subject likely differentiates us from the "average joe" anyway.

 

taks