On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 22:48:01 GMT, th <someguy@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Malt_Hound > wrote:
>> th wrote:
>>> Malt_Hound > wrote:
>>>
>>>> th wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> True, but as the fuel is mostly produced from plants absorbing CO2
>>>>> the net effect is almost zero. Compare with gasoline that uses a
>>>>> source where the CO2 from the atmosphere was stored millions of
>>>>> years ago and no CO2 is pumped back into the earth.
>>>>>
>>>> <devil's advocate>
>>>>
>>>> So where do you suppose that the carbon came from in that plant-life
>>>> all those millions of years ago, which eventually became the fossil
>>>> fuel?
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm.... It's still a "balanced" equation.
>>>>
>>>> </devil's advocate>
>>>>
>>> From the air of course. However, burning gasoline requires that
>>> mankind starts growing more forests to return the carbon back to solid
>>> form. And extending the forests is not really what we are doing right
>>> now. . .
>>>
>>
>> So then, the real problem is lack of forests, not the burning of fossil
>> fuels?
>>
> . . or both?
There is always other options
Carbon capture and storage (for sake of argument in empty oil wells)
or.....
If the problem is too much solar heating it is theoretically possible
to put a solar reflector in space to cut the amount of solar radiation
reaching the earth. Keep, the polar caps cold and they won't melt.
But I suppose that would destroy the whole "global warming"
industry......
Perhaps we should slaughtered all the greenhouse gas producing
animals, Quit all trans****tation, figured out a way to feed the world
organically, eliminate Volcanic activity and prevent all forest
fires..
On second thought I'll pay towards carbon capture, Keep driving my
Turbo and eating steak. Gotta look at the bright side. Think we've
beaten the global cooling that was predicted in the 1960'S ! Yeah !
|
