tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3060534295892170518.post6222598653893668965..comments2024-02-06T18:46:04.220+10:00Comments on Real World Libertarian: “Garnaut Report - Three Key Questions were Ignored.Jim Fryarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15780237902858889143noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3060534295892170518.post-44836258136461717682008-07-06T23:16:00.000+10:002008-07-06T23:16:00.000+10:00I would be prepared to take the science more serio...I would be prepared to take the science more seriously if the politics was taken out of the 'debate'. People like Gore have a 'vested interest' in GW alarmism.<BR/><BR/>At this time I do not consider that it is improbable that the increase in CO2 is not a result of cyclical temperature change.<BR/><BR/>Barb; Thank you for the effort you have gone to with your comment, I did in fact find the review you referred to and read it and passed it on to the author, Viv Forbes as well as some others who I felt would be interested.<BR/><BR/>I am thinking of a post on that subject.Jim Fryarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15780237902858889143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3060534295892170518.post-84210230942546523572008-07-06T03:58:00.000+10:002008-07-06T03:58:00.000+10:00You write: “But nowhere have we seen estimates of ...You write: “But nowhere have we seen estimates of the total cost of all the taxes, disruptions, shortages, cost increases and unnecessary investments associated with all the emission permits, ration coupons, energy mandates, trading schemes, quotas, bureaucracy and approvals.”<BR/><BR/>There is an excellent article in today's NYT book review section on a book filled with economic analyses. The author concludes that the ultimate cost of "deprivation" type "solutions" is far worse than doing nothing and continuing with business as usual. <BR/><BR/>Incidentally, describes one of the most elegant solutions I’ve ever seen to the global warming problem: “carbon eating trees.” This solution does not require impoverishing developing countries such as China now in order to achieve future benefits. And it accomplishes additional benefits in addition to the primary goal of reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide. <BR/><BR/>An aside: if you don’t have the time or interest to read the article or the rest of this comment, at least consider the following excerpt from the article:<BR/><BR/><BR/>Whether someone is serious about tackling the global-warming<BR/>problem can be readily gauged by listening to what he or she says<BR/>about the carbon price. Suppose you hear a public figure who<BR/>speaks eloquently of the perils of global warming and proposes<BR/>that the nation should move urgently to slow climate change.<BR/>Suppose that person proposes regulating the fuel efficiency of<BR/>cars, or requiring high-efficiency lightbulbs, or subsidizing<BR/>ethanol, or providing research support for solar power--but<BR/>nowhere does the proposal raise the price of carbon. You should<BR/>conclude that the proposal is not really serious and does not<BR/>recognize the central economic message about how to slow climate<BR/>change. To a first approximation, raising the price of carbon is<BR/>a necessary and sufficient step for tackling global warming. The<BR/>rest is at best rhetoric and may actually be harmful in inducing<BR/>economic inefficiencies.<BR/><BR/>Back to the idea of carbon eating trees … based on measurements made by Charles David Keeling’s instruments (see article for background info) on can calculate that every carbon atom in the world ends up as part of a plant within about 12 years. In the normal course of events, a plant will lock up carbon within its structure while it is alive and release the carbon back into the atmosphere when it dies and decays (in the case of deciduous trees and shrubs, carbon is released when the plants shed their leaves for the dormant season, and locked up again when the plants resume active growth). If there were large areas of earth growing plants that keep the carbon locked up rather than releasing it back to the atmosphere, the atmospheric carbon level could be quickly reduced (by quickly, I mean that the increase could be halted within a few years and the level could be reduced down to 1950 levels within 50 years).<BR/><BR/>This is a Permaculture kind of solution that accomplishes several goals at once. You not only accomplish the primary goal of reducing atmospheric carbon; you also preserve habitats for wildlife and very likely make the trees useful for human purposes (as the article mentions -- chemicals, liquid fuels, etc.). <BR/><BR/>Hell, why stop at carbon eating trees? How about genetically engineered carbon eating annuals and soil organisms (I believe you'd have to take the system as a whole, rather than focusing on just the plants) that, instead of releasing their carbon to the atmosphere as they decay, lock it up into some useful form such as humus? I don't think that's entirely far-fetched. I've observed in the garden that if you provide a cover of mulch to a garden bed, the organisms in the soil such as worms leave clumps of decaying vegetable matter encased within a layer of mucus type stuff. This is what causes mulched soil to become light and friable, rather than forming heavy clods. When you leave the soil bare, you don't see much humus.Barb-Central Texashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14000185202490150402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3060534295892170518.post-61765866432217862442008-07-05T23:54:00.000+10:002008-07-05T23:54:00.000+10:00"If the data does not support your preconceived ou..."If the data does not support your preconceived outcome of the experiment, manipulate the data" ..<BR/><BR/>Even if studies are done, how do we know they are honest? I don't trust the Al Gores , et. al. of the world.<BR/><BR/>"Nine out of ten doctors prefer Camels" -- Camel cig ad from the 50sAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com