Government action to combat Global Warming harming our planet

[Tron5000]

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=569586&p=1

In praise of CO2

With less heat and less carbon dioxide, the planet could become less hospitable and less green

Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post Published: Saturday, June 07, 2008

Planet Earth is on a roll! GPP is way up. NPP is way up. To the surprise of those who have been bearish on the planet, the data shows global production has been steadily climbing to record levels, ones not seen since these measurements began.

GPP is Gross Primary Production, a measure of the daily output of the global biosphere --the amount of new plant matter on land. NPP is Net Primary Production, an annual tally of the globe's production. Biomass is booming. The planet is the greenest it's been in decades, perhaps in centuries.

Until the 1980s, ecologists had no way to systematically track growth in plant matter in every corner of the Earth -- the best they could do was analyze small plots of one-tenth of a hectare or less. The notion of continuously tracking global production to discover the true state of the globe's biota was not even considered.

Then, in the 1980s, ecologists realized that satellites could track production, and enlisted NASA to collect the data. For the first time, ecologists did not need to rely on rough estimates or anecdotal evidence of the health of the ecology: They could objectively measure the land's output and soon did -- on a daily basis and down to the last kilometre.

The results surprised Steven Running of the University of Montana and Ramakrishna Nemani of NASA, scientists involved in analyzing the NASA data. They found that over a period of almost two decades, the Earth as a whole became more bountiful by a whopping 6.2%. About 25% of the Earth's vegetated landmass -- almost 110 million square kilometres -- enjoyed significant increases and only 7% showed significant declines. When the satellite data zooms in, it finds that each square metre of land, on average, now produces almost 500 grams of greenery per year.

Why the increase? Their 2004 study, and other more recent ones, point to the warming of the planet and the presence of CO2, a gas indispensable to plant life. CO2 is nature's fertilizer, bathing the biota with its life-giving nutrients. Plants take the carbon from CO2 to bulk themselves up -- carbon is the building block of life -- and release the oxygen, which along with the plants, then sustain animal life. As summarized in a report last month, released along with a petition signed by 32,000 U. S. scientists who vouched for the benefits of CO2: "Higher CO2 enables plants to grow faster and larger and to live in drier climates. Plants provide food for animals, which are thereby also enhanced. The extent and diversity of plant and animal life have both increased substantially during the past half-century."

Lush as the planet may now be, it is as nothing compared to earlier times, when levels of CO2 and Earth temperatures were far higher. In the age of the dinosaur, for example, CO2 levels may have been five to 10 times higher than today, spurring a luxuriantly fertile planet whose plant life sated the immense animals of that era. Planet Earth is also much cooler today than during the hothouse era of the dinosaur, and cooler than it was 1,000 years ago during the Medieval Warming Period, when the Vikings colonized a verdant Greenland. Greenland lost its colonies and its farmland during the Little Ice Age that followed, and only recently started to become green again.

This blossoming Earth could now be in jeopardy, for reasons both natural and man-made. According to a growing number of scientists, the period of global warming that we have experienced over the past few centuries as Earth climbed out of the Little Ice Age is about to end. The oceans, which have been releasing their vast store of carbon dioxide as the planet has warmed -- CO2 is released from oceans as they warm and dissolves in them when they cool -- will start to take the carbon dioxide back. With less heat and less carbon dioxide, the planet could become less hospitable and less green, especially in areas such as Canada's Boreal forests, which have been major beneficiaries of the increase in GPP and NPP.

Doubling the jeopardy for Earth is man. Unlike the many scientists who welcome CO2 for its benefits, many other scientists and most governments believe carbon dioxide to be a dangerous pollutant that must be removed from the atmosphere at all costs. Governments around the world are now enacting massive programs in an effort to remove as much as 80% of the carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere.

If these governments are right, they will have done us all a service. If they are wrong, the service could be all ill, with food production dropping world wide, and the countless ecological niches on which living creatures depend stressed. The second order effects could be dire, too. To bolster food production, humans will likely turn to energy intensive manufactured fertilizers, depleting our store of non-renewable resources. Techniques to remove carbon from the atmosphere also sound alarms. Carbon sequestration, a darling of many who would mitigate climate change, could become a top inducer of earthquakes, according to Christian Klose, a geohazards researcher at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. Because the carbon sequestration schemes tend to be located near cities, he notes, carbon-sequestration-caused earthquakes could exact an unusually high toll.

Amazingly, although the risks of action are arguably at least as real as the risks of inaction, Canada and other countries are rushing into Earth-altering carbon schemes with nary a doubt. Environmentalists, who ordinarily would demand a full-fledged environmental assessment before a highway or a power plant can be built, are silent on the need to question proponents or examine alternatives.

Earth is on a roll. Governments are too. We will know soon enough if we're rolled off a cliff.

 

[The Senator]

What an excellent way to spin that.

"Without pollution, we will die! Let's keep on polluting our rivers and the air we breathe! Screw the asthmatics and those jerks who get lung cancer and other diseases from breathing in harmful chemicals! Screw those stupid fish and the rest of the food chain for being wiped out by acid rain! No one knows for sure if pollution is harmful or not, so it's best we sit around and do nothing (like we've been doing for the past eight years) so we don't find out."

Wow...

 

[Tron5000]

What an excellent way to spin that.

"Without pollution, we will die! Let's keep on polluting our rivers and the air we breathe! Screw the asthmatics and those jerks who get lung cancer and other diseases from breathing in harmful chemicals! Screw those stupid fish and the rest of the food chain for being wiped out by acid rain! No one knows for sure if pollution is harmful or not, so it's best we sit around and do nothing (like we've been doing for the past eight years) so we don't find out."

Wow...

You want to talk about "spin"? What the hell was that contrived rant you just spouted off? That's remarkable.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

it's funny when people that continuously talk about personal responsibility advocate no responsibility to the environment.

it's soooooo funny.

 

[Arc-Light]

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=569586&p=1

Awesome that is in the same line as what Ronald Reagan once said to the press about pollution....and i quote " TREES CAUSE MORE POLLUTION THAN CARS " This is a fact, he indeed said this in a press conference look it up. Your a gullible sheep puppet Tron5000 you need wake up.

 

[Tron5000]

Awesome that is in the same line as what Ronald Reagan once said to the press about pollution....and i quote " TREES CAUSE MORE POLLUTION THAN CARS " This is a fact, he indeed said this in a press conference look it up. Your a guilable sheep puppet Tron5000 you need wake up.

If you're going to blatantly insult someone, at least use correct spelling and syntax. You win my gold star for the day.

 

[The Senator]

it's funny when people that continuously talk about personal responsibility advocate no responsibility to the environment.

it's soooooo funny.

They don't actually advocate responsibility.

In their eyes, the government doesn't have a responsibility to help its citizens. The government doesn't have a responsibility to abide by the wishes of its people. The government doesn't have a responsibility to help the planet.

Of course, it does have a responsibility to treat poor people like crap, blow up innocent children, raise taxes on the middle class and spend, spend, spend as much as we can on an unnecessary war-- even though there's no money left to spend and we're on the brink of becoming slaves to the Chinese.

And, uh, while we're at it-- gay people are immoral, Jesus is alright for everyone, and Muslims only seek to blow us all up.

Welcome to the ideology of scapegoats and hypocrisy.

 

[Tron5000]

They don't actually advocate responsibility.

In their eyes, the government doesn't have a responsibility to help its citizens. The government doesn't have a responsibility to abide by the wishes of its people. The government doesn't have a responsibility to help the planet.

Of course, it does have a responsibility to treat poor people like crap, blow up innocent children, raise taxes on the middle class and spend, spend, spend as much as we can on an unnecessary war-- even though there's no money left to spend and we're on the brink of becoming slaves to the Chinese.

And, uh, while we're at it-- gay people are immoral, Jesus is alright for everyone, and Muslims only seek to blow us all up.

Welcome to the ideology of scapegoats and hypocrisy.

It's ridiculous that you would lump people into the same category of a group-think mindset. Basically, you're accusing these people (myself included) of being Bible-thumping, gay-hating racists. Nice job.

 

[The Senator]

It's ridiculous that you would lump people into the same category of a group-think mindset. Basically, you're accusing these people (myself included) of being Bible-thumping, gay-hating racists. Nice job.

The Republicans who have control in our government are, and that's all that matters, isn't it?

Mitch McConnell, Tom Coburn, Trent Lott (who left the Senate recently), those fellas in the White House... they advocate writing discrimination into our constitution by providing a written definition of marriage, they put their Bible above all else by advocating idiotic things such as prayer in school, and, uh, I never said anything about racism... so I don't really have an example to back up your hyperbo-- oh, wait, I do:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,399921,00.html

So, yeah, the ones who have control in our government certainly strike me as the gay-bashing, Bible thumping racist types.

 

[Tron5000]

The Republicans who have control in our government are, and that's all that matters, isn't it?

Mitch McConnell, Tom Coburn, Trent Lott (who left the Senate recently), those fellas in the White House... they advocate writing discrimination into our constitution by providing a written definition of marriage, they put their Bible above all else by advocating idiotic things such as prayer in school, and, uh, I never said anything about racism... so I don't really have an example to back up your hyperbo-- oh, wait, I do:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,399921,00.html

So, yeah, the ones who have control in our government certainly strike me as the gay-bashing, Bible thumping racist types.

It must be so nice to live in your world where you can just compartmentalize living, thinking, feeling individuals into a group category in order to satisfy your own prejudices against those people. Keep up the good work.

 

[DorkyFresh]

memphis slim much?

 

[The Senator]

It must be so nice to live in your world where you can just compartmentalize living, thinking, feeling individuals into a group category in order to satisfy your own prejudices against those people. Keep up the good work.

How are these people "feeling?"

How is it feeling for them to tell an entire group of people that they can't marry?

How is it feeling to tell that same group of people that they shouldn't be allowed to raise a family?

How is it feeling to say things like "The gay community has infiltrated the very centers of power in every area across this country, and they wield extreme power... That agenda is the greatest threat to our freedom that we face today. Why do you think we see the rationalization for abortion and multiple sexual partners? That's a gay agenda."

How is it feeling to say that homosexuality represents a bigger threat than terrorism?

Forgive me for failing to see the "feeling" in today's conservative movement IN GOVERNMENT....

 

[Tron5000]

How are these people "feeling?"

How is it feeling for them to tell an entire group of people that they can't marry?

How is it feeling to tell that same group of people that they shouldn't be allowed to raise a family?

How is it feeling to say things like "The gay community has infiltrated the very centers of power in every area across this country, and they wield extreme power... That agenda is the greatest threat to our freedom that we face today. Why do you think we see the rationalization for abortion and multiple sexual partners? That's a gay agenda."

How is it feeling to say that homosexuality represents a bigger threat than terrorism?

Forgive me for failing to see the "feeling" in today's conservative movement...

They have previously told an entire group of people they can't marry. Family members, children...

You're ascribing the words and beliefs of specific individuals to an entire group of people, namely "today's conservative movement."

If some black men were to say things which you found disagreeable, would you wail about "today's black movement"?

prejudice - "unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group"

bigotry - "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own"

You're on a roll here. Let's see if we can get you to also admit your disdain for any other groups, since you already so eloquently exposed that which you have for "today's conservative movement."

 

[SuBe]

Jman, I hope you aren't lumping me in that category. I'm a Neo-Liberatarian Conservative, much like Tron, while the Christian Right can push this kind of agenda, it's no different than the Ultra-Left are "former" Communists trying to destroy Capitalism in the west.

 

[The Senator]

They have previously told an entire group of people they can't marry. Family members, children...

You're ascribing the words and beliefs of specific individuals to an entire group of people, namely "today's conservative movement."

If some black men were to say things which you found disagreeable, would you wail about "today's black movement"?

prejudice - "unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group"

bigotry - "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own"

You're on a roll here. Let's see if we can get you to also admit your disdain for any other groups, since you already so eloquently exposed that which you have for "today's conservative movement."

I don't blindly hate all Republicans. There are sensible Republicans out there. They just aren't in charge of our federal government. Arnold Schwarzenegger, former Gov. George Pataki, former Senator Lincoln Chafee-- these guys are sensible Republicans. These guys represent what Republicans used to focus on: Small government and individual liberty, while keeping religion and bigotry at the doorstep of the Capitol Building.

I do, however, have zero tolerance for politicians who try to oppress an entire group of people, such as homosexuals. And I especially loathe people who play on voter prejudices in order to win elections. This includes Rick Santorum, George Allen, Tom Coburn, James Inhoffe, Mitch McConnell, and many, many others. They have taken today's conservative movement and beaten it to a pulp, hijacking religion and using it as the facemask of their ideology.

If it helps, I have zero respect for Senator Ben Nelson from Nebraska, who has repeated similar Republican talking points when it comes to same sex marriage.

I'm sure people like James Inhoffe and Tom Coburn are decent people. But their beliefs are crap. There shouldn't be a debate over individual liberty. Anyone who refuses to allow me the opportunity to marry the person I love does not deserve my respect.

But, uh, kudos for trying to peg me as a bigot... I have no problem with Republicans. I have a problem with denying people their right to happiness.

 

[The Senator]

And while we're at it, I'd like to re-emphasize that I am talking about many of the Republicans in government, not all Republicans/ conservatives in general...

And so we avoid further scrutiny, "many" does not equal "all."

"Many" encapsulates "more than a few," a "significant number" of Republicans/ conservatives. In government, of course. Not the ones sitting at home typing on a message board.

Like, if I said "many trees have brown bark." Not all trees have brown bark. Some have white bark, some have gray bark. But more than just a few trees have brown bark. Hence the word "many."

Make sense?

Tron and SupermanBeyond may not want to deny people their rights, but that doesn't mean that "many" Republicans are with them.

 

[Tron5000]

And while we're at it, I'd like to re-emphasize that I am talking about many of the Republicans in government, not all Republicans/ conservatives in general...

Well, you said "today's conservative movement," which would refer to both Government employees and private citizens. Now you want to amend your prejudiced stance to only mean "many of the Republicans in government"?

Well, which is it? "Today's conservative movement" (of which SuBe and I happen to be members) or "many of the Republicans in government"?

You said one thing, but when called on it, you claim that you really meant something else? Interesting tactic.

 

[The Senator]

Well, you said "today's conservative movement," which would refer to both Government employees and private citizens. Now you want to amend your prejudiced stance to only mean "many of the Republicans in government"?

Well, which is it? "Today's conservative movement" (of which SuBe and myself happen to be members) or "many of the Republicans in government"?

Today's conservative movement in government, as well as many of the Republicans in government.

 

[The Senator]

You said one thing, but when called on it, you claim that you really meant something else? Interesting tactic.

Or I meant it all along, and you misinterpreted what I said from the very beginning. Post edited.

 

[Tron5000]

Today's conservative movement in government, as well as many of the Republicans in government.

So you either don't know what you mean, or you're trying to play both sides, or you're just lying about the intent of your previous statement.

If you're going to put something out there, at least have the stones to back it up.

Credibility = 0.

 

[Tron5000]

Or I meant it all along, and you misinterpreted what I said from the very beginning. Post edited.

Perhaps you just "misspoke." How do you misinterpret the statement you made? Do you really think so little of me that you think I'm enough of a buffoon to fall for this? Gee, thanks.

 

[The Senator]

So you either don't know what you mean, or you're trying to play both sides, or you're just lying about the intent of your previous statement.

If you're going to put something out there, at least have the stones to back it up.

Credibility = 0.

I don't see what's so hard to understand.

I mean the conservative movement in government. You know, the gay bashing, anti-abortion, anti-stem cell research, Bible-thumping bull **** which has hijacked the Republican Party and held our government hostage between 2002 and 2006. You know, the belief system which many folks are accusing John McCain of not stepping in line with.

I'm not talking about what some libertarian-leaning conservative on a message board thinks. You're not in Congress, are you? When did you get elected to the Senate or the House of Representatives?

Because I'm not talking about WHAT YOU MAY THINK OR BELIEVE.

Your personal beliefs are moot. When you can start voting on legislation as a member of Congress, then you can tell me that I am offending you.

I never associated you and only you to this conservative movement.

Never.

But I did say, from the get-go, that the Republicans in control of government are the ones I have a problem with.

Not the ones sitting at home, typing on Superhero Hype.

So, uh, I don't see where your argument stands. I don't see how you're able to label me as a bigot when I've been through the "generalization" discussion before and I have accused other posters of generalizing Republicans as blood-sucking soul catchers.

So, I guess I will be more careful the next time I explicitly state that I have a problem with Republicans in Congress. I guess I'll try to make it more explicit. Maybe figure out a way to say it louder.

 

[Tron5000]

Yes, being careful in the statements that you make is advisable. Wouldn't want someone to "misunderstand" you because you didn't actually say what you meant.

 

[The Senator]

Perhaps you just "misspoke." How do you misinterpret the statement you made? Do you really think so little of me that you think I'm enough of a buffoon to fall for this? Gee, thanks.

Actually, I think you read what you want to read, and come here just to flame other posters in search of an argument. I'm sitting here typing on a laptop, preparing for the six weeks I will spend in NM, while also preparing for a trip I have to take in two days. So forgive me for flying through my posts, and not including the vital "in government" which you apparently cannot seem to get over. But, no matter how many times I admit that there was some error, or that what I wrote came out wrong, you won't let it go, because all you seek to do is argue over some bull **** which has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make in the first place.

Which is that today's conservative movement, in our government, has forfeited the personal responsibility they claim they support.

But that's just me.

 

[Tron5000]

Actually, I think you read what you want to read, and come here just to flame other posters in search of an argument. I'm sitting here typing on a laptop, preparing for the six weeks I will spend in NM, while also preparing for a trip I have to take in two days. So forgive me for flying through my posts, and not including the vital "in government" which you apparently cannot seem to get over. But, no matter how many times I admit that there was some error, or that what I wrote came out wrong, you won't let it go, because all you seek to do is argue over some bull **** which has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make in the first place.

Which is that today's conservative movement, in our government, has forfeited the personal responsibility they claim they support.

But that's just me.

Flame other posters? How many times have you seen me back up my positions on various issues with news articles, graphs, and other sources? How often have you seen me have a discussion WITH YOU that involved nothing personal or derogatory about you? You're just making accusations about me because I called BS on you and you had to wiggle your way out of it.

I've grown weary of this dance. Let's just end it.