See other World News Articles
Title: Gore: U.S. Climate Bill Will Help Bring About 'Global Governance'
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1893/ ... -Bring-About-Global-Governance
Published: Jul 11, 2009
Author: Marc Morano
Post Date: 2009-07-11 09:29:02 by christine
Keywords: None
Views: 1292
Comments: 135
Former Vice President Al Gore declared that the Congressional climate bill will help bring about “global governance.” “I bring you good news from the U.S., “Gore said on July 7, 2009 in Oxford at the Smith School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment, sponsored by UK Times. “Just two weeks ago, the House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey climate bill,” Gore said, noting it was “very much a step in the right direction.” President Obama has pushed for the passage of the bill in the Senate and attended a G8 summit this week where he agreed to attempt to keep the Earth's temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees C. Gore touted the Congressional climate bill, claiming it “will dramatically increase the prospects for success” in combating what he sees as the “crisis” of man-made global warming. “But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governance and global agreements.” (Editor's Note: Gore makes the “global governance” comment at the 1min. 10 sec. mark in this UK Times video.) Gore's call for “global governance” echoes former French President Jacques Chirac's call in 2000. On November 20, 2000, then French President Chirac said during a speech at The Hague that the UN's Kyoto Protocol represented "the first component of an authentic global governance." “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance,” Chirac explained. “From the very earliest age, we should make environmental awareness a major theme of education and a major theme of political debate, until respect for the environment comes to be as fundamental as safeguarding our rights and freedoms. By acting together, by building this unprecedented instrument, the first component of an authentic global governance, we are working for dialogue and peace,” Chirac added. Former EU Environment Minister Margot Wallstrom said, "Kyoto is about the economy, about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide." Canadian Prime Minster Stephen Harper once dismissed UN's Kyoto Protocol as a “socialist scheme.” 'Global Carbon Tax' Urged at UN Meeting In addition, calls for a global carbon tax have been urged at recent UN global warming conferences. In December 2007, the UN climate conference in Bali, urged the adoption of a global carbon tax that would represent “a global burden sharing system, fair, with solidarity, and legally binding to all nations.” “Finally someone will pay for these [climate related] costs,” Othmar Schwank, a global tax advocate, said at the 2007 UN conference after a panel titled “A Global CO2 Tax.” Schwank noted that wealthy nations like the U.S. would bear the biggest burden based on the “polluters pay principle.” The U.S. and other wealthy nations need to “contribute significantly more to this global fund,” Schwank explained. He also added, “It is very essential to tax coal.” The 2007 UN conference was presented with a report from the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment titled “Global Solidarity in Financing Adaptation.” The report stated there was an “urgent need” for a global tax in order for “damages [from climate change] to be kept from growing to truly catastrophic levels, especially in vulnerable countries of the developing world.” The tens of billions of dollars per year generated by a global tax would “flow into a global Multilateral Adaptation Fund” to help nations cope with global warming, according to the report. Schwank said a global carbon dioxide tax is an idea long overdue that is urgently needed to establish “a funding scheme which generates the resources required to address the dimension of challenge with regard to climate change costs.” 'Redistribution of wealth' The environmental group Friends of the Earth advocated the transfer of money from rich to poor nations during the 2007 UN climate conference. "A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-36) not displayed.
.
.
.
#37. To: farmfriend (#33)
Here is three: http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Earth-sciences/The-effect-of-nutrients-and-enriched-CO2-environments-on-production-of-carbon-based-allelochemicals-.html
Here is four: http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=4817685 Nº notice refdoc (ud4) : 4817685
Here is five: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021206075233.htm ScienceDaily (Dec. 6, 2002) — The prevailing view among scientists is that global climate change may prove beneficial to many farmers and foresters – at least in the short term. The logic is straightforward: Plants need atmospheric carbon dioxide to produce food, and by emitting more CO2 into the air, our cars and factories create new sources of plant nutrition that will cause some crops and trees to grow bigger and faster. But an unprecedented three-year experiment conducted at Stanford University is raising questions about that long-held assumption. Writing in the journal Science, researchers concluded that elevated atmospheric CO2 actually reduces plant growth when combined with other likely consequences of climate change – namely, higher temperatures, increased precipitation or increased nitrogen deposits in the soil. See also: Plants & Animals * Nature * Endangered Plants * Ecology Research Earth & Climate * Global Warming * Climate * Environmental Issues Reference * Consensus of scientists regarding global warming * Scientific opinion on climate change * Ocean acidification * Fossil fuel The results of the study may prompt researchers and policymakers to re-think one of the standard arguments against taking action to prevent global warming: that natural ecosystems will minimize the problem of fossil fuel emissions by transferring large amounts of carbon in the atmosphere to plants and soils. "Perhaps we won't get as much help with the carbon problem as we thought we could, and we will need to put more emphasis on both managing vegetation and reducing emissions," said Harold A. Mooney, the Paul S. Achilles Professor of Environmental Biology at Stanford and co-author of the Dec. 6 Science study. He noted that the Stanford study is the first ecosystem-scale experiment to apply four climate change factors across several generations of plants. "To understand complex ecological systems, the traditional approach of isolating one factor and looking at that response, then extrapolating to the whole system, is often not correct," Mooney said. "On an ecosystem scale, many interacting factors may be involved." Jasper Ridge Global Change Project The findings published in Science are among the first results of the Jasper Ridge Global Change Project – a multi-year experiment designed to demonstrate how a typical California grassland ecosystem will respond to future global environmental changes. Located in a fenced off section of Stanford's 1,189-acre Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve, the novel experiment was designed to simulate environmental conditions that climate experts predict may exist 100 years from now: a doubling of atmospheric CO2; a temperature rise of 2 degrees F; a 50 percent increase in precipitation; and increased nitrogen deposition – largely a byproduct of fossil fuel burning. Launched in 1997, the Jasper Ridge experiment was conceived by Mooney and Christopher B. Field, a professor by courtesy in Stanford's Department of Biological Sciences and director of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology, also located on the Stanford campus. "Most studies have looked at the effects of CO2 on plants in pots or on very simple ecosystems and concluded that plants are going to grow faster in the future," said Field, co-author of the Science study. "We got exactly the same results when we applied CO2 alone, but when we factored in realistic treatments – warming, changes in nitrogen deposition, changes in precipitation – growth was actually suppressed." To mimic future climate conditions, Field, Mooney and their colleagues mapped out 36 circular plots of land, each about six feet in diameter. Four plots are virtually untouched, receiving no additional water, nitrogen, carbon dioxide or heat. Each of the remaining 32 circles is divided into four equal quadrants separated by underground partitions to prevent roots in one section from invading neighboring tracts. In these smaller quadrants, researchers study all 16 possible combinations of elevated and normal CO2, heat, water and nitrogen. The plots thicken The biggest surprise from the study was the discovery that elevated carbon dioxide only stimulated plant growth when nitrogen, water and temperature were kept at normal levels. "Based on earlier single-treatment studies with elevated CO2, we initially hypothesized that, with the combination of all four treatments together, the response would be additional growth," said W. Rebecca Shaw, a researcher with the Nature Conservancy of California and lead author of the Science study. But results from the third year of the experiment revealed a more complex scenario. While treatments involving increased temperature, nitrogen deposition or precipitation – alone or in combination – promoted plant growth, the addition of elevated CO2 consistently dampened those increases. "The three-factor combination of increased temperature, precipitation and nitrogen deposition produced the largest stimulation [an 84 percent increase], but adding CO2 reduced this to 40 percent," Shaw and her colleagues wrote. The mean net plant growth for all treatment combinations with elevated CO2 was about 4.9 tons per acre – compared to roughly 5.5 tons per acre for all treatment combinations in which CO2 levels were kept normal. However, when higher amounts of CO2 gas were added to plots with normal temperature, moisture and nitrogen levels, aboveground plant growth increased by nearly a third. Why would elevated CO2 in combination with other factors have a suppressive effect on plant growth? The researchers aren't sure, but one possibility is that excess carbon in the soil is allowing microbes to outcompete plants for one or more limiting nutrients. "By applying all four treatments, we may be repositioning the ecosystem so that another environmental factor becomes limiting to growth," Field observed. "For example, by increasing plant growth as a result of adding water or nitrogen, the ecosystem may become more sensitive to limitation by another mineral nutrient such as phosphorous, potassium or something else we hadn't been measuring." A new five-year experiment is underway at the Jasper Ridge site to analyze potential limiting nutrients in the soil along with microbial-plant interactions and the molecular biology of the vegetation. Policy implications Field and his colleagues say that their ultimate goal is to use the results of the Jasper Ridge study to forecast what will happen to other ecosystems – from alpine tundra to tropical rainforests. "In the past, people have argued that perhaps we don't really need to worry about fossil fuel emissions, because increased plant growth will effectively pull elevated CO2 concentrations out of the atmosphere and keep the world at the appropriate equilibrium," he added. "But our experiment shows that we can't count on the natural world, the unmanaged world, to save us by pulling down all the atmospheric CO2." Added Mooney: "Our study demonstrates that there is still a lot to learn about the factors that regulate global climate change. But we also know a lot already, more than enough to engage in a serious discussion about action to reduce CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels and clearing forests." ### Other coauthors of the Science study are former Stanford doctoral student Erika S. Zavaleta, now a Nature Conservancy post-doctoral fellow at the University of California-Berkeley; Nona R. Chiariello, research coordinator of Stanford's Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve; and Elsa E. Cleland, a graduate student in the Stanford Department of Biological Sciences. The study was supported by the National Science Foundation, the Morgan Family Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve, the Carnegie Institution of Washington, the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Switzer Foundation and the A.W. Mellon Foundation.
So I can go on and on and on. It is an established fact increased ambient or environmental CO2 has little to do with actual increased nutrients based upon actual agricultural production. The plants are actually destroyed by the poor environments. To change things requires HUGE amounts of added plant nutrients such as potassium in the soil. Your turn.
Farmfriend is no witch. She has clarity of mind, heart and soul. A true person to be passionate about. I take great exception to her challenge, however and am prepared to continue posts taking exception to the popular idea that CO2 emissions are beneficial to mankind or the world around us.
LOL that's what they all say!
LOL I think he was teasing me. I look forward to continued discussion on the subject and will be passing your abstracts on to those with the PhDs to counter it. Stay tuned!
Your turn. Give me a chance to research. I'll get back to ya.
I suppose you want me to say WHOOPY DOO-DAH that you are passing along my comments. But I have something to say about you, on a personal basis. You are one of the finest posters I have watched on the free and open chat channels discussing complex scientific/political issues without bias or scorn or wanting to ride some political subterfuge spin monster. As they say .... if we had only ten more of you on the planet because of your beauty and charm and grace .... we could actually see a great new world.
Meanwhile here is a great graphic: Uh, no that really wasn't my intent. I guess what I should have said was that I will be showing your evidence to those with the PhDs and knowledge to counter it. I'm just not qualified on the scientific front. As they say .... if we had only ten more of you on the planet because of your beauty and charm and grace .... we could actually see a great new world. Aww thank you.
It sez here in my manual that I'm supposed to fling you into the water with my trebuchet. If you float, it means you're made of wood and are a witch and should be burned. If you sink, it means you're made of really heavy wood and are a witch and should be burned. Lucky for you, the fling pole on my trebuchet is broken. But you'll not evade me for long Miss Smarty-Pants!
LOL Well I have very heavy...attributes and I doubt you could lift me into your bucket.
No co2 emissions, no oxygen.
And no cow flatulence in the growing world of agricultural dominance by not just small farmers but HUGE world wide collective manipulating the control America. f**k 'em all. Here is how to change it: stop making babies and creating more drain on an already fragile system, not just for energy but the entire world around us.
All plants consume carbon dioxide, and incorporate the carbon from atmospheric carbon dioxide into their plant bodies. Plants don't get their carbon from soil, they get it primarily from atmospheric air. www.elmhurst.edu/~c hm/vchembook/306carbon.html Carbon Cycle - Photosynthesis: Photosynthesis is a complex series of reactions carried out by algae, phytoplankton, and the leaves in plants, which utilize the energy from the sun. The simplified version of this chemical reaction is to utilize carbon dioxide molecules from the air and water molecules and the energy from the sun to produce a simple sugar such as glucose and oxygen molecules as a by product. The simple sugars are then converted into other molecules such as starch, fats, proteins, enzymes, and DNA/RNA i.e. all of the other molecules in living plants. All of the "matter/stuff" of a plant ultimately is produced as a result of this photosynthesis reaction. An important summary statement is that during photosynthesis plants use carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. If you breathe air, you are breathing oxygen created by plants, which require atmospheric carbon dioxide to grow and exist. If you are a vegetarian, you consume carbon-based products made from atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Take the global warming test.....
never, and I mean NEVER, stand down wind from Elsie when she breaks wind.
Have you ever pulled an utter?
utter? Obviously, you have never been anywhere near milking anything.
You're posting garbage.
Call farmfriend in here. She and grace can offtopic the thread into oblivion!
"This is suspicious at best. Sounds like a bunch of nutty conspiracy theorists, or, as others have pointed out, a government program to find nutty conspiracy theorists who could be dangerous."
Oh sure, the cow is out to pasture chewing her cud after being stroked. Cow flatulence doesn't exist with small or large farms of any sort while mankind attempts to feed the world through a massive population explosion. Nope. It is all environmentally sound and safe to have unsustainable population growth because you personally believe government controlling the world around you.
Really? You don't know shit. Never on your threads have you offered scientific fact other than your own opine taken from obtuse and far-off websites to support your oblivious views.
Obviously, you have never been anywhere near milking anything. LOL! You know daz rat, cows don't give hooch when you milk 'em. ahaha.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. For America to get back on track about the nation is to diminish personal energy consumption and forget this crazy idea of unsustainable growth rates which has destroyed America's quality of life. This planet can easily sustain far more than 6.7 Billion people. It's a big planet. There's an endless supply of oil. More water than we need and ample room to grow all the food required plus more.
Yes, really. I know you're posting garbage.
Yeah, we know. Especially on the weekends when you get your tank topped off, eh buck?
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Go to the populated areas of china, go to saudi arabia, and tell me that water is ample, we have an endless supply of oil, and that we live on a big planet. You are totally incorrect. We are stripping our resources at an amazing rate. Reproducing at an alarming rate. You bring fear.
"This is suspicious at best. Sounds like a bunch of nutty conspiracy theorists, or, as others have pointed out, a government program to find nutty conspiracy theorists who could be dangerous."
I know how you love to rag on me. It actually reminds of a guy on another forum who was jealous that I would flirt with everyone but him. Anyway, if you will take the time to notice, grace and I were the only ones actually having a scientific discussion on CO2 which is very much in keeping with the topic at hand. The discussion is not done so you are welcome to take part if you wish.
Go to the populated areas of china, go to saudi arabia, and tell me that water is ample, we have an endless supply of oil, and that we live on a big planet. I don't have to leave my seat to tell you there's an endless supply of oil. Yes, China is densely populated. Are they starving? Yes, Saudi Arabia is dry. Are they dying of thirst? You are totally incorrect. We are stripping our resources at an amazing rate. Which resources are we stripping? Reproducing at an alarming rate. I'm alarmed You bring fear. You're projecting.
Where does this endless supply of oil come from? Is there dinosaurs stomping at the center of the earth? What a load of bs. Do you know what the carbon cycle is? The plastic in the oceans and the stuff floating in the air takes time to fall and go back underneath the soil, to reconstitute oil. So, you are incorrect, since it there actually is not enough oil at current consumption on the planet for everyone. And yes, millions of people in china are starving. If you cannot keep feeding your people (with minearl poor soils) why are you reproducing? To show your love for hubris? Cut thyne own head off!LOL! Saudi arabia used to be a jungle... Now they dump sea water into some of the tapped out wells to raise the oil. That you say is going to fill up because of some magical organization of space and matter. yeah. right.
"This is suspicious at best. Sounds like a bunch of nutty conspiracy theorists, or, as others have pointed out, a government program to find nutty conspiracy theorists who could be dangerous."
I never said Chinese people weren't starving. If they're starving, they should be fed. Food. Can be grown in the ground or otherwise. Why aren't they being fed? What's the rate of population increase in China? Dinosaurs don't make oil. Overpopulation is a hoax like Global Warming and Oil being scarce. To show your love for hubris? Cut thyne own head off!LOL! Charming Ya spelt thine wrong.
Dinosaurs don't make oil. Overpopulation is a hoax like Global Warming and Oil being scarce. Yeah, there isn't enough resources to continue to feed more growing populations, and you say "why aren't they being fed"? Are you kidding me? How do you come to your conclusions ? Did you come to your own conclusions, or just agree with them by fiat?
"This is suspicious at best. Sounds like a bunch of nutty conspiracy theorists, or, as others have pointed out, a government program to find nutty conspiracy theorists who could be dangerous."
I'll ask you again. Why aren't they being fed? See if you can answer it this time.
Anyway, if you will take the time to notice, grace and I were the only ones actually having a scientific discussion on CO2 which is very much in keeping with the topic at hand. The discussion is not done so you are welcome to take part if you wish. I am not in the least bit jealous of you. If I want to flirt with someone, however, I do it in real time/real life. I like womens. I like women flesh. Ain't no shame in my game. I know how you like to attack people. You are a women. It is not hard to figure you out. That doesn't distract from the fact that you don't know "scientific" (if it flew up and s**t on you) besides consensus agreement, which is just as flawed as your opposition. You are controlled. Both sides of the equation. It shows.
"This is suspicious at best. Sounds like a bunch of nutty conspiracy theorists, or, as others have pointed out, a government program to find nutty conspiracy theorists who could be dangerous."
Poverty. Poverty by people reproducing with no control. 1 tenth of the population (and I bet it is higher since the recession and tibet and other parts fell...) 30 million people are starving in China Epoch Times 11/13/2003 Related Articles • BEIJING - Thirty million people in China are starving because they do not get sufficient food each day. Wang Yuzhao, President of the China Foundation for Poverty Alleviation, revealed this fact at the opening of the Third Annual China Village Head Forum in Kunming on November 10th. According to Wang, many families who have secured sufficient food supplies are in danger of slipping back into malnutrition due to illness or natural disasters. Judging by the World Bank standard income of US$1 a day, there are 100 million Chinese people living in poverty. "This is suspicious at best. Sounds like a bunch of nutty conspiracy theorists, or, as others have pointed out, a government program to find nutty conspiracy theorists who could be dangerous."
I'll bet it's a distribution problem. Perhaps there's not enough food. You know, supply and demand and all that. Maybe something to do with the government. Believe what you want. It's your life
Correction. There is not enough "nutrition" containing foods. Most of the topsoils in the country were killed off or have washed out since the 70s. The reason is using abiotic dinogoo as a source of energy and fertilizer. Simple. That is why the growing population of the earth is starving. And you cannot grow if you are starving. That is just cancer growing. Believe what you have heard from others without question and regurgitate it. Your life doesn't affect everyone else on this interrelated and getting smaller by the day planet.
"This is suspicious at best. Sounds like a bunch of nutty conspiracy theorists, or, as others have pointed out, a government program to find nutty conspiracy theorists who could be dangerous."
I don't attack anyone. Even your claims of attacking you were false. LOL that is too funny.
-Yawn- It ain't what you know that is the problem, it is what you think you know that is the problem.
"This is suspicious at best. Sounds like a bunch of nutty conspiracy theorists, or, as others have pointed out, a government program to find nutty conspiracy theorists who could be dangerous."
Comments (78 - 135) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#38. To: farmfriend (#33)
Titre du document / Document title Influence of elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations on plant nutrition Auteur(s) / Author(s) CONROY J. P. ; Affiliation(s) du ou des auteurs / Author(s) Affiliation(s) Univ. Western Sydney, fac. horticulture, Richmond N.S.W. 2753, AUSTRALIE Résumé / Abstract The rising levels of atmospheric CO2 are likely to increase biomass production of C3 species in both natural and managed ecosystems because photosynthetic rates will be higher. The greatest absolute increase in productivity will occur when nitrogen and phosphorus availability in the soil is high. Low nitrogen does not preclude a growth response to high CO2, whereas some C3 species fail to respond to high CO2 when phosphorus is low, possibly because insufficient phosphorus is available to maintain maximum photosynthetic activity at high CO2.
C3 plants response to high CO2 because the flux of carbon through the photoreductive cycle is increased and photorespiration is suppressed. This change in metabolism appears to alter the foliar nutrient concentration required to promote maximum productivity (critical concentration) (...)
Revue / Journal Title Australian journal of botany ISSN 0067-1924 CODEN AJBTAP Source / Source 1992, vol. 40, no 4-5 (1 p.1/2), pp. 445-456 Langue / Language Anglais Editeur / Publisher Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Collingwood, AUSTRALIE (1953) (Revue) Mots-clés anglais / English Keywords Medium enrichment ; Greenhouse effect ; Nutrition ; Biomass ; C3-Type ; Photosynthesis ; Bioavailability ; Carbon cycle ; Review ; Nitrogen ; Phosphorus ; Carbon dioxide ; Nutrient ; Mots-clés français / French Keywords Enrichissement milieu ; Effet serre ; Nutrition ; Biomasse ; Type C3 ; Photosynthèse ; Biodisponibilité ; Cycle carbone ; Article synthèse ; Azote ; Phosphore ; Carbone dioxyde ; Nutriment ; Mots-clés espagnols / Spanish Keywords Enriquecimiento medio ; Efecto invernadero ; Nutrición ; Biomasa ; Tipo C3 ; Fotosíntesis ; Biodisponibilidad ; Ciclo carbono ; Artículo síntesis ; Nitrógeno ; Fósforo ; Carbono dióxido ; Nutriente ; Localisation / Location INIST-CNRS, Cote INIST : 5687 D, 35400003460491.0040
#39. To: farmfriend (#33)
Climate Change Surprise: High Carbon Dioxide Levels Can Retard Plant Growth, Study Reveals
#40. To: farmfriend (#33)
#41. To: Esso, farmfriend (#36)
That's just not normal for chicky-poos, you must be a witch.
#42. To: Esso (#36)
Regardless, rest assured there's going to be a pole involved, somehow.
… in the past CO2 (or water) was pumped, at some cost, into depleting oil and gas fields to get out more. This will continue, but the taxpayer will contribute to these costs as the oil companies will be paid for taking the unwanted stuff off governments emission balance sheets! No wonder the oil companies are keen on CCS…
#43. To: grace_is_by_our_lord (#41)
Farmfriend is no witch. She has clarity of mind, heart and soul. A true person to be passionate about. I take great exception to her challenge, however and am prepared to continue posts taking exception to the popular idea that CO2 emissions are beneficial to mankind or the world around us.
… in the past CO2 (or water) was pumped, at some cost, into depleting oil and gas fields to get out more. This will continue, but the taxpayer will contribute to these costs as the oil companies will be paid for taking the unwanted stuff off governments emission balance sheets! No wonder the oil companies are keen on CCS…
#44. To: grace_is_by_our_lord (#40)
So I can go on and on and on. It is an established fact increased ambient or environmental CO2 has little to do with actual increased nutrients based upon actual agricultural production. The plants are actually destroyed by the poor environments. To change things requires HUGE amounts of added plant nutrients such as potassium in the soil.
… in the past CO2 (or water) was pumped, at some cost, into depleting oil and gas fields to get out more. This will continue, but the taxpayer will contribute to these costs as the oil companies will be paid for taking the unwanted stuff off governments emission balance sheets! No wonder the oil companies are keen on CCS…
#45. To: farmfriend (#43)
will be passing your abstracts on to those with the PhDs to counter it. Stay tuned!
#46. To: grace_is_by_our_lord (#41)
… in the past CO2 (or water) was pumped, at some cost, into depleting oil and gas fields to get out more. This will continue, but the taxpayer will contribute to these costs as the oil companies will be paid for taking the unwanted stuff off governments emission balance sheets! No wonder the oil companies are keen on CCS…
#47. To: grace_is_by_our_lord (#45)
I suppose you want me to say WHOOPY DOO-DAH that you are passing along my comments.
But I have something to say about you, on a personal basis. You are one of the finest posters I have watched on the free and open chat channels discussing complex scientific/political issues without bias or scorn or wanting to ride some political subterfuge spin monster.
… in the past CO2 (or water) was pumped, at some cost, into depleting oil and gas fields to get out more. This will continue, but the taxpayer will contribute to these costs as the oil companies will be paid for taking the unwanted stuff off governments emission balance sheets! No wonder the oil companies are keen on CCS…
#48. To: farmfriend (#42)
Mike Flaherty: Yeah, it's been there a long time. I wish I knew which corner.
My Man Godfrey (1936)
#49. To: Esso (#48)
But you'll not evade me for long Miss Smarty-Pants!
… in the past CO2 (or water) was pumped, at some cost, into depleting oil and gas fields to get out more. This will continue, but the taxpayer will contribute to these costs as the oil companies will be paid for taking the unwanted stuff off governments emission balance sheets! No wonder the oil companies are keen on CCS…
#50. To: grace_is_by_our_lord (#41)
I take great exception to her challenge, however and am prepared to continue posts taking exception to the popular idea that CO2 emissions are beneficial to mankind or the world around us.
#51. To: lodwick (#50)
#52. To: grace_is_by_our_lord (#32)
I thought OXYGEN was a benefit to mankind. What makes you think CARBON_DIOXIDE is? When you breathe the in the aire around you take in OXYGEN. When you exhale, you remove CARBON_DIOXIDE.
#53. To: All (#52)
#54. To: grace_is_by_our_lord (#51)
#55. To: Jethro Tull (#54)
#56. To: grace_is_by_our_lord (#55)
#57. To: grace_is_by_our_lord, all (#39)
"If I were going to construct a God I would furnish him with some ways and qualities and characteristics which the Present One lacks... He would spend some of His eternities in trying to forgive Himself for making man unhappy when He could have made him happy with the same effort and He would spend the rest of them in studying astronomy." ~ Mark Twain
#58. To: wudidiz, farmfriend (#57)
You're posting garbage.
#59. To: lodwick (#56)
#60. To: wudidiz (#57)
#61. To: lodwick, buckeroo (#56)
utter?
Lord Acton
#62. To: grace_is_by_our_lord, farmfriend (#29)
The rates of human consumption stripping the environment for energy and food and other resources is unsustainable. Governments can't sustain the lack of resources around the world by legislation. And believing in an infinite playground unfettered by 6.7Bn people on the planet isn't either.
"If I were going to construct a God I would furnish him with some ways and qualities and characteristics which the Present One lacks... He would spend some of His eternities in trying to forgive Himself for making man unhappy when He could have made him happy with the same effort and He would spend the rest of them in studying astronomy." ~ Mark Twain
#63. To: grace_is_by_our_lord (#60)
Really?
You don't know shit.
"If I were going to construct a God I would furnish him with some ways and qualities and characteristics which the Present One lacks... He would spend some of His eternities in trying to forgive Himself for making man unhappy when He could have made him happy with the same effort and He would spend the rest of them in studying astronomy." ~ Mark Twain
#64. To: grace_is_by_our_lord (#40)
So I can go on and on and on.
Lord Acton
#65. To: wudidiz (#62)
This planet can easily sustain far more than 6.7 Billion people. It's a big planet. There's an endless supply of oil. More water than we need and ample room to grow all the food required plus more.
#66. To: Clitora, wudidiz, grace_is_by_our_lord (#58)
Call farmfriend in here. She and grace can offtopic the thread into oblivion!
… in the past CO2 (or water) was pumped, at some cost, into depleting oil and gas fields to get out more. This will continue, but the taxpayer will contribute to these costs as the oil companies will be paid for taking the unwanted stuff off governments emission balance sheets! No wonder the oil companies are keen on CCS…
#67. To: Clitora (#65)
"If I were going to construct a God I would furnish him with some ways and qualities and characteristics which the Present One lacks... He would spend some of His eternities in trying to forgive Himself for making man unhappy when He could have made him happy with the same effort and He would spend the rest of them in studying astronomy." ~ Mark Twain
#68. To: wudidiz (#67)
I don't have to leave my seat to tell you there's an endless supply of oil. Yes, China is densely populated. Are they starving? Yes, Saudi Arabia is dry. Are they dying of thirst?
#69. To: Clitora (#68)
"If I were going to construct a God I would furnish him with some ways and qualities and characteristics which the Present One lacks... He would spend some of His eternities in trying to forgive Himself for making man unhappy when He could have made him happy with the same effort and He would spend the rest of them in studying astronomy." ~ Mark Twain
#70. To: wudidiz (#69)
I never said Chinese people weren't starving. If they're starving, they should be fed. Food. Can be grown in the ground or otherwise. Why aren't they being fed? What's the rate of population increase in China?
#71. To: Clitora (#70)
"If I were going to construct a God I would furnish him with some ways and qualities and characteristics which the Present One lacks... He would spend some of His eternities in trying to forgive Himself for making man unhappy when He could have made him happy with the same effort and He would spend the rest of them in studying astronomy." ~ Mark Twain
#72. To: farmfriend (#66)
I know how you love to rag on me. It actually reminds of a guy on another forum who was jealous that I would flirt with everyone but him.
#73. To: wudidiz (#71)
Why aren't they being fed?
#74. To: Clitora (#73)
"If I were going to construct a God I would furnish him with some ways and qualities and characteristics which the Present One lacks... He would spend some of His eternities in trying to forgive Himself for making man unhappy when He could have made him happy with the same effort and He would spend the rest of them in studying astronomy." ~ Mark Twain
#75. To: wudidiz (#74)
Perhaps there's not enough food.
#76. To: Clitora (#72)
I know how you like to attack people.
You are controlled. Both sides of the equation. It shows.
… in the past CO2 (or water) was pumped, at some cost, into depleting oil and gas fields to get out more. This will continue, but the taxpayer will contribute to these costs as the oil companies will be paid for taking the unwanted stuff off governments emission balance sheets! No wonder the oil companies are keen on CCS…
#77. To: farmfriend (#76)
I don't attack anyone. Even your claims of attacking you were false.
.
.
.