Any ideas?
Millions of pounds are on offer for the person who comes up with the best way of removing significant amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6345557.stm
Branson launches $25m climate bid
Branson launches $25m climate bid
I really wish I had a better idea for this than I do, I also wish I was a better chemist, but if anyone does come up with a way of doing it economically it would be fantastic! :-6 Hammy also studied chemistry, maybe she has an idea??? 
How could you "fix" CO2 from the atmosphere, I mean the obvious thing is to try and break it down into carbon and oxygen because the levels wouldn't be enough to be a problem if they were seperate. But how would get the energy to where the CO2 was, and what kinda energy would you need to break the molecular bonds without affecting anything else? Maybe there is a catatyst that would work in the presence of CO2 and UV light to break it down, but I don't have a clue what that would be?? Hmmnnn.
25 million dollars is a lot of money.
How could you "fix" CO2 from the atmosphere, I mean the obvious thing is to try and break it down into carbon and oxygen because the levels wouldn't be enough to be a problem if they were seperate. But how would get the energy to where the CO2 was, and what kinda energy would you need to break the molecular bonds without affecting anything else? Maybe there is a catatyst that would work in the presence of CO2 and UV light to break it down, but I don't have a clue what that would be?? Hmmnnn. 25 million dollars is a lot of money.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Branson launches $25m climate bid
But what if using a catalyst had a knock-on effect which caused even more atmospheric pollution? In my experience quick fixit schemes never work. Look at coastal erosion. Whatever coastal defences are put in place simply cause a knock-on effect by moving coastal erosion further along the coast. Also, you may then find a more densely populated area being eroded and so the overall situation has been worsened! Likewise with the Green Revolution in Africa. We tried to ameliorate the poverty and starvation in Africa but instead we waded in with our size 9 boots and not only made the situation FAR worse, we also put the aided communities in incredible debt by making them pay, quite literally, for our mistakes!
We all know the only 'real' way to offset CO2 emissions is by planting trees!
We need to plant the correct types of trees to enable animals to create new habitats in. So often trees are chopped down for their wood and replaced by quick-growing trees, but these trees do not create the right habitat for birds and animals and are useless for creating new habitats. But most people don't realise this. They think that so long as one tree is replaced with another then all is okay!
Also, millions of acres of rainforest are chopped down to allow millions of beef cattle to graze - so thatwe can eat beefburgers! (A multimillion pound business!) Thousands more acres are deforested to grow fodder for the cattle. BUT these crops do not grow well in these types of soil. Gradually these areas dry out and become more arid until desertification takes place - and then nothing will grow there!
And so the cattle herders move on. Millions more acres are deforested to allow room for cattle and fodder. And at the same time the carbon sink grows!
The other day I read that we could save all the rainforests if we all ate soy - and there is enough soy available to feed the world!
If we replenished the rainforest and replanted, then gradually the CO2 would decrease.
We have always had some naturally produced greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, but I think it is only since about 1935 that we have started adding man-made gasses to the atmosphere. So that's over 70 years of man-made greenhouse gases that have been added at an exponentially increasing rate each year! This CANNOT simply be broken down and stored away underground quickly and for an indefinite period. The most obvious problem which strikes me is what would happen if the toxins entered the water table?
George Bush's wealth has revolved around Texan oil wells. Thats why he wants Iraqi oil so that he and other investors can profit from it. We have the ability to make battery powered cars - our only problem is that our politicians willnot invest in these programs because there is no profit in it.
We need to invest in renewable, sustainable energy and put an end to fossil fuels. We need to put an end to companies dumping toxins in rivers as a cheap alternative to paying to have them properly disposed of. We need to make everything recycleable so that there is no more need for landfills. We need to invest in new technologies and develop ideas that use clean energy and are sustainable.
There is no 'quick-fix' and Mr. Branson knows it! He is not giving away his millions, he is just making people aware of his ideas and showing how the planet needs to clean up or die out. Good for him! I hope he invents a new political party and bases it on principles of common sense - something most politicians have no clue about! I'd vote for him!
We all know the only 'real' way to offset CO2 emissions is by planting trees!
We need to plant the correct types of trees to enable animals to create new habitats in. So often trees are chopped down for their wood and replaced by quick-growing trees, but these trees do not create the right habitat for birds and animals and are useless for creating new habitats. But most people don't realise this. They think that so long as one tree is replaced with another then all is okay!
Also, millions of acres of rainforest are chopped down to allow millions of beef cattle to graze - so thatwe can eat beefburgers! (A multimillion pound business!) Thousands more acres are deforested to grow fodder for the cattle. BUT these crops do not grow well in these types of soil. Gradually these areas dry out and become more arid until desertification takes place - and then nothing will grow there!
And so the cattle herders move on. Millions more acres are deforested to allow room for cattle and fodder. And at the same time the carbon sink grows!
The other day I read that we could save all the rainforests if we all ate soy - and there is enough soy available to feed the world!
If we replenished the rainforest and replanted, then gradually the CO2 would decrease.
We have always had some naturally produced greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, but I think it is only since about 1935 that we have started adding man-made gasses to the atmosphere. So that's over 70 years of man-made greenhouse gases that have been added at an exponentially increasing rate each year! This CANNOT simply be broken down and stored away underground quickly and for an indefinite period. The most obvious problem which strikes me is what would happen if the toxins entered the water table?
George Bush's wealth has revolved around Texan oil wells. Thats why he wants Iraqi oil so that he and other investors can profit from it. We have the ability to make battery powered cars - our only problem is that our politicians willnot invest in these programs because there is no profit in it.
We need to invest in renewable, sustainable energy and put an end to fossil fuels. We need to put an end to companies dumping toxins in rivers as a cheap alternative to paying to have them properly disposed of. We need to make everything recycleable so that there is no more need for landfills. We need to invest in new technologies and develop ideas that use clean energy and are sustainable.
There is no 'quick-fix' and Mr. Branson knows it! He is not giving away his millions, he is just making people aware of his ideas and showing how the planet needs to clean up or die out. Good for him! I hope he invents a new political party and bases it on principles of common sense - something most politicians have no clue about! I'd vote for him!
Branson launches $25m climate bid
Yes, you are of course completely correct, though there is always a chance that there is some sort of process that is theoretcially possible, but its unlikey to be feasible, and also as you say, these sorts of solutions lead to more problems, but you cant expect chemistry people not to wonder if there is some possible mechanism, thats the way that they are trained to think, look at a problem, and come up with a solution.
Its also my assessment that any workable solution is really a long term one, that is based on remediation throught natural processes, however, the truth is that we are going to experience some pretty difficult climatic impacts at this stage because already we have a huge increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, that level is going to now inevitably increase over the next 20 years and there is little we can do. I would also advise caution in identifying Mr Bush as the sole problem politically, its true that his administration have been the cheerleaders for that camp in the world that do not want to listen to the truth of what is happening for obvious reasons of economic ideology and vested interest groups, but it is not the only problem government, and our own European governments are using the American government's bad record on this to justify their own pretty lame-ass record on this, and so we have gotten into a habit of blaming the yanks when really we are all to blame, and moral one-oneupmanship is not something we can afford as this is no game. Anyways, its an interesting one alright.
Its also my assessment that any workable solution is really a long term one, that is based on remediation throught natural processes, however, the truth is that we are going to experience some pretty difficult climatic impacts at this stage because already we have a huge increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, that level is going to now inevitably increase over the next 20 years and there is little we can do. I would also advise caution in identifying Mr Bush as the sole problem politically, its true that his administration have been the cheerleaders for that camp in the world that do not want to listen to the truth of what is happening for obvious reasons of economic ideology and vested interest groups, but it is not the only problem government, and our own European governments are using the American government's bad record on this to justify their own pretty lame-ass record on this, and so we have gotten into a habit of blaming the yanks when really we are all to blame, and moral one-oneupmanship is not something we can afford as this is no game. Anyways, its an interesting one alright.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Branson launches $25m climate bid
Lol! Thank you for agreeing...and for the smack on the wrist! :wah:
I wasn't blaming George Bush per se, but saying that he is the current world leader with more power and resources than any other politician, as far as I am aware, and so he became the 'leader of the pack'. Where he goes, lesser governments follow. His wealth is based on oil, it is what he knows, and so his administration also base their preferences on oil and wealth. It wasn't a case of oneupmanship.
However, I was trying to say that at the Kyoto Conference of 1996, Agenda 21 was drawn up as a survival plan for the 21st century. The motto was "think global, act local" and we learned that unless we as individuals change the way we live our lives, the planet will not survive. George Bush refused to sign the Kyoto agreement and instead tried to buy unmanaged rainforests (in Borneo I believe) as his tepid offering at sustainability and defusing carbon emissions.
I hope that when the US elect a new president he is aware of the impact of global warming. If we stopped adding to the pollution in the atmosphere TODAY it would take 100 YEARS for greenhouse gases to slow their increasing speed down enough to be able to start lessening the impact of global warming. So in 100 years we could start to decrease the levels in the atmosphere! It's a very far thinking analogy and too far for most politicians who are only interested in whats happening here and now.
I agree that any workable solution is really a long term one and will be based on remediation through natural processes, this is the best way and the only sensible way. I also agree that we are going to experience some pretty difficult climatic impacts at this stage because already we have a huge increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. That level will increase for at least another 100 years and more depending upon how much more we pollute our atmosphere. However, I don't agree that there is little we can do! We need to start reforestation NOW and cut emissions NOW. We need to invest in alternative energy NOW. If we carry on as we are...and we will...then in a few centuries the icecaps will have melted, the only areas of land available will be mountain tops - there'll be no land to grow food, no fresh water to drink and no oxygen to breathe! Eight generations or so from now our descendents will die from starvation, thirst and carbon poisoning! But hey, what do the politicians care, they'll all be dead by then! :-5
I wasn't blaming George Bush per se, but saying that he is the current world leader with more power and resources than any other politician, as far as I am aware, and so he became the 'leader of the pack'. Where he goes, lesser governments follow. His wealth is based on oil, it is what he knows, and so his administration also base their preferences on oil and wealth. It wasn't a case of oneupmanship.
However, I was trying to say that at the Kyoto Conference of 1996, Agenda 21 was drawn up as a survival plan for the 21st century. The motto was "think global, act local" and we learned that unless we as individuals change the way we live our lives, the planet will not survive. George Bush refused to sign the Kyoto agreement and instead tried to buy unmanaged rainforests (in Borneo I believe) as his tepid offering at sustainability and defusing carbon emissions.
I hope that when the US elect a new president he is aware of the impact of global warming. If we stopped adding to the pollution in the atmosphere TODAY it would take 100 YEARS for greenhouse gases to slow their increasing speed down enough to be able to start lessening the impact of global warming. So in 100 years we could start to decrease the levels in the atmosphere! It's a very far thinking analogy and too far for most politicians who are only interested in whats happening here and now.
I agree that any workable solution is really a long term one and will be based on remediation through natural processes, this is the best way and the only sensible way. I also agree that we are going to experience some pretty difficult climatic impacts at this stage because already we have a huge increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. That level will increase for at least another 100 years and more depending upon how much more we pollute our atmosphere. However, I don't agree that there is little we can do! We need to start reforestation NOW and cut emissions NOW. We need to invest in alternative energy NOW. If we carry on as we are...and we will...then in a few centuries the icecaps will have melted, the only areas of land available will be mountain tops - there'll be no land to grow food, no fresh water to drink and no oxygen to breathe! Eight generations or so from now our descendents will die from starvation, thirst and carbon poisoning! But hey, what do the politicians care, they'll all be dead by then! :-5
Branson launches $25m climate bid
Galbally;544684 wrote: ...you cant expect chemistry people not to wonder if there is some possible mechanism, thats the way that they are trained to think, look at a problem, and come up with a solution.
I think the whole point of university, whatever you study, is to teach you that situations arise not from one event or cause but from a multitude of events or causes. And problems don't have one solution, that would be far too simple. There has to be a solution which takes into account every cause or event and finds the best possible solution which allows the whole scenario to be answered as appropriately as possible.
One sole solution is an over-simplified answer that wouldn't solve every aspect of the problem and would probably cause a detrimental knock-on affect, imo.
I think the whole point of university, whatever you study, is to teach you that situations arise not from one event or cause but from a multitude of events or causes. And problems don't have one solution, that would be far too simple. There has to be a solution which takes into account every cause or event and finds the best possible solution which allows the whole scenario to be answered as appropriately as possible.
One sole solution is an over-simplified answer that wouldn't solve every aspect of the problem and would probably cause a detrimental knock-on affect, imo.
Branson launches $25m climate bid
Rapunzel;544728 wrote: I think the whole point of university, whatever you study, is to teach you that situations arise not from one event or cause but from a multitude of events or causes. And problems don't have one solution, that would be far too simple. There has to be a solution which takes into account every cause or event and finds the best possible solution which allows the whole scenario to be answered as appropriately as possible.
One sole solution is an over-simplified answer that wouldn't solve every aspect of the problem and would probably cause a detrimental knock-on affect, imo.
Yes, in general it does, but being a deterministic science and a practical one, chemists like engineers are generally good at looking at things in a problem solving way (admittedly they also make a lot of problems), but in general they also get things right. I think in your statement you were right in that the climate is so complex and interlinked that its most likely there is no one way, or quick fix to any of this, I would be very surprised if any serious scientist believed there was, but there may be certain things we could develop that might help mitigate the CO2 in the atmosphere and bring it back to pre-industrial levels (or slightly higher to offset what also (ironically) seems to have been some natural cooling over the past couple of centuries, the impact of this has been lost in the huge warming that has been caused due to very high CO2 levels, but it was there in the 19th century and is probably still there). I hope so, because getting the climate back in order is about the greatest challenge facing the human race at the moment, and will be the major job of the 21st century. :-6
One sole solution is an over-simplified answer that wouldn't solve every aspect of the problem and would probably cause a detrimental knock-on affect, imo.
Yes, in general it does, but being a deterministic science and a practical one, chemists like engineers are generally good at looking at things in a problem solving way (admittedly they also make a lot of problems), but in general they also get things right. I think in your statement you were right in that the climate is so complex and interlinked that its most likely there is no one way, or quick fix to any of this, I would be very surprised if any serious scientist believed there was, but there may be certain things we could develop that might help mitigate the CO2 in the atmosphere and bring it back to pre-industrial levels (or slightly higher to offset what also (ironically) seems to have been some natural cooling over the past couple of centuries, the impact of this has been lost in the huge warming that has been caused due to very high CO2 levels, but it was there in the 19th century and is probably still there). I hope so, because getting the climate back in order is about the greatest challenge facing the human race at the moment, and will be the major job of the 21st century. :-6
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
Uncle Kram
- Posts: 5991
- Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 12:34 pm
Branson launches $25m climate bid
Uncle Kram;544859 wrote: 
Rappy said "ameliorate" 
It's a good word. I use it a lot. It means to change things for the better i.e., change it AND make it better. I much prefer to type one word instead of a whole sentence. Lazy genes!
Rappy said "ameliorate" It's a good word. I use it a lot. It means to change things for the better i.e., change it AND make it better. I much prefer to type one word instead of a whole sentence. Lazy genes!
-
Uncle Kram
- Posts: 5991
- Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 12:34 pm
Branson launches $25m climate bid
Rapunzel;544873 wrote: It's a good word. I use it a lot. It means to change things for the better i.e., change it AND make it better. I much prefer to type one word instead of a whole sentence. Lazy genes! :DYeah, I alwaysuse it in meetings since I made the word improve redundant
:DYeah, I alwaysuse it in meetings since I made the word improve redundant THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN PUN
Branson launches $25m climate bid
Chemists and engineers are good at solving problems, its true. But one also has to look at the medical field where, in its worst stages, a cure can often cause more problems than a disease. However it's impossible to cure everything as one cure often makes another part of the situation worse. So yes, it would be good to find a temporary solution to bring the current carbon levels down. I just tend to see the other side of things and this reminds me of when we needed energy and invented nuclear power. We solved the problem of power but then faced the new problem of disposal! So we had to build underground concrete bunkers to dispose of nuclear waste (more land fill in effect!) and have to wait for how many half-lives until it is safe to enter them again?
The climate is extremely complex but the beauty of it is that everything is in balance. We are knocking it out of balance and Mother Nature is trying to rectify the situation by bringing it back into balance through extreme weather conditions. So maybe creating more storm conditions might be a way to help clear the atmosphere? I'm not a geologist, this is merely guesswork.
I totally agree that the planet was cooling prior to industrialisation and that we don't want to bring our levels back to such a low. We are currently enjoying an Interglacial - a geological interval of warmer global average temperature that separates glacials, or ice ages. Our planet has passed through many ice ages that have each lasted millions of years. Between each ice age or glacial there is a period of warmer global average temperature called an interglacial. The current Holocene interglacial has existed since the Pleistocene era, about 11,400 years ago. We were most definitely heading back into the next ice age before global warming occurred to warm the planet up again. The most successful solution, imo, would be to keep the planet warm enough to stop us descending into the next ice age, yet cool enough to stop the polar ice caps from melting and even help them to refreeze a little. In practice I suspect that we will actually eventually destroy all human life on this planet. Mother Nature will take over and have a longer ice age that those ever previously recorded. Then eventually she will head into the next interglacial and, if we are lucky, another pool of primeordial gloop can appear from which the first cells will form which will eventually turn into another version of the human race. :rolleyes:
Even if we were able to keep the planet in balance, whose to say there is not some underlying system which we would not be affecting? Another unexpected version of a knock-on effect.
The climate is extremely complex but the beauty of it is that everything is in balance. We are knocking it out of balance and Mother Nature is trying to rectify the situation by bringing it back into balance through extreme weather conditions. So maybe creating more storm conditions might be a way to help clear the atmosphere? I'm not a geologist, this is merely guesswork.
I totally agree that the planet was cooling prior to industrialisation and that we don't want to bring our levels back to such a low. We are currently enjoying an Interglacial - a geological interval of warmer global average temperature that separates glacials, or ice ages. Our planet has passed through many ice ages that have each lasted millions of years. Between each ice age or glacial there is a period of warmer global average temperature called an interglacial. The current Holocene interglacial has existed since the Pleistocene era, about 11,400 years ago. We were most definitely heading back into the next ice age before global warming occurred to warm the planet up again. The most successful solution, imo, would be to keep the planet warm enough to stop us descending into the next ice age, yet cool enough to stop the polar ice caps from melting and even help them to refreeze a little. In practice I suspect that we will actually eventually destroy all human life on this planet. Mother Nature will take over and have a longer ice age that those ever previously recorded. Then eventually she will head into the next interglacial and, if we are lucky, another pool of primeordial gloop can appear from which the first cells will form which will eventually turn into another version of the human race. :rolleyes:
Even if we were able to keep the planet in balance, whose to say there is not some underlying system which we would not be affecting? Another unexpected version of a knock-on effect.
Branson launches $25m climate bid
Uncle Kram;544884 wrote: Yeah, I alwaysuse it in meetings since I made the word improve redundant
Lol! But it doesn't mean to just improve but to change also. I like words like that. It also helps if you can confuse people because then they just agree with you rather than say they don't know what you're talking about. :wah:
I like the phrase "Eschew obfustication" which basically means express yourself clearly. Don't make things so confusing. And yet the phrase itself IS confusing and doesn't express itself at all clearly! Like a pun, a play on words. And we both like puns, don't we? From RaPUNzel to the man with the golden PUN! :wah:
Yeah, I know, I'm talking total gibberish!
Lol! But it doesn't mean to just improve but to change also. I like words like that. It also helps if you can confuse people because then they just agree with you rather than say they don't know what you're talking about. :wah:
I like the phrase "Eschew obfustication" which basically means express yourself clearly. Don't make things so confusing. And yet the phrase itself IS confusing and doesn't express itself at all clearly! Like a pun, a play on words. And we both like puns, don't we? From RaPUNzel to the man with the golden PUN! :wah:
Yeah, I know, I'm talking total gibberish!
Branson launches $25m climate bid
Rapunzel;544906 wrote: Chemists and engineers are good at solving problems, its true. But one also has to look at the medical field where, in its worst stages, a cure can often cause more problems than a disease. However it's impossible to cure everything as one cure often makes another part of the situation worse. So yes, it would be good to find a temporary solution to bring the current carbon levels down. I just tend to see the other side of things and this reminds me of when we needed energy and invented nuclear power. We solved the problem of power but then faced the new problem of disposal! So we had to build underground concrete bunkers to dispose of nuclear waste (more land fill in effect!) and have to wait for how many half-lives until it is safe to enter them again?
The climate is extremely complex but the beauty of it is that everything is in balance. We are knocking it out of balance and Mother Nature is trying to rectify the situation by bringing it back into balance through extreme weather conditions. So maybe creating more storm conditions might be a way to help clear the atmosphere? I'm not a geologist, this is merely guesswork.
I totally agree that the planet was cooling prior to industrialisation and that we don't want to bring our levels back to such a low. We are currently enjoying an Interglacial - a geological interval of warmer global average temperature that separates glacials, or ice ages. Our planet has passed through many ice ages that have each lasted millions of years. Between each ice age or glacial there is a period of warmer global average temperature called an interglacial. The current Holocene interglacial has existed since the Pleistocene era, about 11,400 years ago. We were most definitely heading back into the next ice age before global warming occurred to warm the planet up again. The most successful solution, imo, would be to keep the planet warm enough to stop us descending into the next ice age, yet cool enough to stop the polar ice caps from melting and even help them to refreeze a little. In practice I suspect that we will actually eventually destroy all human life on this planet. Mother Nature will take over and have a longer ice age that those ever previously recorded. Then eventually she will head into the next interglacial and, if we are lucky, another pool of primeordial gloop can appear from which the first cells will form which will eventually turn into another version of the human race. :rolleyes: Even if we were able to keep the planet in balance, whose to say there is not some underlying system which we would not be affecting? Another unexpected version of a knock-on effect.
I tend to agree, the baseline CO2 rate since the last glaciation period (which as you know ended roughly 11,000 years ago is 240 ppm approx, we are now at 389 ppm and rising, its predicted to hit 450 ppm within 25 years, thats the tipping point we are sure of, though we may already have caused irreversible changes, the idea would be to get it back to 240 ppm within minimum 80 years, and hope for the best. It seems at the moment, that is really a pipe dream, and we will be lucky to keep it at the already way too high level it is already at now. Oh well, its also true that in terms of the climate, we are as yet only beginning to understand it, the present situation is we know we have screwed it up, we are unsure what to do, or if anything can be done, the only reasonable course of action would be to over the course of several decades drastically (and I mean drastically) reduce world wide CO2 emissons, and hope that the climate will be able to regulate itself into a state which we have as a civilization been used to for the past 10,000 years, whether any of that will actually happen is anyone guess.
The climate is extremely complex but the beauty of it is that everything is in balance. We are knocking it out of balance and Mother Nature is trying to rectify the situation by bringing it back into balance through extreme weather conditions. So maybe creating more storm conditions might be a way to help clear the atmosphere? I'm not a geologist, this is merely guesswork.
I totally agree that the planet was cooling prior to industrialisation and that we don't want to bring our levels back to such a low. We are currently enjoying an Interglacial - a geological interval of warmer global average temperature that separates glacials, or ice ages. Our planet has passed through many ice ages that have each lasted millions of years. Between each ice age or glacial there is a period of warmer global average temperature called an interglacial. The current Holocene interglacial has existed since the Pleistocene era, about 11,400 years ago. We were most definitely heading back into the next ice age before global warming occurred to warm the planet up again. The most successful solution, imo, would be to keep the planet warm enough to stop us descending into the next ice age, yet cool enough to stop the polar ice caps from melting and even help them to refreeze a little. In practice I suspect that we will actually eventually destroy all human life on this planet. Mother Nature will take over and have a longer ice age that those ever previously recorded. Then eventually she will head into the next interglacial and, if we are lucky, another pool of primeordial gloop can appear from which the first cells will form which will eventually turn into another version of the human race. :rolleyes: Even if we were able to keep the planet in balance, whose to say there is not some underlying system which we would not be affecting? Another unexpected version of a knock-on effect.
I tend to agree, the baseline CO2 rate since the last glaciation period (which as you know ended roughly 11,000 years ago is 240 ppm approx, we are now at 389 ppm and rising, its predicted to hit 450 ppm within 25 years, thats the tipping point we are sure of, though we may already have caused irreversible changes, the idea would be to get it back to 240 ppm within minimum 80 years, and hope for the best. It seems at the moment, that is really a pipe dream, and we will be lucky to keep it at the already way too high level it is already at now. Oh well, its also true that in terms of the climate, we are as yet only beginning to understand it, the present situation is we know we have screwed it up, we are unsure what to do, or if anything can be done, the only reasonable course of action would be to over the course of several decades drastically (and I mean drastically) reduce world wide CO2 emissons, and hope that the climate will be able to regulate itself into a state which we have as a civilization been used to for the past 10,000 years, whether any of that will actually happen is anyone guess.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
Richard Bell
- Posts: 1228
- Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 8:56 am
Branson launches $25m climate bid
Save The Planet :
Earn $25,000,000
Kick A Ball Around For Five Years For A Los Angeles Soccer/Football Team :
Earn $25,000,000
No wonder we're in such a mess !
Earn $25,000,000
Kick A Ball Around For Five Years For A Los Angeles Soccer/Football Team :
Earn $25,000,000
No wonder we're in such a mess !
Branson launches $25m climate bid
Diuretic;544917 wrote: When I saw the intro headline I thought, "Is he buying the bloody climate now?" Oh well, Virgin Earth has a nice ring to it.
I'd like to read the small print! Here's a man with a phoney smile surpassed only by our own Prime Minister, knowing full well he's never likely to have to pay out, and even if he doues, it will not be out of his pocket personally. Here is a man so concerned about the environment, not only does he run his own airline, and God knows how many hair-brained schemes (flying across the Atlantic in a hot air balloon is just one that springs to mind) revelling in all the free publicity such a venture would attract win or lose, here is a man who is prepared to to fly somebody into space! (Virgin Space Tours perhaps?) Does that seriously sound like a man who is concerned about the environment - a self-promoting publicity seeker? "Sure I'll give $5000,000.00 to Cancer research - just make sure the television cameras are rolling as I write out this cheque..."
Cynical? You bet!
I'd like to read the small print! Here's a man with a phoney smile surpassed only by our own Prime Minister, knowing full well he's never likely to have to pay out, and even if he doues, it will not be out of his pocket personally. Here is a man so concerned about the environment, not only does he run his own airline, and God knows how many hair-brained schemes (flying across the Atlantic in a hot air balloon is just one that springs to mind) revelling in all the free publicity such a venture would attract win or lose, here is a man who is prepared to to fly somebody into space! (Virgin Space Tours perhaps?) Does that seriously sound like a man who is concerned about the environment - a self-promoting publicity seeker? "Sure I'll give $5000,000.00 to Cancer research - just make sure the television cameras are rolling as I write out this cheque..."
Cynical? You bet!
Branson launches $25m climate bid
I think that it may well be a publicity thing, but its an enlightened one, its far better to publicize your business through something actually important like what is happening to our planet, than which celebrity is putting their naughty bits into which other celebrity no? And of course, if someone does come up with something useful, then if they don't pay up it will be bad publicity, so the ball is in the chemists and scientists and inventors court. At least Branson is not wasting billions of pounds worth of your tax money chasing windmills in the Persian gulf and then being smug about it.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.