That might make sense if they hadn't "swayed" a long time ago.
A long time ago?.. As in a couple of years? What do you think "swayed" opinions in favor of Ethanol? Think subsidies had nothing to do with it? And where's all the excitement about Ethanol NOW, after all the eco-wackos discovered that people were cutting down rain forest in Brazil in order to plant crops for ethanol and bio-diesel production?
Think the energy producers aren't merely taking prophylactic measures in advance of Obama's swearing in, cognizant that they'd better displaying their "green side" to a president who's prepared to kick their backside, such as when he stated that he would tax new coal-based utilities into bankruptcy?
Corporations have to ingratiate themselves to the political forces creating policy, scientists should not.
Face it hawk, yours is a very fringe opinion.
So.. you're proud of your "group think" mentality, eh? Quite the conformist, are you? All of those "out of the box" fringe thinkers should just be ignored, no matter how relevant the facts they present to support their arguments?
Doesn't matter about the plight of the ocean flora despite the fact that it's responsible for the overwhelming majority of CO2 uptake, does it? Doesn't matter that the ONE company, Planktos, which had performed extensive R&D on oceanic fertilization in an attempt to commercialize it via selling carbon credits, was literally driven out of business by your "group-thinkers"?
Doesn't matter that IMPLICIT LOGIC, if not botanical science, completely supports the contention that when all growing conditions are ideal (temp, nutrients, and sunlight), excess CO2 should foster additional growth in global flora of all types. The shortage of any one of those elements creates a self-limiting environment. Hence, the lack of nutrients in vast portions of the world's oceans (possibly due to man's soil conservation efforts) prevents phytoplankton from growing despite the existence of other ideal conditions.
Nope.. you all focus upon the rain forest, ending the use of fossil fuels, and finding technological (and very expensive) means by which to mimic what ALREADY EXISTS in nature.
Bottom line, if you're TRULY WORRIED about limiting the increases in CO2 in the planet's atmosphere, then you should be focusing on where the biggest bang can be had for the smallest buck, oceanic fertilization. And the happy by-product of such an investment will be the reconstitution in the foundation of the marine food chain, which will mitigate man's over-fishing of that natural resource. And it would cost a hell of lot less than the money currently being spent on solar and wind.
But no.. I'm just a "fringe" thinker.. And y'know something? I'm pretty proud of being on the fringe if it prevents me from becoming a psuedo-scientific "sock puppet" like yourself.
Hawk |
