Politics of Energy Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (9981)	6/25/2009 8:05:52 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) of 86356

face it Hawk.. doesn't matter how much lipstick you put on phytoplankton ... they just aren't sexy :O) Nope!! Certainly not as "sexy" as saving the Rain Forest. All one has to do is look up "Rain Forest destruction" and they'll find a plethora of articles discussing the plight of these regions and how their destruction contributes to the increase in atmospheric CO2. But Rain Forests, important as they are, make up only a fraction of the CO2 sequestration performed by oceanic flora. So a 20-30% depletion in phytoplankton makes Rain Forest destruction almost trivial in comparison. That's all I've been trying to get through MM's head.. Until the "baseline" for CO2 levels takes into account the depletion of phytoplankton, then there's simply no way anyone can reasonably state how much CO2 increases are due to man's activities versus diminished sequestration by phytoplankton. But y'know TBS... what really matters to me is the marine food chain and phytoplankton is its foundation.. I really love Sushi and have no desire to see fish stocks depleted. Hawk

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next