Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (32202)	6/12/2002 3:33:50 PM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 281500

I'm just saying that more CO2 is good up to maybe 500 ppm. It's plant food and they love having lots in the air. We like having plants [so do a lot of insects and other beasties]. It also keeps us warm and avoids ice ages. No one is yet in a position to know whether your statement is true. It all depends on photosynthesis and whether, on a global basis, vegetative respiration will exceed carbon release. It might, it might not. We do not have the measurement tools to determine whether respiration will be higher than release. For a keen discussion on the issue, take a look at the articles set forth here: radix.net The problem is that CO2 levels respond very slowly to any changes up or down in emitted CO2. It takes a very long time to affect CO2 levels but a comparatively short time to make the actual emissions. We won't feel the effects on climate for a very long time--we'll all be dead and it will be our grand-children who will bear the brunt of any errors we make. Given that fact, does it not make sense to err on the side of prudence and lower CO2 emissions in order to keep them within present levels, which might themselves be ultimately catastrophic? In my opinion, it is the height of irresponsibility to not take steps to curb CO2 emissions. We could always wait for a volcano or two to explode and/or an asteroid to strike to give us the proper climatic balance. Perhaps aerosols--natural and manmade--will save the day. It is a tricky subject. Though there are a lot of opinions, the science is not certain by any stretch of the imagination. Best to be prudent and reduce CO2 emissions.