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 : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (3685)	10/30/2006 7:55:37 AM
From: Gersh Avery	Respond to of 10087

Something that some pot growers have found out. When you increase the CO2, the plants grow like crazy. Natures scrubbers. So .. if you're not going to do away with plant life at the same time, plants will grow to absorb extra CO2 until stasis is reached again. I like the CO2 argument. The word "biodegradable" is almost gone. People started to realize it means "falling apart into CO2."

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (3685)	10/30/2006 1:04:23 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 10087

How would it exacerbate it? We still burn oil, which still adds CO2 to the atmosphere. We may add less/ year, but it is still adding to the total load. Would would not be "peak oil" exacerbating global warming. If there was no peak oil than even more oil would be burned. Peak oil would be the opposite of exacerbating the situation, even if the situation did in fact get worse. The other way, as I said, is that coal is one of the replacements. That indeed could exacerbate the situation. Depending on how much shifts to sources that emit more CO2 (such as coal) and how much shifts to sources that burn less, its possible peak oil could, at least indirectly, exacerabate the problem. OTOH, coal is more likely to go in to electricity production, than it is to be used as a transportation fuel. Only a small part of our electricity production comes from burning oil, or products refined from oil. Coal might be burned to create electricity for electric cars, but that would still likely create less net CO2 than the same cars burning gasoline.

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (3685)	10/30/2006 5:35:36 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

Re. peak oil - my problem with this is the guy who originated the concept assumed a free market w/ no unreasonalbe barriers to resources. We don't have that. Most of the world's energy reserves are controlled by national oil companies, who don't act like private profit maximizing companies. (Usually anyway - Petrobras & Malaysia's NOC are exceptions). As a result world production is determined by capricious, inefficient govt's and is nowhere near as high as it could be if all the worlds reserves were open to the oil industry. Anyway ... ---------------------------------- How would it exacerbate it? We still burn oil, which still adds CO2 to the atmosphere. We may add less/ year, but it is still adding to the total load. Sure but if we've peaked in world oil production, half the CO2 from oil has already entered the atmosphere and all we could do is double that - at least from oil. The other way, as I said, is that coal is one of the replacements. Every ton of coal you burn adds 2 tons of CO2 to the atmosphere. True unless the CO2 is captured and it'd be a lot easier to capture CO2 from generating plants than from car/aircraft/etc engines. ------------------------------------ You global warming guys s/b pushing nuclear. No CO2 and its something that could make a big difference in fossil fuel consumption.