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 : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sam who wrote (16431)	9/27/2007 9:49:24 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36917

Hawk, [sigh] Sam.. (sigh)... I'm just trying to figure out why you, and other GW'ers, don't want to acknowledge the impact that plankton depletion has upon rising atmopheric CO2. But you continue to cling to the notion that CO2 levels are rising due to man's increasing production of the gas.. not because of reduced ability for "Gaia" earth's imbalance in the ocean nutrients for maintaining phytoplankton growth. You can't have a 20-30% reduction in phytoplankton growth in the oceans and NOT have a CO2 increase. Because whether you believe it or not, the ocean's where the solution to any rise in atmospheric CO2 will lie.. Because 60,000 Gigatons of CO2 sequestration take place in the oceans compared to only 2,000 GTs on land and any problems in the oceanic CO2 cycle are going to have a major impact on CO2 levels. But all that I'm asking is for you to just please acknowledge the fact. I'm not asking you to advocate "artificial" fertilization of the oceans.. just that ALREADY depleted nutrients are reducing the ability of phytoplankton to grow in sufficient quantities to maintain CO2 balances are previous levels. Then you can decide whether you choose to suggest that mankind has to reduce CO2 production to balance out the ocean's ability to absorb it. But if you're going to treat the patient, first you have to understand what the disease is. Hawk

To: Sam who wrote (16431)	9/27/2007 12:56:31 PM
From: Elmer Flugum	Respond to of 36917

Arctic Becomes Tourism Hot Spot, But Is That Cool? online.wsj.com "DISKO BAY, Greenland -- James Brusslan is an environmental lawyer with climate change on his mind. He cycles to the office and works at a Chicago law firm that offsets its carbon emissions. He plasters friends' SUVs with stickers that say: "I'm changing the climate! Ask me how!" To get a first-hand glimpse of such changes, Mr. Brusslan, 50 years old, recently spent $2,800 on a week's camping trip here, about 200 miles north of the Arctic Circle. "I wanted to see what was happening," he said, as he gazed at an ice fiord where a glacier was splintering into icebergs. "In 10 years, it probably will be gone." He next plans to see the melting glaciers of Sichuan, China. Global warming has given rise to a new niche in the booming eco-tourism business: climate tourists. These visitors seek out places where a long-term warming trend -- subject of a global summit hosted by the United Nations this week -- is starting to have a discernible impact. Yet some say there's a big irony in this kind of travel: Any trip by train, plane or cruise ship pumps carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and potentially contributes to the warming of the planet. "What's the point of your trip to the Maldives if the end result is that it will be drowned" because emissions from eco-tourists' jets contribute to global warming and rising seas, says Jeff Gazzard of Aviation Environmental Federation, a United Kingdom group fighting to curtail airplane emissions. The Maldives, a string of islands in the Indian Ocean, sit about three feet above sea level and are at risk if warming effects raise ocean levels. More than 1.5 million tourists now visit the arctic each year, up from one million in the early 1990s, according to the U.N. Longer and warmer summers keep arctic seas freer of ice flows, so cruise ships can visit places that were once inaccessible -- raising other environmental concerns.