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: neolib who wrote (23180)	10/27/2008 3:56:21 PM
From: Maurice Winn	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36923

Do you mean CO2 and Libertarians? Just because some "Green" gang declares something a Green issue and that they have the solution, doesn't mean I have to salute and buy into it. Just because people do something doesn't mean it's bad. Just because we change the environment doesn't mean it's bad. While it's true that we evolved in a natural world and we change it at our peril, there is little about humans which is natural and changing our environment is our means of survival. Because we put out an enormous amount of CO2, sufficient to affect in a significant way the amount in the atmosphere, doesn't mean that's a bad thing, ipso facto. Plants LIKE CO2. To call CO2 a pollutant, which Greens do, is absurd. What matters is how much is a good amount. So far, I can't see we have a problem, even if we accept that CO2 in the atmosphere will cause some warming. If we were heading for 2000 ppm it would seem excessive. 500 ppm is enough that it would be worth spending a lot of money to figure out if it's going to be a problem. That's being done. So far, at 380 ppm, there seems to be good, not bad. Plants grow better and need less water. 380 ppm is still very much on the low end of historical CO2 levels and at the tail end of history too, after a billion years of CO2 depletion. No worries, Mqurice

To: neolib who wrote (23180)	11/2/2008 11:02:45 AM
From: average joe	1 Recommendation Respond to of 36923

More common sense from New Zealand. Taking issue with global warming Fri, 31 Oct 2008 News: Farming Hi, from a seriously cold Waipahi where, at the time of writing it is hosing down and freezing. In a change with tradition, this week's book review is Jeffrey Archer at his best in A Prisoner of Birth. A great read and it would seem that his time care of her majesty has added some oomph to his writing. Since I last wrote, the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) has passed complete with 700 and something UN-read/considered/debated amendments. The public appear to think that rich farmers are getting away with murder (and lots of emissions) because we don't have to meet our obligations till 2013 or thereabouts. The public also think that as farmers are supposedly 50% of New Zealand's CO2 equivalent emissions, we should stump up with half of New Zealand's bill. Both perspectives have in my view been deliberately and cynically engineered by those in the Beehive in an attempt to agricise New Zealand's Kyoto liabilities. Why do I care about that? 1. As mentioned previously, as our animals are part of the carbon cycle, they do not emit more than they consume. 2. The ETS is based on the year 2005, for some obscure reason. Kyoto uses 1990 emission levels as its base for calculations. Even if our animals could produce CO2 from thin air there are about 25 million fewer sheep than in 1990, a handful more beef cattle and quite a few more dairy, but fewer stock units than in 1990. Hence one could postulate fewer emissions. 3. Similarly, whether agriculture is 50% or otherwise of New Zealand total emissions (I bet you a fiver it is not even with the Mickey (no pun) mouse calculations), is irrelevant from a Kyoto liability perspective. The issue is: are we emitting more or less than we were in 1990? 4. The prospect of sending off upwards of $100,000 per annum from club Marama does not appeal, not least because it is to a scheme which, with the best intention in the world, will achieve nothing on a global scale. This is not because we are too small and therefore should not do anything, but because as discussed previously Kyoto will achieve within a few percentage points of nothing even if all signatories get behind it. Interestingly, National with its supposed farming interest seems, outwardly at least, unable to grasp the nettle here, although it promises to change the ETS when it gets into power. I generally find little to commend in the murmurings of the Act party, but I concurred with Rodney Hide when he described the whole deal as a scam, albeit on a grander scale than Y2K and bird flu. I have been a tad busy for the last five days keeping 11 young Americans busy at club Marama to pay any attention to the progress of the latest financial crises, but I imagine the world share markets have gone up and down a bit, with much hyperbole to accompany said moves, and the earth appears to still be in the appropriate orbit as luck would have it. Apart from today, the spring is going well here as I trust it is for you. graham@maramafarmorganics.co.nz - Graeme Clarke odt.co.nz