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 : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Land Shark who wrote (36279)	12/7/2012 9:49:03 PM
From: Hawkmoon	1 Recommendation Respond to of 86356

The problem is not as easy as just fertilizing the phyto (even if, the scale required of doing such geoengineering would be impractical.). Less impractical than attempting to prevent billions of people in developing countries from increasing their use of inexpensive fossil fuels? The cost of Iron fertilization would likely be less than $30 Billion per year.. But that's a number that is just a SWAG until we further the research and measure the results. How much have we spent on other solutions, including the economic costs of higher energy cost "alternatives"? forbes.com You folks continue to bang your heads against that human "wall of development". While fossil fuel derived energy declines in the west, it has increased in the developing world. All your scare tactics accomplish is to convince these countries that you are attempting to retard their economic growth and maintain their neo-colonialist enslavement to the developed countries. it's not just upwelling that brings nutrients. Fish do. They poop and pee nutrients for the phyto. 90% of pelagic fishlife has been overfished away in the oceans. And just where do you think those fish got the food that they "poop and pee" into the surrounding waters? If you're going to even remotely try to claim that phytoplankton are the foundation of the Marine food chain (not just another link), you're only going to fly in the face of well-established "peer reviewed" research and just plain logic. But please do so.. It only demonstrates how vacuous your understanding is of ocean biology, as well as it's impact on global climate. Hawk