Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Middle class morons
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 716100" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>You are correct and thus my poking fun at Al's expense. When it comes to CO2 emmissions, regardless of man's actions, nature itself pumps in enormous amounts just from the process of nature itself. When a tree falls to the ground and goes through the decomposing process, this tree is releasing it's carbon back into the atmosphere to re-cycle (free up) for surrounding plantlife with more CO2. It is a cycle of life if you will. Renewable, sustainable. </p><p> </p><p>Globally over the last 1/2 century, man has developed more and more land that is cleared often of trees and in some cases all plant life and covered by some type impervious surface. These mass impervious surfaces also act as thermal mass (heat islands) and are we thinking global warming? If you live in a major or medium urban area surrounded by more rural, what your local weather and notice the typical higher temps in the urban area verses the surrounding rural area. How can that be? Thermal mass!</p><p> </p><p>With more removal of plant life and more impervious surfaces, it only stands to reason that as a result CO2 will rise to some degree as less plants to act as scrubbers and the dead plant life releasing it's carbon into the atmosphere as well with nothing around to absord. I don't advocate being stupid one way or the other but I do feel we should be realistic and rational in not only looking at causes and effects but also at solutions in whatever way that may be and I don't advocate making it a gov't mandated solution either. Those turn into special interest for manipulation that mostly result in the problem getting worse, not better. </p><p> </p><p>I'm all for a zero pollution vehicle just as I'm also for a zero enviro impact by human activity but you have to be reasonable and rational in just how close to that ideal we can get and what it would take to get there. I realize this is a minority POV from both political sides perspective but I also believe gov't itself subsidizes bad choices as they are embedded as mechanisms in public policy and central planning. If gov't were totally out of all subsidation at all levels, you might see some form of zero or extremely low emmission vehicle just as you might see modes of transport with zero need for Middle East oil much less any oil at all. What we call a free market today is a masked free market as tax law and other means of subsidy by gov't grant cartel/monopoly advantage to certain outcomes in the market place thus suppressing new ideas and technologies from coming to the top. Also it prevents obvious better local solutions as opposed to mandated nationalist requirements on how daily life is conducted. Even in the noble desire of being green we mandate wind or solar which might work great in some locales, in other locales a much better solution would work but then no wind monopoly might negatively effect T. Boone Pickens monopoly/cartel access so other options can't be considered. Kinda see my point with that example?</p><p> </p><p>c ya!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 716100, member: 2189"] You are correct and thus my poking fun at Al's expense. When it comes to CO2 emmissions, regardless of man's actions, nature itself pumps in enormous amounts just from the process of nature itself. When a tree falls to the ground and goes through the decomposing process, this tree is releasing it's carbon back into the atmosphere to re-cycle (free up) for surrounding plantlife with more CO2. It is a cycle of life if you will. Renewable, sustainable. Globally over the last 1/2 century, man has developed more and more land that is cleared often of trees and in some cases all plant life and covered by some type impervious surface. These mass impervious surfaces also act as thermal mass (heat islands) and are we thinking global warming? If you live in a major or medium urban area surrounded by more rural, what your local weather and notice the typical higher temps in the urban area verses the surrounding rural area. How can that be? Thermal mass! With more removal of plant life and more impervious surfaces, it only stands to reason that as a result CO2 will rise to some degree as less plants to act as scrubbers and the dead plant life releasing it's carbon into the atmosphere as well with nothing around to absord. I don't advocate being stupid one way or the other but I do feel we should be realistic and rational in not only looking at causes and effects but also at solutions in whatever way that may be and I don't advocate making it a gov't mandated solution either. Those turn into special interest for manipulation that mostly result in the problem getting worse, not better. I'm all for a zero pollution vehicle just as I'm also for a zero enviro impact by human activity but you have to be reasonable and rational in just how close to that ideal we can get and what it would take to get there. I realize this is a minority POV from both political sides perspective but I also believe gov't itself subsidizes bad choices as they are embedded as mechanisms in public policy and central planning. If gov't were totally out of all subsidation at all levels, you might see some form of zero or extremely low emmission vehicle just as you might see modes of transport with zero need for Middle East oil much less any oil at all. What we call a free market today is a masked free market as tax law and other means of subsidy by gov't grant cartel/monopoly advantage to certain outcomes in the market place thus suppressing new ideas and technologies from coming to the top. Also it prevents obvious better local solutions as opposed to mandated nationalist requirements on how daily life is conducted. Even in the noble desire of being green we mandate wind or solar which might work great in some locales, in other locales a much better solution would work but then no wind monopoly might negatively effect T. Boone Pickens monopoly/cartel access so other options can't be considered. Kinda see my point with that example? c ya! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Middle class morons
Top