Re: [Biofuel] Carbon Freeze?

2006-10-25 Thread Terry Dyck
Hi Mike,

I really like what you wrote about shaking hands with the person who grew 
your food.  The next question might be;  if we do not love this planet 
enough to stop GHG emmissions will their come a time when the climate will 
not be condusive to growing food?

Terry Dyck


From: MK DuPree [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Carbon Freeze?
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 09:55:17 -0500

Quote at the end of the article: The point is not whether Gaia is alive or
not, but rather, whether we can learn to love life enough to save the
planet. -- Colin Wright

The challenge to this learning is essentially that most of us are basically
unplugged from the planet.  When was the last time your feet actually
touched the ground and not concrete?  When was the last time you looked the
grower of your food in the eye and shook his or her hand?  How many more
questions like this can we all ask?  Perhaps this article will help us gain
a bit of motivation to accept the challenge, if for no one else, our
children.  Mike DuPree

- Original Message -
From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 11:00 AM
Subject: [Biofuel] Carbon Freeze?


  http://eatthestate.org/11-03/CarbonFreeze.htm
  (October 12, 2006)
 
  Carbon Freeze?
 
  Recently I've been reading Revenge of Gaia by James Lovelock.
  Though it sounds like a science fiction novel (and some will critique
  it that way), it is in fact an impassioned plea for recognizing the
  depth of the climate crisis and a call to action.
 
  Gaia, or the notion of a living planet Earth, was proposed by
  Lovelock in the 1960s when he was a planet scientist for NASA looking
  at the inert atmosphere of Mars. It occurred to him that life itself
  on Earth was manipulating the atmosphere to its own benefit. While
  the Earth Science community has now recognized that our planet does
  indeed self-regulate its temperature and composition, it shies away
  from Lovelock's contention that there is an active, willful component
  to Gaia.
 
  Now Lovelock is back, arguing that the regulating mechanisms are
  failing; in fact, that Gaia has a fever and is raising her
  temperature to get rid of us. As anthropomorphic as this notion is,
  Lovelock at 82 is no crackpot. I recently saw him at the University
  Bookstore, and he comes across as the genteel but sharp-witted
  English scientist that he is. As a fellow of the Royal Society,
  Britain's most prestigious science organization, he is on top of the
  latest climate science. And unlike most scientists, he feels that his
  objectivity is not compromised by speaking out.
 
  Much of the science in the book is familiar: the hockey-stick-like
  rise in global temperatures in recent years, the dramatic loss of ice
  in Greenland and the Antarctic and Arctic, the melting permafrost,
  etc. But Lovelock adds some new twists and goes beyond the smooth and
  linear temperature increases that characterize the IPCC predictions.
  For Lovelock, discontinuities and tipping points in the form of
  sudden temperature rises will bring irreversible change and add up to
  a bleak future where humanity itself is threatened.
 
  Lovelock advances the notion that the Earth is returning to a new hot
  state, about eight degrees Centigrade warmer, that will last a
  hundred thousand years or more. Such an episode did occur about 55
  million years ago, when massive methane releases overwhelmed the
  planet. As corroborating evidence that we could enter a new hot
  state, Lovelock points to his computer simulations that mimic algae
  growth in the oceans. According to his model, when carbon dioxide
  levels begin to exceed about 500 parts per million, the ocean algae
  with their ability to absorb carbon and promote cloud cover become
  extinct, leading to an abrupt jump in global temperature of around
  eight degrees. This sort of temperature jump would turn much of the
  planet into scrub and desert, which together with massive flooding
  would lead to a catastrophic die-off in the human population.
 
  To be sure, these sorts of predictions are speculative at this stage.
  The new IPCC report is due out next year (and it is rumored to be
  frightening). But it would be foolish to ignore the possibility that
  letting carbon dioxide levels rise to 500 ppm would put the lives of
  billions of people at risk. (Note, according to Paul Roberts' The
  End of Oil, that even if we stabilized carbon emissions at current
  levels--a carbon freeze--we will reach 520 ppm by 2100. If we do
  nothing, we will hit 550 ppm by mid-century.)
 
  Even if we have already passed a point of no return, Lovelock
  advocates replacing our fossil fuels as soon as possible to slow the
  temperature increases and to buy us more time. He proposes a range of
  alternative energies, including nuclear fission, until we can develop
  nuclear fusion, which

Re: [Biofuel] Carbon Freeze?

2006-10-25 Thread MK DuPree



Hi Terry...you asked, "if 
we do not love this planetenough to stop GHG emmissions will their come a 
time when the climate willnot be condusive to growing 
food?"
That is the path upon which we are 
headed, perhaps irreversibly by now. But I'm only going on the information 
I continue to read here on the List and elsewhere. Hey, maybe it's all 
some weird propaganda and not really true, just some junk those "liberals" keep 
throwing up? Whatever. Did you see Juan Boveda's post on the ozone 
hole of 2006 being the largest on record? 
 
Mass extinction is nothing new on the planet. If someone would care to try 
and dissuade me, I'd love to be dissuaded, but I'm afraid I'm caving in to the 
thought of it. There will be survivors and their progeny. I suspect 
their places on the planet for doing so are already staked out and well 
fortified. Interesting to think about the ideology that also survives and 
goes forward. 
 
Personally, I don't know how to come grips with it all. More and more I 
find myself looking forward to going to bed, closing my eyes, and dreaming it 
all away. Never used to be that way--too much happening to sleep much; too 
little time to behold it. My wife isbecoming more and 
moreannoyedwith my mental slippage, especiallyabout something 
I "can't do anything about." She's Irish andwill keep on smiling 
come hell or high water, until you break your word with her. Then 
expectthe ozone hole to grow larger by at least the size of your 
body. My neighbor manages to keep a smile on his face, but he saw 
deathup close and perhaps even more absurd in Vietnam. A close 
friend of mine for years who lives far away from me now also manages to keep 
smiling, at least when we visit by phone or through email, although recently he 
admitted to me that he, too, had to fight off thoughts and their effects of 
what's coming. He cracked up in Pakistan years ago working for the 
government, but has recovered admirably. So I accept bedtime more readily 
than ever before in my life, but what troubles me most about this is that it is 
because I want to.
 
So, yeah, Terry, no moreclimate conduciveto growinganything 
except maybe cockroaches who apparently have survived through everything for 
millenia. Crazy cockroaches. Wait...a bulletin on TV...live from the 
White House...another cockroach. Says we must stay the course. I 
suspect he would also stand behind this quote, "Free government does not bestow 
repose upon its' citizens, but sets them in the vanguard of battle to defend the 
liberty of every man." "Every man" who is a cockroach, he whispers, then 
smiles that smirky smile he sometimes almost winces to put on his face. 

 
I'm not going to bed. I'm going outside to rake leaves and behold an 
especially colorful autumn. 
 
Mike DuPree
 

 

 

 


- Original Message - 
From: "Terry Dyck" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 2:44 
PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Carbon 
Freeze?
 Hi Mike,  I really like what 
you wrote about shaking hands with the person who grew  your food. 
The next question might be; if we do not love this planet  enough 
to stop GHG emmissions will their come a time when the climate will  not 
be condusive to growing food?  Terry Dyck  
From: "MK DuPree" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.orgTo: biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSubject: Re: [Biofuel] Carbon Freeze?Date: 
Sun, 22 Oct 2006 09:55:17 -0500Quote at the end of the 
article: The point is not whether Gaia is alive ornot, but rather, 
whether we can learn to love life enough to save theplanet. -- Colin 
WrightThe challenge to this learning is essentially that 
most of us are basicallyunplugged from the planet. When was 
the last time your feet actuallytouched the ground and not 
concrete? When was the last time you looked thegrower of your 
food in the eye and shook his or her hand? How many 
morequestions like this can we all ask? Perhaps this article 
will help us gaina bit of motivation to accept the challenge, if for 
no one else, ourchildren. Mike 
DuPree- Original Message -From: 
"Keith Addison" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 11:00 
AMSubject: [Biofuel] Carbon 
Freeze?  http://eatthestate.org/11-03/CarbonFreeze.htm  (October 12, 2006) 
  Carbon Freeze?   Recently 
I've been reading "Revenge of Gaia" by James Lovelock.  Though 
it sounds like a science fiction novel (and some will critique  
it that way), it is in fact an impassioned plea for recognizing the 
 depth of the climate crisis and a call to action. 
  Gaia, or the notion of a living planet Earth, was proposed 
by  Lovelock in the 1960s when he was a planet scientist for 
NASA looking  at the inert atmosphere of Mars. It occurred to 
him that life itself  on Earth was manipulating the atmosphere 
to its own benefit. While  the Earth Science

Re: [Biofuel] Carbon Freeze?

2006-10-22 Thread MK DuPree
Quote at the end of the article: The point is not whether Gaia is alive or 
not, but rather, whether we can learn to love life enough to save the 
planet. -- Colin Wright

The challenge to this learning is essentially that most of us are basically 
unplugged from the planet.  When was the last time your feet actually 
touched the ground and not concrete?  When was the last time you looked the 
grower of your food in the eye and shook his or her hand?  How many more 
questions like this can we all ask?  Perhaps this article will help us gain 
a bit of motivation to accept the challenge, if for no one else, our 
children.  Mike DuPree

- Original Message - 
From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 11:00 AM
Subject: [Biofuel] Carbon Freeze?


 http://eatthestate.org/11-03/CarbonFreeze.htm
 (October 12, 2006)

 Carbon Freeze?

 Recently I've been reading Revenge of Gaia by James Lovelock.
 Though it sounds like a science fiction novel (and some will critique
 it that way), it is in fact an impassioned plea for recognizing the
 depth of the climate crisis and a call to action.

 Gaia, or the notion of a living planet Earth, was proposed by
 Lovelock in the 1960s when he was a planet scientist for NASA looking
 at the inert atmosphere of Mars. It occurred to him that life itself
 on Earth was manipulating the atmosphere to its own benefit. While
 the Earth Science community has now recognized that our planet does
 indeed self-regulate its temperature and composition, it shies away
 from Lovelock's contention that there is an active, willful component
 to Gaia.

 Now Lovelock is back, arguing that the regulating mechanisms are
 failing; in fact, that Gaia has a fever and is raising her
 temperature to get rid of us. As anthropomorphic as this notion is,
 Lovelock at 82 is no crackpot. I recently saw him at the University
 Bookstore, and he comes across as the genteel but sharp-witted
 English scientist that he is. As a fellow of the Royal Society,
 Britain's most prestigious science organization, he is on top of the
 latest climate science. And unlike most scientists, he feels that his
 objectivity is not compromised by speaking out.

 Much of the science in the book is familiar: the hockey-stick-like
 rise in global temperatures in recent years, the dramatic loss of ice
 in Greenland and the Antarctic and Arctic, the melting permafrost,
 etc. But Lovelock adds some new twists and goes beyond the smooth and
 linear temperature increases that characterize the IPCC predictions.
 For Lovelock, discontinuities and tipping points in the form of
 sudden temperature rises will bring irreversible change and add up to
 a bleak future where humanity itself is threatened.

 Lovelock advances the notion that the Earth is returning to a new hot
 state, about eight degrees Centigrade warmer, that will last a
 hundred thousand years or more. Such an episode did occur about 55
 million years ago, when massive methane releases overwhelmed the
 planet. As corroborating evidence that we could enter a new hot
 state, Lovelock points to his computer simulations that mimic algae
 growth in the oceans. According to his model, when carbon dioxide
 levels begin to exceed about 500 parts per million, the ocean algae
 with their ability to absorb carbon and promote cloud cover become
 extinct, leading to an abrupt jump in global temperature of around
 eight degrees. This sort of temperature jump would turn much of the
 planet into scrub and desert, which together with massive flooding
 would lead to a catastrophic die-off in the human population.

 To be sure, these sorts of predictions are speculative at this stage.
 The new IPCC report is due out next year (and it is rumored to be
 frightening). But it would be foolish to ignore the possibility that
 letting carbon dioxide levels rise to 500 ppm would put the lives of
 billions of people at risk. (Note, according to Paul Roberts' The
 End of Oil, that even if we stabilized carbon emissions at current
 levels--a carbon freeze--we will reach 520 ppm by 2100. If we do
 nothing, we will hit 550 ppm by mid-century.)

 Even if we have already passed a point of no return, Lovelock
 advocates replacing our fossil fuels as soon as possible to slow the
 temperature increases and to buy us more time. He proposes a range of
 alternative energies, including nuclear fission, until we can develop
 nuclear fusion, which is still decades away from feasibility, if at
 all.

 Getting off of fossil fuels may be easier than Lovelock thinks. He
 seems to be unaware of peaking global oil supplies. Retired Princeton
 geology professor Ken Deffeyes is still sticking to his December 2005
 prediction for global peak oil. His new evidence? New data from the
 US Energy Information Administration that world crude oil production
 peaked at 85.1 million barrels a day last December and then declined
 to 84.3 million barrels this past June.
 

Re: [Biofuel] Carbon Freeze?

2006-10-18 Thread Jason Katie
i wonder if there is a way to combine nuclear waste (cesium,  ytterbium, 
iodine, cobalt, iridium, and strontium? from wikipedia) with carbon. do you 
suppose the waste could be stabilized, and the carbon locked up for keeps 
that way?
Jason
ICQ#:  154998177
MSN:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message - 
From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 11:00 AM
Subject: [Biofuel] Carbon Freeze?


 http://eatthestate.org/11-03/CarbonFreeze.htm
 (October 12, 2006)

 Carbon Freeze?

 Recently I've been reading Revenge of Gaia by James Lovelock.
 Though it sounds like a science fiction novel (and some will critique
 it that way), it is in fact an impassioned plea for recognizing the
 depth of the climate crisis and a call to action.

 Gaia, or the notion of a living planet Earth, was proposed by
 Lovelock in the 1960s when he was a planet scientist for NASA looking
 at the inert atmosphere of Mars. It occurred to him that life itself
 on Earth was manipulating the atmosphere to its own benefit. While
 the Earth Science community has now recognized that our planet does
 indeed self-regulate its temperature and composition, it shies away
 from Lovelock's contention that there is an active, willful component
 to Gaia.

 Now Lovelock is back, arguing that the regulating mechanisms are
 failing; in fact, that Gaia has a fever and is raising her
 temperature to get rid of us. As anthropomorphic as this notion is,
 Lovelock at 82 is no crackpot. I recently saw him at the University
 Bookstore, and he comes across as the genteel but sharp-witted
 English scientist that he is. As a fellow of the Royal Society,
 Britain's most prestigious science organization, he is on top of the
 latest climate science. And unlike most scientists, he feels that his
 objectivity is not compromised by speaking out.

 Much of the science in the book is familiar: the hockey-stick-like
 rise in global temperatures in recent years, the dramatic loss of ice
 in Greenland and the Antarctic and Arctic, the melting permafrost,
 etc. But Lovelock adds some new twists and goes beyond the smooth and
 linear temperature increases that characterize the IPCC predictions.
 For Lovelock, discontinuities and tipping points in the form of
 sudden temperature rises will bring irreversible change and add up to
 a bleak future where humanity itself is threatened.

 Lovelock advances the notion that the Earth is returning to a new hot
 state, about eight degrees Centigrade warmer, that will last a
 hundred thousand years or more. Such an episode did occur about 55
 million years ago, when massive methane releases overwhelmed the
 planet. As corroborating evidence that we could enter a new hot
 state, Lovelock points to his computer simulations that mimic algae
 growth in the oceans. According to his model, when carbon dioxide
 levels begin to exceed about 500 parts per million, the ocean algae
 with their ability to absorb carbon and promote cloud cover become
 extinct, leading to an abrupt jump in global temperature of around
 eight degrees. This sort of temperature jump would turn much of the
 planet into scrub and desert, which together with massive flooding
 would lead to a catastrophic die-off in the human population.

 To be sure, these sorts of predictions are speculative at this stage.
 The new IPCC report is due out next year (and it is rumored to be
 frightening). But it would be foolish to ignore the possibility that
 letting carbon dioxide levels rise to 500 ppm would put the lives of
 billions of people at risk. (Note, according to Paul Roberts' The
 End of Oil, that even if we stabilized carbon emissions at current
 levels--a carbon freeze--we will reach 520 ppm by 2100. If we do
 nothing, we will hit 550 ppm by mid-century.)

 Even if we have already passed a point of no return, Lovelock
 advocates replacing our fossil fuels as soon as possible to slow the
 temperature increases and to buy us more time. He proposes a range of
 alternative energies, including nuclear fission, until we can develop
 nuclear fusion, which is still decades away from feasibility, if at
 all.

 Getting off of fossil fuels may be easier than Lovelock thinks. He
 seems to be unaware of peaking global oil supplies. Retired Princeton
 geology professor Ken Deffeyes is still sticking to his December 2005
 prediction for global peak oil. His new evidence? New data from the
 US Energy Information Administration that world crude oil production
 peaked at 85.1 million barrels a day last December and then declined
 to 84.3 million barrels this past June.
 (www.energybulletin.net/20518.html). A temporary downturn, perhaps.
 (Chris Skrebowski, editor of Petroleum Review, with his
 field-by-field analysis, still sticks to his 2010/2011 peak.)

 Meanwhile knowledge of the coming energy crisis seems scant in
 Seattle. Portland and San Francisco city councils have already passed
 Peak Oil resolutions, setting up