Of course. I didn't think I was precluding that. You are assuming that 100% permanent sequestration for continuing growing energy uses, regularly doubling, is both the most profitable direction of development and won't just transfer multiplying impacts elsewhere. Isn't that abs. decoupling too?
Phil Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 09:21:16 To:[EMAIL PROTECTED], The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] sometimes is pays to read the definitions On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 03:21:23PM -0400, Phil Henshaw wrote: > > Absolute decoupling is needed for CO2 stabilization because CO2 in the > atmosphere is largely accumulative, not recycling. The odd thing is Not true. Some processes bury CO_2 on the mantle, or the ocean floor, or in carbonate deposits, or oil and cola deposits. Its all about a balance - for CO_2 stabilisation to occur, generation of CO_2 must balance the rate of removal. However to retain economic growth, absolute decoupling must occur, in order for economic growth not to increase the rate of CO_2 production. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
