Hi Jos, I linked three things together: 1. Trees. 2. Plenty of trees (making sure they are effective because slow) 3. Population control. If the population is significantly within our ability to allow the trees to do their important work then a balance may be achieved? It seems to me Branson is the consummate self-publicist and has once again done a fine job. By the way, did anyone notice Branson's cameo in 'Casino Royale'? One blink and you miss it. Love, Mark In a message dated 13/02/2007 15:13:05 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Ian et al I actually think Branson has a point Seems to me that although trees are evidently effective CO2 traps they don't do it all that fast. Whilst it may be very nice eco warrior rhetoric to say "plant a million trees" we would have to plant trees at a faster rate than we are burning fuels, and given the growth rates involved compared to the rates of combustion (in which I include respiration) it just isn't going to work. If we accept that the tiger economies will continue to expand their industrial programs and that the rest of us just cant galvanise ourselves to really try at all, then we have to come up with a technology based fix, even if its only a contingency. Its no good being personally green and publicising green issues whilst we watch the planet burn around us. Not to say that these endeavours are not worthwhile, but Branson is quite right that we need a serviceable plan B that can be brought to effect more quickly. Looking at it in terms of energetics: You put energy into low energy waste substrates to yield high energy fuels, allow the reac to run the other way and you get lots of waste and lots of energy evolved. Our problem is our overall energy requirement, trying to drive low energy state waste products back into fuels just increases our overall energy needed. My solutions would be to either use GM biological processes to do the redux bit through photosynthesis but in some highly catalysed industrial way, where the system is able for example to operate way outside of the conditions normally required for life (and thus much faster), or massively increase the amount of energy we generate through nuclear, solar, wind and geothermal to the extent that there is a sufficient surplus clean energy generated which we are able to "spend" on carbon absorption factories. This sounds heretical and completely counterintuitive, but we must fix the problem now at the same time that we address its causes. moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
