Jump to content
Maybe YVEA ought to look into using LED lights for street lights to reduce energy consumption and also provide a much lower cost for lighting
That is a lot of cabbage, in comparison to the LED lights that add charm.
Done again, Enjoy believing that you are the almighty source of Knowledge.
Steve L. Unfortunately your acolytes that work on the left and right to make the world better fail to open their minds, to the fact that our government is just as responsible through its actions and subsidization of grain production for our current woes.
They are too knowledgable and too politically correct to actually see that just maybe the way poop has been done is wrong and not moving the world in a positive way.
Post was too long so I deleted most of it. Enjoy, the left and right trying to direct the ship with government funds. Show me how that direction in grain subsidies has been slightly good when viewing it as a whole and i will concede.
Done posting again as Mr Wizard, knows everything and states that the science is not sound on the sequestration of carbon in the soil. Good for you, I did not just ask that, I asked about the dead zones also. I also asked about the destruction of the local economies, because those subsidies coupled with the need to shelter incomes in ag land consolidated wealth making it hard for the small guy to compete, especially when all the elevators are owned by coops and you need a boatload of capital to operate a combine. The nutritional depletion of our foods coupled with the lacing of those foods with toxins that are killing us.
Gee Mr. Wizard, your analysis of the demographics was great, but you stick your head in the sand when someone counters with an argument that might just be a sound way, that the Paris Climate Accord is working towards, to help mitigate atmospheric carbon.
The proposed solution, is only going to slow the growth of CO2 into the atmosphere, where as the Argument Savory, Abe Collins and a host of others actually works towards rectifying the problem.
You go save us all, how, reduce emissions or actually extract that carbon out to the atmosphere. Oh yeah, by the way I believe it is U of W that has found a way to extract that carbon from the atmosphere and turn it into Carbon Fiber. We are not talking about solutions to the problem, as subsidizing the extraction of carbon is far better than shuttering coal plants, that other countries will not.
Scott, W. Go read my comment about half way down the article and provide some semblance of reason as to why the course should be shuttering Coal plants versus stopping the subsidy of grain production and maybe subsidizing the storage of Carbon in the Soil?
Government intervention is largely to blame for the problem, in that it has fostered a system which is depleting soil carbon, which is a far bigger issue than CO2 in the atmosphere.
Scott, you fail to ever acknowledge, one of the key elements to reversing CO2 levels in the atmosphere. That is putting it back in the dirt, your simple retort was that I don't believe it.
Fact is that the federal governments subsidy of grains, is one of the leading causes of Soil Carbon disappearing. They went to no-til and that really has not changed the fact that it is being depleted. Switching our agricultural system back to a pastoral one, will grow more food (has been shown on several farms), help to reverse CO2 levels in the atmosphere (the Paris Climate accord acknowledged such this year), Stop creating dead zones in our oceans (caused by fertilizer runoff from mainly row cropping systems that need those inputs to keep the system functioning), employ more people as it is more labor intensive (and the tax code ought to provide subsidies for employing people not tax burdens - as technology does not pay its fair share and is largely responsible for all that excess CO2).
So until the idiots in charge actually quit bowing to lobbying forces to continue systems which are detrimental to the world, in general, I see no reason to go along with a program that taxes one for a raw material in the growth of plants... and yet no tax on those chemicals that are put immediately into the atmosphere for the production of solar panels is brought forth.
Unfortunately, both sides of the table fail to see what is a simple solution, to a potentially large problem. Failing to acknowledge that CO2 might be a cause and investigating the quickest, simplest solution to a potentially game changing problem is STUPID. HOWEVER, the other side FAILS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT GOVERNMENT IS ALSO RESPONSIBLE, by subsidizing a system that is causing massive ecological HARM!
Good fences make good neighbors.
Scott, since you do not understand the benefit of putting Carbon back into our topsoil, this article, from the Paris Climate Summit, talks about putting .4% soil carbon back annually alleviates the carbon issue.
Then for those that think Solar is somehow a silver bullet for reversing climate change how about the manufacture of PV panels creates more potent greenhouse gases NF3 and SF6, and does so immediately, as opposed to 30 years as would the coal that is burned puts out CO2. In addition with regenerative agricultural practices that carbon, which is not toxic, which maybe the others are, as they are not really that natural, it can be put back into our soil. That way we are less subject to flooding and drought.
"Sometimes people do not want to hear the truth because they do not want their illusions destroyed" Freedrich Nietzsche
Enjoy solving the worlds problems. Sorry I am short, but left my mother in one hospital who appeared to be getting better to visit my father in law in another state, in the icy in another hospital
Enjoy all your answers. I just posed questions
In oak creek there is an excess of jobs so people commute? Yep Scott you are right you know all.
Last login: Wednesday, February 3, 2016
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |