Originally posted by Angus
I can try to explain this to you better Jackal, but I doubt it will work, for you seem unable to comprehend the explanation already there.
We are dumping a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, and that seems to cause the so called greenhouse effect.
The CO2 we are dumping is stored in the earth, much in the form of oil and also coal.
It was plantmass before it turned to oil and coal.
Soil also contains some plantmass. Carbon and Nitrogen hook up.
Plants tie up CO2, especially trees.
Some CO2 gets released as well due to canalization, and by chopping down rainforests to get to the rich soil in the bottom, or so it is believed, for a thick plantmass in i.e. moorland contains a lot of carbon (enough to use it as fuel at times) and by "airing" it, one gets the Nitrogen out, - free fertilizer as long as it lasts.
So what is mankind doing?
1. Pumping vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere
2. Reducing forests in order to benefit from the short term economics of both the lumber and the sich soil in the bottom, thereby reducing the amount of CO2 being tied up again. (A lot of coffee is grown that way)
3. Not fighting deserts enough, so they keep growing.
A response is:
1. Use less fuel.
2. Increase vegetated areas.
Angus, I comprehend what you are attempting to put forth here, but the problem is I don`t think you do.
You seem to be starting at point C or D in your theories instead of the beginning, point A or the origination point. Such as your 10% of farm land to produce fo the other 90%. That`s just fine if you are looking at it from a farmers perspective for profit to expense ratios, etc. What it doesn`t pertain to is is total CO2 emissions as a total. No matter what fuel you use to do all the hypothetical planting of forests and vegatation, you can`t start at point C, D, E, F, G or whatever to get a picture of what CO2 emmissions and other pollutants are involved. Start with point A. Machinery has to be built. It doesn`t just appear at time of delivery. First you have the factories and plants. They have to come from some where. Assuming that they are in place, then vast amounts of material have to be shipped from all over the world in most cases. All of which use fuel and burn fuel in obtaining, manufacturing and shipping. The building and production of such equipment itself is a real culprit if you are looking from it from this angle. Tons of pollution is produced. At the point of completion, the products have to be shipped. More pollution, more CO2 emissions. Machinery doesn`t run on thin air, so fuel is used.more pollution, more CO2 emissions. That`s ONE stage.
Reclamations of desert land is awesome I have to admit. Aquaducts, etc. are amazing in the point of what can be done with desert land. The only problem here is, when viewing it from a CO2/pollutant standpoint is , there is no magic Aquaduct wand to put them magicaly in place. They have to be built by someone. This puts us back to production. shipping and usage of machinery and vehicles of all types. More pollutants. Once in place , they do no good unless utilized. More planting, tilling, cultivation, which equals to more machinery/vehicle usage , which in turn produces more pollutants.
More forests? Hey I`m all for you on this one. Someone has to plant the forests. Guess what that means?
Forests or mass amounts of vegeatation , once in place, could not be left unattended and untouched to provide any benefit from the standpoint that you are looking at it from. Thinned occasionaly, cultivated and partial harvest has to be done to prevent what? Rottting vegetation not only produces beneficial fertilize , as you put it. What else does it produce? Back to more shipping, machinery and fuel usage.
Some of the things you are suggesting here I would like to see happen, but I don`t believe it would accomplish what you are trying to put forth. Will it happen is another question that can easily be answered. Absolutely not.
I will give you this much. You seem to be totaly convinced of the theory and also seem to be very sincere. The thing is what you are putting forth as a solution to a theoretical problem is equal to peeing on a wildfire , in a head wind after drinking gasoline.
From my view point, looking at what you have suggested so far, the nuclear winter seems to be the most plausible and the most possible. Holy Moly Margarette, run for the hills. We`re doomed!
Old homestead/farmer saying around here pretty well sums it up. "That`s like burning down the barn to get rid of the rats."
