I don't know exactly, but some issues might need to be looked into...

Diamonds are a cool idea! Some kind of 3D printing perhaps?

Ok, that I can understand. I wonder how much carbon goes into a diamond, and if using a nuclear reactor to power it would be religiously correct...then sell the diamonds to all the "concerned citizens" and make more...and more...

There are the alien videos on You Tube, one was absolutely perfect at Obama and his reptilian eyes.....

Ayn Rand might say (but I hope she would forgive
me if this is " putting thoughts into [her] brain"),
that people put up with it because of an attitude
of "fundamental guilt"; that, because they don't have the right philosophy, they don't stand up for
the right to live their own lives, with proudly
righteous defiance.

I think its a bit like the usage of the word "sustainable" today. As soon as there is money to made from it, it gets misused. People started marketing "sequestering" carbon into trees because there are profits in fooling people that it helps atmospheric CO2 levels, but it doesn't. Outside of marketing BS, the correct use of the word is when carbon is fully removed from the natural atmosphere-biomass cycle, and buried under silt to cut off oxygen, adding to the very slow geologic cycle. Even in the rock it will end up in the atmosphere, because even the continents we know today (with their buried hydrocarbons) will erode away every few hundred million years. But the atmosphere-biomass cycle is extremely rapid, and the key issue is the short-circuit we create by extracting and adding back the geologic carbon into the rapid atmosphere-biomass cycle.

Of course I'm not agreeing with the EPA statements or their planned "fixes". No government agency ever really wants to fix the problem, they only want to monetize it. If someone goes and solves it they would lose a source of revenue.

That is interesting, the link I added seemed to use the term to mean "storage within the tree/leaves/seed" and is released when the tree is burned or decomposed. Is there a place where there are some generally accepted terms or is it like the term "Climate Change" and a misnomer?

It seems like a terminology problem. You mention sequestering carbon as part of the process of growth of wood. It is not. Growth is simply reversed when the tree decomposes. Sequestering carbon is when it is locked up somehow, removing it from that balanced cycle. The only current process doing that is anaerobic marshes creating peat, but they are very limited in area. ALL other soils today are aerobic and so NOT sequestering any of the biomass growing and decomposing on it.

So in a mature forest the fixed carbon reservoir has an equal flow of carbon (as growth) and back to the atmosphere (as decomposition). As those two flows must be exactly equal it makes no difference whether the flow is a few grams or many kilograms per sq metre. So trying to measure its flow is just wasted effort, the grant application would not get past me!

I would say you consider sequestering a static action, but it seems that the carbon is sequestered (as wood, leaves seeds) but it is an ongoing cycle, therefor it is a continuous process, where an ongoing amount of carbon is removed from the environment and stored. It does get released when the wood is taken, either by processing or decay.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/for...

Exactly. There s no good source of unbiased data, even the old "stalwarts" such as NASA seem to have been infected with the political power virus, so that is one main reason for my objection to anyone saying "we have the fix". They have yet to prove there is a problem and a cause relationship to prove their fix will work.

As a politician might say, "I don't recall."
If you have some online research to share, please start a discussion. I am interested.

Hi Freedomforall,
Hydrocarbon fuels .vs fossil fuels. Has this been discussed in a post? I am interested in the fossil fuel theory and the accuracy.I have heard some interesting things of it's origin. The thing that doesn't make sense to me is what evidence is there that fossils were in mass quantities 15,000 ft below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico and then 27,000 feet into the bottom.

Quoting JuliBMe: "some of YOU HERE, TOO?????) have fallen for the scam hook, line, and sinker."

The so-called science relies on selected evidence ("Only count the data if it drives our agenda"), and on faulty mathematics ("choose a method that is likely valid but not in our particular context, and portray as mathematical idiots any who dare fault us .").

That article is based on a faulty premise, that the rainforest sequesters any carbon at all. (BTW, if I were a scientist I would support that premise if it meant an opportunity to go study the amazon for a year)
The fact remains that any mature forest holds a fixed 14 to 18 kg of carbon per sq metre. That carbon continuously cycles to and from the atmosphere by photosynthesis and decomposition. There is NO NETT FLOW of carbon OUT OF that cycle, therefore there is no nett removal of CO2 from the atmosphere. The balance of that cycle might change during a drought year, but it does not change the long term ZERO FLOW of carbon.

Even forest fires, which release probably at least half of that carbon reservior into the atmosphere rapidly, only have a small effect. The carbon will be back to the 14 to 18 kg reservior again within a couple of decades.

Agreed on that CG, while it may be a problem, the thought police have hijacked it to their own agenda. I cannot think of any government program that fixed anything and did not introduce a bunch of other problems. Something as complex as this issue cannot be addressed through one fix, or even a series of fixes. It takes advancing past the need to use the problem sources, and then remediation, all of which could be done by private industry if the billions of regulations were cleaned up and eliminated and replaced with some common sense.

At least that is a big part of the equation. So, while limiting gasses may help, the GW empire needs to look at all the parts, not just the ones they want, that indicates the climate is not their main target in the discussion, but how much control they can get using it as an excuse...

Not being an expert in it, I would say that that is an underestimated issue, here is just one discussion that taps on it's impact, where they talk about how drought effects it, but I think if you look at what was there 50 years ago, and what is there today. a lot has been lost. In addition there wer huge forests across the US that have also disappeared in the last 200 years, and the GW people bitch about mans impact in the last 200 years. Correlation?

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/dr...

BTW I do not subscribe to anyone view on this, since no one wants to be factual without messing with the facts, so it is hard to have a position based on rational thought..GIGO...

Yes, and that is one of the things the GW people ignore, take all the forests and plants that have been removed, and then see if the math would work, rather than just look at the input parts. Not that that is the ultimate answer but if you are going to bitch about something, at least include all the facts. A lot of people argued for the last 30 years about the Amazon for a lot of reasons, and everyone on both sides ignored it. I am all for a factual discussion, but not the manipulated BS the GW crowd want.

The biosphere of Earth of course depends on equillibria. By releasing carbon stored over millions of years, we've increased the amount of CO2 in the air, changing the equilibrium. The Earth's biosphere will continue to exist, but human activities are changing it ways that will be very costly for human generations. That in itself is not necessarily bad. If affecting the environment in a way that costs people a few trillion dollars 100 years from now but allows the world economy to grow 1% faster, that's a huge net benefit. The problem is we're not factoring that in. We do activities that seem profitable but are only profitable if you ignore the value stolen from people negatively affected in the future.

Hemp works pretty good and it provides enough energy to pay for itself.

Now ... as for those political obstacles ...

I referred to AS's Colorado with regard to local government not interfering with scientific advance of technology. You may be right about the availability of natural resources with current technology;^)

The CO2 upward trend is the result of deforestation, not burning fossil fuels. Even so, there are signs of the planet greening up. The earth is not now and has never been a static place ... the balance has always been dynamic and it continues as before.

Look at the planet from the satellites ... that "dangerous" CO2 in the air is being absorbed by plants and being captured. The planet is balancing itself.

I think you are wrong and I've already cast my vote for her opposition. I think that her creditors ... those she has sold things to that she will not be able to deliver, will provide the closing scene.

She expects is to die.