Fix for global warming

Small percentage uses tress like eucalyptus, and it doesn't even say why they are logged.

If where these trees are coming from are areas being cleared for some other purpose, should all producers boycott them, so they waste and produce methane? Can you say these trees would not be logged if not for these products? Especially when the source is Canadian. This country is more environmentally concerned than ours.

The material you provide uses very little relevant information. It's like using bullet points, highlighting what is important to the person making the article.

How do you expect anyone to take serious, information that comes from radical agenda driven groups like Greenpeace?

I don't see your argument as valid at all. When people like me speak of using old growth for making products, we are speaking of trees like Douglas Fir. Not Pine or Eucalyptus. This makes your articles specifying old growth outside of Fir trees null and void!

 

Why? Do you think there is some radical difference in growth rate?

 

A study from OSU:

http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/14632/02HarmonMarks.pdf

 

Eight minutes between me posting a reply with a rather detailed link and your response

Tell me - DID you click on the link?

 

No.

It's just that old Fir trees take in so much less CO2 than younger fast growing Fir trees.

To imply all trees are equal is a joke. Living in the NW, I have seen these arguments for a rather long time now. It is settled better than climate change, that younger fir trees capture more CO2 than older ones that class as "old growth."

 

Yes, I did.

I find your laziness appalling. You need to find an article that makes your case.

I often ignore people who use the tactic of information overload as you did.

Two articles speak of fir trees in the search, and they don't quantify old vs. young. If that was the point you wish to make, then read them and point out the paragraph making you case.

Stop wasting my time, else you will be on IGNORE.

 

1. Reduce the population. If sea levels rise, there will be less space for people, not like there isn't enough now. I know this might sound morally wrong, but the third world countries' population needs to be reduced.
2. Everybody uses electricity sparsely, only for bare necessities: cooking, bathing, etc. This will reduce the amount of energy used so it could last in the long run.
3. Set up a worldwide system that feeds everyone enough for 2 meals a day. Everyone else is on their own for other food.
4. Transportation is by foot or bike, no cars or busses. Trains will be in use only for routes to other cities.
5. No more terrorism or anything along those lines. Global peace should be established because everyone is fighting for their own lives.

 

Now you know how I feel with the repeated demands I search something others have insisted is true

And BTW - I have not reported THIS post but will future personal sttacks

- - - Updated - - -

Now you know how I feel with the repeated demands I search something others have insisted is true

And BTW - I have not reported THIS post but will future personal sttacks

 

What's interesting to me about the proactive and reactive steps regarding global climate change, and I'm speaking of the USA, but we don't even seem to have enough money to fill pot holes and pave roads! The idea of relocating people, homes and businesses away from new flood zones will not just be logistically a mess but will cost trillion$ and take many decades to achieve. How will the global climate change potential effect the US economy? What happens if we begin wholesale loss of our farms and orchards? Yes the government can spend trillion$ more debt money, and this will energize some segments of the economy, but others will fail. What will be the financial status of the US if our debt is $25-$30+ trillion assuming we can even sell the bonds? Take a place like New Orleans...does the government simply say that all people and business must relocate by 2050 outside of new flood zones? Same question with New York or Miami, etc.? Does the US do what the Netherlands have done and build seawalls with gigantic pumps around all flood-proned areas?

Makes no difference to me the litany of issues and solutions; I'm wondering where the trillion$ will come from and how this effects the economy...

 

New housing and construction. Bonus!

 

Who do you suppose pays to relocate and rebuild entire towns and cities? The private sector can't do it because they don't have the money and their properties cannot be sold and their entire property appreciation and investment will be lost. Like I said...we can't even find the money to fill pot holes and pave roads...yet we're talking about building everything from scratch! The complexity, the costs, the time necessary to force change, are literally astronomical to our current scale of economy. I cannot imagine in any way whatsoever that being reactive to climate change issues will be a positive for the economy...or anything for that matter...

 

Seeing how the West Antarctica is allegedly supposed to raise sea levels 4 feet in 200 to 900 years, I think there is some time to think about it.

 

I think there are more potential issues other than just sea level rise. How do you rationalize what happens 'if' one of those land-locked ice sheets break off and move into the ocean?

 

Stay out of it's way?