Is Higher CO2 Necessarily Harmful?

No, sir. You evidently have severely limited knowledge of the resources available to humankind.

The resources are there. We can provide food and water to at least twice the current human population.

But, what it will take, is freedom. Liberty.

So long as corrupt, dictatorial, and communistic governments exist, there shall ever be shortages.

 

Then I guess we need some ownership of the oceans, eh?

Right quick!

Tree farmers don't cut down all the trees. They save some, and plant more. The oceans would be managed the same way, if private ownership was involved.

Sustainability = Profits

- - - Updated - - -

Hey. Let's just all give up.

Let's quit.

 

Are you telling me that topsoil can't be transported?

 

and with that gem you've exposed just how out of touch with reality you are...

 

Yeah?

Well, I began work last week on housing projects here in Pennsylvania. 14 buildings, 12 units apiece. The site had been a farm for the last 200+ years.

In the week I was there, I watched a tri-axle dumptruck of topsoil hauled out of there every half-hour, for 10 hours a day. And there are still two gigantic mounds of topsoil left. And the job superintendent informed me that 80% of the topsoil was hauled out before we ever came in and broke ground...

Which is typical.

This soil is so rich, it smells like crap. Literally.

 

right and now you go ahead and truck that topsoil to northern canada in an amount of sufficient depth and distance to make commercial farming feasible...and who exactly is going to pick up the tab that will run into hundreds of trillions for that? you? the tea party? and when the deniers idea for trucking/shipping the amazon river around the world who is paying for that? you? the tea party? and when the amazon basin the lungs of planet that processes so much CO2 suffers an ecological collapse who is going to pay for that? I you won't you'll expect the impoverished third world to pay for it even though the CC is largely the fault of the industrialized west ...

deniers have this weird economics going on, engineering projects of an enormous scale, moving(shipping) rivers around the globe, transporting farmland across continents, these are people who object to an efficient carbon tax(no way they'll pay a few cents more for their fuel), ecologically low impact wind turbines because they may kill a few birds(we can destroy the amazon basin no problem with that), pricey electric cars, the trillions required for global engineering projects is no problem as long as the impoverished third world is going to pay for it...

 

Rich soil does not smell like crap...in fact it smells sweet. Since you are in Pennsylvania you most likely have some Amish people working there just ask them what good soil smells like.

Just because soil is black does not make it rich. Soil that smell like crap sounds like a poorly drained soil to me.

Years ago when they drained farmland they would use wood as tiles for drainage. The tiles probably rotted and the soil became too wet.

 

The ground I am working on was once owned by the highway department and for years heavy eqipment packed it down and spread gravel all over it.
I can not drive a fencepost without a serious effort. They sink only to the blades and then bend.

The best way to build soil I have found is a terrace on a hillside. You make the front end higher than the back and the middle to catch the silt coming down the hill. Kinda like a bowl. In a few years you may be able to grow some strawberries. Also put in any clay or pulverised rock you can find.

 

Dams, canals, pipelines. You just refuse to know the fact that there are dry places in South America where that water could be put to good use -- if governments were not required to give the value of hydrological projects away to landowners in return for nothing.

Probably make it more useful.

The Colorado River is in fact an excellent example of how to use fresh water rather than let it drain into the ocean and be wasted.

 

how nice of you to volunteer the amazon give away I'm sure Brazil will be okay with that...how about I volunteer the Mississippi to be diverted to dry Mexico, not likely huh since the usa has stopped the the Colorado's flow into Mexico...you're okay with diverting other countries rivers but as long as it's not yours...

destroying the largest CO2 sink on the planet, oh yeah that would be really useful...

what was done to the Colorado is the very definition of waste, fountains, lawns and swimming pools in the desert yeah that's really smart use of a precious resource...the Colorado river diversion is an ecological disaster ...

 

Thanks for the predictably stupid, irrelevant and dishonest garbage. There are plenty of places IN BRAZIL that could use the fresh water.

Actually, I think it's better to divert a river to another country than let it run into the ocean.

That is the kind of stupidity that calls building a store "destroying the neighborhood." No, it doesn't "destroy" the neighborhood, it just changes it. Similarly, using the Amazon more productively would not "destroy" the carbon sink, just change it -- and your hysteria assumes carbon is something that needs to be sunk.

It's BETTER THAN LETTING IT RUN INTO THE SEA.

There is a difference between a "disaster" and something just being a bit different from the way it was before. Preservationist ninnies cannot understand that difference. They believe that any change to anything "destroys" that thing. That belief is not rational, nor can it be altered by any appeal to reason.

 

your quote roy..."You just refuse to know the fact that there are dry places in South America where that water could be put to good use" Bolivia is in S America roy so is Chile, both could use water... your words roy, you volunteered Brazil's water to other countries...first you imply there is no water shortage in much of the world that can't be fixed because of rivers like the amazon then you say it isn't for other countries but where the river flows...how does that solve the water shortage of countries with shortages?

really, wanna guess how much water is left in the colorado river when it reaches the mexican border? ...no doubt your opinion on helping neighbours has canada's water in mind diverted south to meet future US shortages, but mexico not so much...

or actually reaching mexico, swimming pools in desert US trumps mexican shortages...

what's not rational roy is destroying something without forethought as to the long term consequences, that's just plain simple stupidity...

 

No, that's a fabrication on your part. I simply pointed out that there were dry places that could use the water. And FYI, a huge amount of the water in the Amazon actually comes from Bolivia, Peru, Venezuela and Colombia, so it's a moot point which country "owns" it.

No, that is another fabrication. I merely refuted your claim that there was a global shortage of fresh water.

I don't think it's helpful to think in terms of which country the water is "for" or which one "owns" it.

Countries are not the relevant units, other than for political purposes. Some areas have too little fresh water, other areas are letting it run back into the sea, wasted. The latter areas have no rightful claim to deprive others of it if they are just going to waste it that way.

As little as the USA can get away with, I assume. It's certainly better to use it than let it run into the sea.

Canada lets lots of fresh water run into the sea, wasted.

I'm sure there's some sort of international treaty that covers it.

Who said anything about no forethought? My forethought is just reasoned and informed... unlike yours.

 

In Pennsylvania, if the soil smells like crap, it could be crap. When I was in the service they tore down an "old west" building that had been used for years as storage. It used to be the Calvary horse barn (brick). They had poured a cement floor over it. When they tore up the floor, you could smell crap for miles.