vampares’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Richard Branson

  That's £2.5m to hear himself breath.On Sir Richard to the Rescue? posted 2 years, 9 months ago 16 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Asbestos

  I win.On Sir Richard to the Rescue? posted 2 years, 9 months ago 16 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  vampares

  The obvious answer to this to trap the carbon in some sort of biomass.  This is the very concept of something like a biodome only the biomass would be, could be inert roughage rather than say carrots.  It is said that the "fossil fuels" are just such roughage from many years ago that converted themselves to petro and coal.

  Why the CO2 reabsorbed isn't reabsorbed by the enviroment at the rate it is released, is likely the lack of long term green space, that which isn't reintroduced into the atmosphere.  It is not a complicated issue to devise a rapid photosynthetic organism that could occupy less space than, say, a forest.  Like a super pete bog.   It would also be easier to recuperate nutrients either passively or actively.

  Funny thing about biologists is that they tend to value the natural world and earths creatures and so they would rather see forests restored and who really wants a pete bog?  Another problem is that that pete is a lot less useful than petro.  In fact once all that carbon is locked up in pete it is difficult to get it back out usefully without releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere.  Which may or may not be an issue, if the CO2 in the atmosphere can be recycled in a similar fashion with something like corn ethanol at a rate balanced with the usage of such fuel.  Of course it could be, so the matter is just restoring and maintaining CO2 levels with respect to petro use.

  The ocean absorbs a substantial amount of the CO2 regardless so reduced consumption will eventually lead to lower CO2 levels.  Still with populations rising it is important to reduce the impact lifestyles have on the environment.  Reduction of livestock not only increases natural environment space but also decreases other greenhouse gases.

  Fuel efficiency is meaningless if communities are poorly planned.  Gas prices are still lower than bottled water because:

  Oil Consumption = Progress

  Or at least it did for a while.  Now it equate ugly, smelly, light and sound pollution.  It is not terribly economical to be "fuel efficient" if other key factors make more money in the use of fuel.  The strangest thing that less efficient is more efficient.  Which brings us to one of the most divisive points:  combating "global"-warming is not a entrepreneurial undertaking.  Greenhouse gasses are by their very nature a profit margin.  It has been seen time and again that when and where profits are concerned it is an insectous, squelling and clawing thing.  

  There are some clever inventors who come up with new ways of trapping gasses, or producing efficient or new energy.  In model and on paper they are profit generating ideas that solve problems.  When they begin to have any real world impact however they meet very stiff resistance.  Small scale solutions could be combined to in effect deminish global-warming.  Real solutions need to be truely global and industry wide simple means that developing nations can adopt as well.  As we stand today in as little as 50-100 years the worlds poorest people will on the very brink of devistation as fossil-fuel prices spike.  Food, water, medicine, transportation and heating, all of these things will be more difficult to come by in nations that do not adapt and perhaps even those who do.On Sir Richard to the Rescue? posted 2 years, 9 months ago 16 Responses