Tell me what you think?
| Please note: Forum content is not written or endorsed by Rising Tide. Anyone can make an account and post a rant in this section of the website. Don't blame us if what you read is incoherent, wrong, insane, or offensive! |
Most people only think of one way to end climate change, and that is to dramatically reduce CO2 emissions. But to really end climate change we would need to do more than just reduce CO2 emissions. We need a three pronged approach, and that approach is;
1. Eliminate the Symptoms - Mostly the planet has, so far, just tried to shore up against drought and the chances of extreme climate conditions. But is there really a silver bullet that will end all symptoms until we get our act together and have converted to more environmentally friendly energy? I don't know, but I have seen some promising things that could delay the onset for a few hundred years. We all should know one, reflective sulphur dust, how about another, a large shield in outer space, or a third, fertilizing the ocean. So they are out there, but before I go on here is another one, my suggestion. It is the Seven Islands of Floating Mirrors.
Seven islands floating with anchorage on top of currents that travel towards the poles. The water underneath cools as there is no sunlight on it. The water then keeps on travelling towards the poles a few degrees cooler. How does this help? Firstly the poles will refreeze up lowering sea levels back to normal. Secondly the colder waters will affect the climate more favorably then warmer waters. Okay, my predictions of what will happen is, The Great Barrier Reef will not bleach and die, The 1000 year drought (worst drought in a thousand years) in Australia will disappear with the el'nino side effects. America will have a lot less chance of Hurricane Katrina of ever happening again and Europe will not have to go through the predicted ice age when Greenland melts. Now the whole 7 islands will cover 477,000 square kilometres, which is 250*250 kilometres each, that will completely offset the heat increase of 0.33 Watts per metre squared per year, as is the current trend. But because they will be placed in strategic locations, you could shrink their size if the cost is too excessive. These islands can have a dual effect where if you place slow dissolving phosphorus blocks underneath, you can increase seaweed and algae growth underneath. There should be at least one fifth of the light hitting the ocean in between the panels to preserve ocean life underneath. There will be a new ecosystem underneath the mirrors, to which some fish stocks will thrive. They can be fished without worry to the overall planets ecosystem. And if you are worried about cyclones and hurricanes of destroying them, try lifting an upside down bucket with no air inside out of the water. Yes it will be expensive but any nation could build them without any new or fancy technology. Want to end Africa's starvation crisis and climate change in one hit. A trillion dollars from the G20 could easily do it. Are mirrors too expensive, well check out China and their two dollar plastic cars with chrome finish all over them.
2. Lower CO2 emissions - Should I say enough said. Well no, how about extra incentive schemes with interest free loans for individuals to convert to solar power by having solar panels on his or her house. Why hasn't the world followed Australia yet in getting rid of incandescent globes. Etcetera etcetera etcetera..
3. Removing CO2 from the atmosphere - The only things that have been happening so far is some offsetting schemes have been established. Such as growing trees, which take 88 years to suck down the required CO2 the person has paid for. Others are schemes that turn bad polluters into lesser polluters, which should be legislated anyway rather than do gooder greenies being thieved to help a company do what they should be doing anyway.
So where is a genuine scheme that will help remove the paid amount of CO2 immediately? I haven't found one yet. But here is a suggestion which whoever runs it will make a profit and we don't have to strain our back pockets to pay for. Why don't we use the old finished opencut and underground mines and fill them full of organic material, then cover it. Now 1 ton of organic material equals 2.5 tons of CO2. One mine could net 10 million tons of coal? maybe, but help bury 100 million tons of organic material. What is so good is the fact that you can choose any plant to grow, only use sewerage as fertilizer and watering and at $40 per ton buried, you don't need much transport, no shipping, no real preparation and you can use the leftover of plant crops we eat to bury. It would only add 8 cents Australian per litre of fuel to make carbon neutral, 1.2 cents for E85 fuel. Even better, car companies could sell carbon neutral vehicles for the first 300 000 kilometres for $900 Australian dollars. And that is a 12 litre per 100 kilometre gas guzzler (around 6 gallons per 100 miles). Even Arnold Schwarzenegger would allow those cars into California but make sure they're scrapped on their 300 000 kay birthday. Unless the owner pays for his own carbon neutrality for a few more years worth. It's an export business without physically exporting anything. Only franchising and the net does anything like it. Oh by the way, once an opencut mine is full of organic material and is buried, it will become the best farmland around eventually as the nutrients travel towards the surface while the carbon gets trapped underground.
Well if that is not the answer then I hope someone gets Richard Branson's 25 million dollars soon, then I'll know the planet will be saved eventually.
Ripper
1. Please advise how said islands will be constructed and what fantastic materials will they be made of? I gather they are to be built on your faulty premise that heat increase of 0.33 Watts per metre squared per year is happening. Please note that current ocean temperature measurements using the Argo network slow a slight cooling trend since mid-2003. Who would pay for their construction and ongoing maintenance? IS there any chance you can predict that these island would remove my mother in law as well as doing all the great things that are mentioned? Actually that brings me to point two.
2. Can I provide a manager for the islands movements? Preferably the manager would be one one of the said islands which presumably will be in a very remote location.
3. Your great analysis of the need to reduce CO2 emissions pretty much speaks for itself. May I remid you that Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant. CO2 is a clear, odourless gas that is necessary to life. The essential fact to remember is that carbon dioxide is at the most 385 parts per 1,000,000 of the atmosphere, which is 0.0385 percent.The vast oceans which cover 71% of the planet, plus plants, absorb 98.5% of the carbon dioxide (CO2) that is emitted by nature and man. As CO2 increases in the atmosphere, nature's controlling mechanism causes plant growth to increase via photosynthesis; CO2 is absorbed, and oxygen is freed. Photosynthesis is an endothermic, (cooling), reaction.
4. Your concept of putting organic material in underground mines is downright shameful. If only you understood the science behind reinforced and paste type backfills used in underground mines. Did you stop to consider the large amounts of flammable methane that would be generated by the rotting organic debris? Of course the organic material will deform under the natural pressure exhibited underground. And then finally who is going to pay for this ridiculous extravagence built upon faulty assumptions?
In summary; frankly sir or madam, your ideas as put forward are ludicrous and at best, laughable and at their worst wasteful and dangerous. I strongly suggest that you go to sleep with a mirror and wake up to yourself.
Wilks, you are a
Wilks, you are a fool.