Dear ALTRAV,

In pre-industrial societies people traditionally
treated nature with respect, considering themselves
a part of, rather than set apart from, the natural world;
this attitude was typical, for example, among our
Indigenous people in pre-Colonial times.

We are so used to exploiting natural resources and
dumping our waste products into the environment that we
frequently forget that resources are limited and
exhaustible and that pollution can disrupt the ecological
balance on which our survival depends.

Over the past century, pollution of the environment has
begun to threaten the ecological balance of the planet
and the health of many of its species, including ourselves.

The pollution problem is an exceedingly difficult one to
solve, for several reasons. First, some people and
governments see pollution as a regrettable but inevitable
by-product of desired economic development - "where there's
smoke, there's jobs". Second, control of pollution requires
international co-ordination, for one country's emissions or
pesticides can end up in other countries air or food.
Third, the effects of pollution may not show up for many
years, so severe environmental damage can occur with little
public awareness that it is taking place. Fourth, preventing
or correcting pollution can be costly, technically complex,
and sometimes - when the damage is irreversible - impossible.

In general, the most industrialised nations are now actively
trying to limit the effects of pollution, but the populous
less developed societies are more concerned with economic
growth, and tend to see pollution as part of the price they
have to pay for it.

I won't go into the chemistry of atmospheric pollution here -
because it is extremely complex, as rain and sunlight blend
various compounds into a constantly changing photo-chemical
brew. Scientists are particularly worried about the effect
of air-pollution on the planet's ozone layer. Another
significant problem is acid rain. Then we also have - as a
result of the burning of fuels and wastes and the razing
of forests, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
is steadily increasing. This gas creates a "greenhouse
effect". You can look all of these things up for yourself.

cont'd...

cont'd ...

Atmospheric pollution is not an inevitable outcome
of -industrial technology; it derives also from
political decisions to tolerate pollution rather
than bear the costs - probably including slower
economic growth - of limiting it. Control of
pollution is politically difficult, however, for
the economic interests behind "smokestack" industries
are a powerful political lobby, that is reluctant
to commit the necessary resources to the task.

Nobody denies that the planet has a finite amount
of resources or that it can tolerate only a limited
amount of pollution. If world population continues
to grow rapidly, if industrialisation spreads
around the world, and if pollution and resource depletion
continue at an increasing rate - and all these things
continue to happen - we need to ask ourselves - where is
human society headed?

The most optimistic answer to these questions would be that,
one way of another, sweeping social changes await us.

Now let's get back to the topic.

Toni, as I said I don't have any 'ludicrous' notions, only questions, and remember I am quoting others, so I'm as curious as the next guy when there are so many conflicting reports. I don't comment on the CO2 versus Carbon formula. I only highlight the surprise that forests and areas with major plant growth give off more than 30% more than was originally thought. BTW, we don't need the amounts of Oxygen you speak of for survival. Air is 70% Nitrogen and Oxygen is way less than the remaining 30% as it has to share it with other gases. Anyway sorry I believe I've dragged everyone off topic again. I'll go back in the shadows now and let everyone continue with this topic.

Alt Rave,

Does vegetation give off CO2 ? Yes, of course, when it's decaying. Stick your head in a compost bin and smell what is coming off, although of course CO2 is odourless Does vegetation suck up CO2 ? Yes, of course, when it's growing. Get out into forest and smell the fresh air.

All vegetation does both: it blows and it sucks. Vegetation grows (x) and it decays (y).

x = y

So, Foxy, why isn't there far, far more tree-planting, to suck up the 'excess' CO2 ? Down here in SA, with our squeaky-clean, brand-new (well, it's unused) desalination plant @ $ 2 billion or whatever, why can't water be diverted from all the way up the Murray (i.e. in SA: we don't steal other people's water), to be used for massive, on-going tree-planting to all points of the compass, and replenished by water from our desalination plant ? There's the unemployment problem solved right there, forever, plus future milling and furniture businesses (i.e. don't burn the bloody stuff, turn it into something long-lasting), etc.

In other words, if there is a problem with CO2, find ways to use it, divert it, counter it. There may not be the slightest need for renewables in that case: Chop down the wind-towers ! Let Adani develop ! Meanwhile, switch to nuclear.

Some problems DO have solutions.

Joe

//Does vegetation give off CO2 ? Yes, of course, when it's decaying.//

And all the rest of the time as well. Plants need to breathe (respire) just like people do, and chemically it's much the same process: O2 in, CO2 out. At night, when they stop photosynthesising, they only produce CO2.

//So, Foxy, why isn't there far, far more tree-planting, to suck up the 'excess' CO2 ?//

Because you've drastically underestimated the amount of trees required, Joe. Getting work for the dole participants out planting trees isn't a bad idea, but it's not really going to do squat as far as decreasing atmospheric CO2 goes. Still, it'll get the planters out in the fresh air and sunshine, so it's good for them even if it's not going to save the world.

Joe (Loudmouth),

Other countries eg., Israel use Australian natives, eucalyptus, cassias and some others for desert greening. Canals, solar & wind powered desal and pumps could be used to bring sea water inland.

Incrementalist, and the trees produce their own climate to add benefit.

Of course the Greens would be protesting that too.