Cook Islands aim for all-green power by 2020

Unlike larger countries, the rich and powerful cannot buy 'exclusive estates in the remaining untamed wilderness' so they have to live with the general environment just like the poor trash.

Makes for a powerful incentive to clean up the act. Too bad it doesn't apply to the rest, at least not as fast..

HERE IT'S EASY TO BE GREEN! ambergheights.webs.com

CO2 isn't pollution, it's plant food.

Brian_G wrote:

CO2 isn't pollution, it's plant food.

But just like oxygen, to much is deadley.

The Keeper wrote:

But just like oxygen, to much is deadley.

The 3 astronauts in early 1967 burned very quickly in a space capsule equipped with a pure oxygen breathing system. Many complaints had been raised about the danger of pure oxygen. Took the deaths of great astronauts to finally override the pencil pushing peanut counters.

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

Unlike larger countries, the rich and powerful cannot buy 'exclusive estates in the remaining untamed wilderness'

The rich and powerful can buy whatever they want, wherever they want.
But who would want to buy exclusive estates in the untamed wilderness?

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

so they have to live with the general environment just like the poor trash.

We all need your badly described, "poor trash" to survive.

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

Makes for a powerful incentive to clean up the act.

At the expense of your, "poor trash?"

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

Too bad it doesn't apply to the rest, at least not as fast..

Stop rambling, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty, no one (with any sense) agrees with you.

The carbon dioxide we exhale or produce with transportation and energy production isn't "too much". It's just enough, we could emit more to enliven our economy and environment.

I propose 500ppmv by 2050, just for grins and giggles. It's not an experimental test of climate change mitigation, but it's fun.

The Keeper wrote:

<quoted text>But just like oxygen, to much is deadley.

While oxygen and glucose are 'plant food' to most green plants, CO2 is of no use to them at any concentration.

That is why they must expend energy and effort to 'detoxify' it to recycle the oxygen and carbon.

To say that plants need CO2 is to say that animals need shit. Just because the 'nutrients' are recycled and you need the shit as an 'input' to the recycling.

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

While oxygen and glucose are 'plant food' to most green plants, CO2 is of no use to them at any concentration.
That is why they must expend energy and effort to 'detoxify' it to recycle the oxygen and carbon.
To say that plants need CO2 is to say that animals need shit. Just because the 'nutrients' are recycled and you need the shit as an 'input' to the recycling.

I see you're back on your unscientific CO2 high horse again, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty, that's possibly your best howler yet.
Who or what feeds plants with, "glucose" and how would they survive for extended periods without CO2?
-
Do you ever wonder why no one has ever backed this weird theory of yours?
It's even more strange that your idea that forty is spelt with a U.
-
It's no surprise that 98% of posters have voted you as the most stupid poster here at Topix.
What's most surprising, is that you keep on compounding your stupidity.

The Keeper wrote:

<quoted text>But just like oxygen, to much is deadley.

So is too little, and we're much closer to too little than too much.

I just found this perfect headline:
-
Long on Hype, Short on Facts: FACE vs. non-FACE Studies of Plant Growth Responses to CO2
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V9/N52/EDI...
Just in case Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty has trouble deciphering the content, the science says that crop yield responds well to elevated levels of CO2.
Here's to 550ppmv CO2, it will help to feed an ever growing world population, which is currently 6,949,918,125.

"CO2 is not a pollutant. In simple terms, CO2 is plant food. The green world we see around us would disappear if not for atmospheric CO2. These plants largely evolved at a time when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was many times what it is today. Indeed, numerous studies indicate the present biosphere is being invigorated by the human-induced rise of CO2. In and of itself, therefore, the increasing concentration of CO2 does not pose a toxic risk to the planet." - John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alabama
-
In other words, no CO2 = no plant life = no animal life.

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a naturally occurring, beneficial trace gas in the atmosphere. For the past few million years, the Earth has existed in a state of relative carbon dioxide starvation compared with earlier periods. There is no empirical evidence that levels double or even triple those of today will be harmful, climatically or otherwise. As a vital element in plant photosynthesis, carbon dioxide is the basis of the planetary food chain - literally the staff of life. Its increase in the atmosphere leads mainly to the greening of the planet. To label carbon dioxide a "pollutant" is an abuse of language, logic and science." - Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Sciences, James Cook University
-
In other words, no CO2 = no plant life = no animal life.

"To suddenly label CO2 as a "pollutant" is a disservice to a gas that has played an enormous role in the development and sustainability of all life on this wonderful Earth. Mother Earth has clearly ruled that CO2 is not a pollutant." - Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University
-
In other words, no CO2 = no plant life = no animal life.

"I am at a loss to understand why anyone would regard carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Carbon dioxide, a natural gas produced by human respiration, is a plant nutrient that is beneficial both for people and for the natural environment. It promotes plant growth and reforestation. Faster-growing trees mean lower housing costs for consumers and more habitat for wild species. Higher agricultural yields from carbon dioxide fertilization will result in lower food prices and will facilitate conservation by limiting the need to convert wild areas to arable land." - David Deming, Ph.D. Geophysics
-
In other words, no CO2 = no plant life = no animal life.

"Atmospheric CO2 is required for life by both plants and animals. It is the sole source of carbon in all of the protein, carbohydrate, fat, and other organic molecules of which living things are constructed. Plants extract carbon from atmospheric CO2 and are thereby fertilized. Animals obtain their carbon from plants. Without atmospheric CO2, none of the life we see on Earth would exist. Water, oxygen, and carbon dioxide are the three most important substances that make life possible. They are surely not environmental pollutants." - Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Chemistry
-
In other words, no CO2 = no plant life = no animal life.

- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a natural part of Earth's Atmosphere (NASA)
- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere have risen from 0.028% to 0.038%(380ppm) over the past 100 years (IPCC)
- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not toxic until 5%(50,000ppm) concentration
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AGUSM...H31...
- Any detrimental effects of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) including chronic exposure to 3%(30,000ppm) are reversible
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AGUSM...H31...
- OSHA, NIOSH, and ACGIH occupational exposure standards are 0.5%(5,000 ppm) Carbon Dioxide (CO2) http://www.inspectapedia.com/hazmat/CO2gashaz...

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

...To say that plants need CO2 is to say that animals need shit. Just because the 'nutrients' are recycled and you need the shit as an 'input' to the recycling.

Animals need to expel waste and plants use that waste to make more food. Isn't life wonderful?

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a colorless, odorless trace gas that actually sustains life on this planet. Consider the simple dynamics of human energy acquisition, which occurs daily across the globe. We eat plants directly, or we consume animals that have fed upon plants, to obtain the energy we need. But where do plants get their energy? Plants produce their own energy during a process called photosynthesis, which uses sunlight to combine water and carbon dioxide into sugars for supporting overall growth and development. Hence, CO2 is the primary raw material that plants depend upon for their existence. Because plants reside beneath animals (including humans) on the food chain, their healthy existence ultimately determines our own. Carbon dioxide can hardly be labeled a pollutant, for it is the basic substrate that allows life to persist on Earth." - Keith E. Idso, Ph.D. Botany
-
In other words, no CO2 = no plant life = no animal life.

"Many chemicals are absolutely necessary for humans to live, for instance oxygen. Just as necessary, human metabolism produces by-products that are exhaled, like carbon dioxide and water vapor. So, the production of carbon dioxide is necessary, on the most basic level, for humans to survive. The carbon dioxide that is emitted as part of a wide variety of natural processes is, in turn, necessary for vegetation to live. It turns out that most vegetation is somewhat 'starved' for carbon dioxide, as experiments have shown that a wide variety of plants grow faster, and are more drought tolerant, in the presence of doubled carbon dioxide concentrations. Fertilization of the global atmosphere with the extra CO2 that mankind's activities have emitted in the last century is believed to have helped increase agricultural productivity. In short, carbon dioxide is a natural part of our environment, necessary for life, both as 'food' and as a by-product." - Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology
-
In other words, no CO2 = no plant life = no animal life.