--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jul 5, 2006, at 12:36 PM, new.morning wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> On Jul 5, 2006, at 11:22 AM, new.morning wrote: > >> > >> > >>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. To you, I suppose it would sound like spin. > >>> Something > >>> just made up last month by right-wing spinsters, right? If that is > >>> your view, it is totally uniformed. I dealt professionally with CO2 > >>> sequestration and its pricing 15 years ago. And even then, it was an > >>> old, established approach to GCC. > >>> > >>> Perhaps read a bit on this "new" concept, obviously (to you and the > >>> guys on the grassy knoll) manufactured just for spin. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> Well in the kyoto protocols the whole 'carbon sink as forests' > >> > > > > So does that imply that all the other carbon sequestion / sink > > technologies / methods other than forests are fine with you? As they > > appear to be with most climate scientists? (Forests are onlyone offour > > major sinks.) > > > > What is your specific issue with forests? > > > It's not just forests, it's that a sink gives an excuse to emit even > more emissions. For every ton of carbon stored in a carbon sink, the > Kyoto Protocol allows the release of an additional ton of carbon from > fossil fuel!
Well, not exactly Vaj. The reduced carbon levels need to be met. After that yes. So what. Stabilizing carbon at acceptable levels is a good thing. And Kyoto is not perfect. Its a first step. However, if one were to imply sequestering of carbon has a fatal flaw because an inital CGC treaty has flaws, the arguement would be so specious, such a sequestering non-sequitar, the laughter would blow alot of atmospheric carbon to the moon. I would be surprised if you raised it. You must be implying otherwise. > > Makes me wonder if, like our national energy policy, this was also > written by the energy industry! > "The argument to use carbon sink credits to halt climate change is > thus based on the faulty assumption that 'carbon is carbon', an > assumption that ignores the different interactions of the carbon with > the atmosphere, depending on where the carbon is stored." And when are you going to make a point of substance? I already quoted that to you. Saying its obvious. And that the group has not cited any reforestation project that has released its carbon. What would that be Vaj? It would mean burning down the forest. Can you cite any CO2 sequestration reforestation projects that ahve been bruned doswn. > > there are further flaws of the > concept once we look more closely at the Kyoto Protocol itself. Duh. Its a compromise agreement. Lots of room for improvement. See above -- do flaws in Kyoto make sequestering CO2 invalid? What a joke. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
