Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie
Already looked that up. It was part of my answer to you. There were a flurry of papers (as I said) trying to push that out there.
Turns out the plankton solved that too.
Dude...nature and the Earth are bigger than mankind. I'm sure if we simultaneously blew up every nuclear weapon on Earth that maybe THEN we could really affect the future of the planet.
But until the govt. stops the carbon credit market, the Pres. stops leaving a carbon footprint bigger than the total of some small towns, the military stops putting out more CO2 than some small countries, and the Feds use federal money to put solar panels on everyone's homes INSTEAD of bailing out banks....then that should tell you just how "seriously" the govt. even takes this bullshit.
It's all about making money. I see no sense of "urgency" from our govt over this.
Just a bunch of talk (which ironically contributes CO2 lol) and proposals that take place 20 or 30 years from now.
|
Ok, lets just go along and say that all the CO2 absorbed by the Ocean is eaten up by plankton and doing this causes no other ill effects to the oceans. Highly unlikely IMO but lets just go with it for arguments sake.
Meaning CO2 issues in the ocean are solved. What about the added CO2 in the atmosphere? The oceans don't suck it all up and the larger percentage of what is created stays in the atmosphere as greenhouse gas, which continues to drive global warming. What about that problem?
Here is my problem Robbie..
If your side is right, the worst case, is we waste a bunch of money.
If my side of the argument is right and we don't try to do anything.. We all die.
What is the bigger risk? Do nothing, waste some money or end all life on this planet?