stevoh

So, when are you organizing a rally?

Where is the UN arguing for cheap energy in this link? That is what we are comparing, the influence of cheap energy on poverty stricken populations, as opposed to decreasing nutrition.

The fact that market forces are causing positive consumer action right now is just good timing. If the market wasn't going crazy, then a carbon tax would be necessary to change buying habits. It doesn't matter to me how the change is caused, as long as it happens. And it is. I think ignoring climate models is as foolish as accepting them whole-heartedly without critisism. Once we come up with a climate model that can accurately predict, on a repeatable basis, the present based on the past, then I will have more faith in its ability to predict the future. Our positions have been defined with great clarity in this thread and others. Its too bad that our politicians can't do the same and then come up with a compromise such as ours, realistic and measurable progress. They spend far to much time defining their differences instead of finding mutual ground and making real progress on what they agree on. I think we sometimes blame scientists a bit too much for what the media chooses to overblow. Let's face it, giant disasterous weather changes on a global scale sell considerably more papers than sustainable agriculture discussions. There is all kinds of great science out there right now (as in our plant CO2 discussion), but it's not what sells papers. And for someone who would rather talk about water supplies and agriculture, you sure post a lot on GW

Well, let's not listen to either the alarmists or the "do nothing, more CO2 is good for you!" crowd, and actually make some slow, measured, and realistic progress.

My point is that the influence of "cheap energy" is felt far later than the influence of poor nutrition.

Yep, we are all paying at the pump right now and feeling that pain. I believe that a carbon tax implemented now is simply not necessary, market forces are doing considerably more than the 4-8 cent carbon tax will.

For all those whiners who say "nothing can be done", "it doesn't make a difference", and my personal favourite "you cannot lower emissions without lowering population": Canada's emissions decreased from 2005 to 2006 http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&am...F7-E03B28D1B12B And yes, Canada's population grew from 2005 to 2006: 2005 - 32,623,490 2006 - 32,987,532 Of course, the only part the skeptics will read is the "reduced demand" part, but, fact is, the switch in electricity production sources was also a major factor.

Yes, and we all know how poverty stricken individuals in the third world stress about how they are going to pay for their next electricty bill.

I don't feel the 2 choices are mutually exclusive.

Looking for information on how CO2 effects plants brings up lots of interesting results. While I couldn't find a direct link to the article mentioned, I have found other articles from science direct. There is a definite trend in the results for the direct effects on plant growth of CO2, that trend is, if conditions are right, light, nitrogen, water, and higher CO2, we see an explosion in plant growth. While it might seem that this effect is desired and beneficial, its effect on OTHER organisms, and indeed other plants, might not be so positive. One bad side effect already discussed here is the reduction of specific nutients in plant matter (See potatoes, cereal crops, and oak trees from this thread). In cultivated plants, this reduction can be compensated somewhat by increasing nitrogen, but in nature, the current science is pointing to an overall decrease in plant nutrient quality. This effects everything from leaf miners, fungus that typically eat those plants, all the way to the animals that rely on those plants for food. Also, as organisms that feed off of plants now have to eat more to get the same nutrition, they are potentially more open to predation, as was shown in the leaf miners in florida oak trees, reducing the overall organism population. This will have profound effects on native animal concentrations around the earth. In human terms, those of us lucky enough to eat food from highly cultivated environments will not see much effect on our own food (same with our livestock). However, those in third world countries will definitely feel a detrimental effect. Another side effect is discussed here (from science direct): http://aspenface.mtu.edu/Clover%20paper.pdf Increased shade is almost an intuitive side effect if you think about it. Increased CO2 leads to increased growth in trees. This means the forest canopy is now thicker, and less light reaches the forest floor. This results in less growth over time of those plants that grow in the understory. As stated above, "Such changes may in turn alter forest community and ecosystem dynamics". A final effect is discussed in science funded by monsato, the makers of round up and other farm herbicides and chemicals. Right now, a non-organic farmer typically tills the field and then sprays with roundup (or similar) to control weeds. A couple of weeks later, the weeds now dead, he plants the crop he wished to grow (roundup has no effect on crop growth after 2 weeks). Monsato has discoved that increased CO2 increases the vigour of the weeds that grow before the crop, meaning that the concentration of herbicide has to increase correspondingly. In other words, the strength of herbicides used to control weeds is going to have to increase to keep up with the increased growth. So, in summary, "increased growth" may not be as positive as it appears to be. Reduced nutritional content, reduced organism populations that rely on plants, reduction in forest understory growth, and ever increasingly concentrated herbicides, all negative side effects.

The modification in plant protein concentration IS an adaptation to the environment. The plants typically flourish with CO2 increases, the photosynthetic process is actually more efficient. its the effect on the organisms that rely on the plant that are the real issue. I would love to read the information (beyond the abstract) from the link you provided, but it appears to want 32 bucks for the honor! Do you have access to the article contents? Lots of information I would love to read about the effects of plant forage quality for animals with increasing CO2. Can you provide that information?

It's not a theory or a hypothesis, its fact. Potatoes and other crops, such as cereals, experience a decrease in Nitrogen content, and hence protein content when exposed to increased CO2. This was known long before the current global warming issues, I found research as far back as 1935 indicating the relationship between CO2 and protein content. Here is information from a study in 1985, before global warming politics would have had an opportunity to bias funding: Unlike climate models or other hypothesis, its easy to perform this experiment and have reliable repeatable emperical results. Not accepting this science as fact proves that your bias is outweighing your ability to arrive at a logical conclusion.

Or, when you have been proven wrong (CO2 increases plant growth and decreases nutritional value) you don't post anything. This to me indicates a person who likes to appear open minded and able to take in new information, but, in reality, indicates a person who's mind is already made up and rejects information that goes against that assumption.

And all livestock on earth requires 14% more feed...

My refusal to do so demonstrates that I understand there has to be a balance between human and environmental interests. Ah, you are misunderstanding me. Yes, the potatoes grow larger. But the larger potatoes CONTAIN LESS NUTRIENTS. So you have to eat more to get the same nutritional value. I couldn't find any links on the website link you sent me that speak to that specific issue. Yes, yields get higher and higher with greater concentrations, but where is the nutritional analysis? So, I looked to other websites and found this: So, yes, we have huge potatoes with less protein. Uhm, Yay? On another matter, one of the experiments you linked to have the following information: Your conclusion "good for the creatures that eat plants" is in direct contradiction with an expermental result you linked to. The pathogen that eats the potato is considerably harmed. Sure, in this context its fine, as we don't want the pathogen to eat our precious potatoes. But in nature, pathogens and other organisms are part of the complex cycle that perpetuates life. The experiment results state that the plant "develops resistance" to the pathogen, but do not detail what that resistance is. Is a specific chemical involved that the potato produces more of? I wonder if, like the leaf miners mentioned earlier, the pathogen is responding to the reduced nutritional value of the potato, as opposed to an otherwise unknown resistance mechanism being increased. Or perhaps the pathogen itself does not survive well in higher CO2 temperatures (which is an even worse result). These unknown answers are critical. Because, while a greenhouse or otherwise cultivated plant is grown in controlled conditions, plants in our natural ecosystems have a key role in how the whole ecosystem fuctions. They are at the base of the food chain, effecting everything above. If increasing CO2 means that plants all become "more resistant" to those that feed on them (whether through reduced nutritional value or other means) then the other organisms that rely on these plants will reduce in population (as has been shown in the leaf miner and other experiments). So, CO2 increase, great for plant growth, lousy for nutrition, bad for all organisms that rely on plants.

Because they can compensate for the nitrogen and other imbalances through fertilizer, something that every plant growing in nature cannot do. Condemning billions to poverty and early death by refusing to deal with the issue now is too high price to pay for every future generation that will ever exist on earth.

+ 2 for Wild Bill. Someone who actually reads rather than having unshakeable pre-conceived ideas!

I remember first watching a fascinating program on the effects of CO2 on growing potatoes in Great Britain. At that time, the thrust was to find out whether there was a difference in growing potatoes in a city garden, with presumably higher levels of CO2, or a country farm. Global warming was barely an issue at the time, nice to have a simple experiment based on plain science rather than all of the other garbage clouding efforts today. The result of the experiment has been mirrored in other experiments since, the potatoes grew larger. This was expected. However, the nutritional content of the larger potatoes was inferior to the smaller ones. This was not expected. Other research has since indicated the same, including specific research around foliar nitrogen. increasing CO2 reduces foliar nitrogen, reducing the nutritional content of the leaves, as in this study from Smithsonian Environmental Research Center: You can easily see how this is going to effect all herbivores throughout the planet, they have to eat more to get the same amount of nutrition. Normally, if the change are happening slowly, adaptation can allow compensation. However, the pace of the CO2 change means that evolutionary forces most likely will not be able to keep up. And, if the predation/prey relationship of other animals follows the model set by leaf miners, populations of prey animals will reduce (followed shortly by predators) as they are more exposed to predation when eating. And, of course, it will effect humans as well. We will have to eat more to get the same amount of nutrition. Typically, this will effect third world countries more than us. I am glad you brought up this point Riverwind. I think the current focus on global warming is far too narrow. The effects of modifying the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are going to be far and wide, global warming is just one potential effect. We also are beginning to understand how CO2 effects ocean acidity, and how CO2 effects plant (and therefore animal and human) health. I am sure there are many other effects that will occur, some identified, and some yet to be discovered. Increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere without truly understanding many of these effects carries significant risk. I certainly hope that there never comes a time when we say "oops" because some effect turned out to be far more hazardous than expected. We are effectively conducting a massive experiment on earth without really knowing the eventual results. THAT is a little too high risk for me.

Jaworowski debunked: http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=7

These three links are all the work of one man, Zbigniew Jaworowski. That is hardly a number of people. It's one. And he believes that another ice age is coming. You support this theory?

Really? What is the current CO2 concentration? Just over 380 ppm. When was the last time the atmosphere had this much CO2? Ice core data tells us that there wasn't that much CO2 in the atmosphere for at least the last 750 000 years. If you look to other means of measuring carbon dioxide (geochemical, etc) estimates are that the last time we had this much CO2 in the atmosphere is about 40 million years ago. The ice core data is the most reliable. So, if we assume the other means are unreliable, then the most recent possible time we were adapted to this much CO2 was 800 000 years ago. When humans looked like this: However, if we put some weight on the other measurements of CO2, then the last time the atmosphere had this high of a concentration was 40 million years ago. This was before humans had even evolved. The statement "virtually all species on this planet are adapted to much higher levels of CO2" is utter rubbish. Humans weren't even on the planet at that time!

Because, when you are struggling with addiction, you are not able to think about anything else. As time passes from your last fix, you get more and more desperate to score again. Any semblance of reason and ability to reduce harm within themselves is gone, the focus is singular, get more drugs. When in this state, it is highly unlikely that people will voluntarily seek treatment. However, this does not mean they will not seek treatment in the future. Insite proves this. There is a difference between "willing to help themselves" and "unable to receive help". Insite was opened to target a specific group of people. They were the highest risk IV drug users, overdosing on a regular basis (peaked at 200 deaths in one year), and highest risk for HIV infection, Hep C infection, and hospitallization. This "Hardcore" group of drug users was, and this is key, THE LEAST LIKELY TO SEEK TREATMENT. Rather than taking these users to jail or community court, officers instead took them to insite. Within 6 months of insite opening the group of high risk users now using insite had a mortality rate of 0. Within 18 months of insite opening the majority of these users were now seeking detox and treatment. What you seem to be missing is that harm reduction is only part of a comprehensive drug strategy, its not the entire solution. Its like an AA step program. The first step is to take a modicum of personal responsibility by using a safe injection site. Then expert staff are there to help with the next steps, including the availability of 24 beds for detox.

Wow, just... wow. You are willing to let some people die as a warning to others. Even though we clearly have both the ability and access to life saving drugs. Narcan costs less than a dollar an ampule, and saves many lives every year. Denying 80 cents worth of drugs because an addict may make a better example dead? Not a decision I would ever make. Have you been to a safe injection site? I don't think any of these users are believing that the safe injection site implies any form of social respectability. Addicts are far beyond even caring if they are respectable or not. Any person who would pass out in an alley in a puddle of their own puke is not too worried about appearing socially respectable. The action of going to a safe injection site in itself is an addict taking more PERSONAL responsibility for their addiction than they otherwise would. It is a recognization of the dangers of drug use, and a conscious decision to attempt to reduce those dangers. It is that attitude of personal responsibility that needs to be nurtured, as it may lead to self motivated treatment. Self motivated treatment is the most successful treatment of any form (as opposed to court mandated or otherwise forced). If you have heavy handed staff that hammer home the "get treatment now" message you will deter many from repeated use of insite. Here is what actually occurs: http://www.vch.ca/sis/about.htm Insite is a first step for an addict. Its firstly about harm reduction, then secondly provides a starting point for an addicts long road to recovery. It gets addicts off of the street, and is the first tiny step to taking some personal responsibility for their actions. This is why the site is supported by the local Vancouver Police force, the people who deal with addicts and the issues surrounding those addicts every day. Insite works.

I don't think a safe injection site shields them from the consequences of anything, except diseases from dirty needles, and death from overdose, and I find it hard to believe you would advocate that as a consequence. Perhaps it shields them from arrest while actually on the site, but they have to face arrest when purchasing and carrying at any other time. And I also don't think addicts, when in full blown addiction, really care about any consequences. They are just focussed on their next fix and how to get it. Vancouver paramedics will literally save someones life from an overdose with Narcan, and then find the same person dead the next week from an overdose of the same drug. This is why things like "stiffer jail time" and "harsher sentences" is simply not effective. The safe injection sites serve a number of purposes: 1. Prevent the transfer of disease through shared needles. 2. Have staff immediatly available in the event of overdose. 3. Allow drug addicts a non-public area to shoot up. 4. Provide a safe disposal site for used needles. 5. Provide an environment where addicts who are so motivate to take the first steps towards controlling their addiction. What is a safe injection site shielding the user from?

I mentioned jail as one option, but jail costs more money. Some people are complaining that this site and others like it cost too much money. If we can't spend money, then jail isn't really an option either. What is your solution?