Climate Science 101

[GostHacked]

you're completely and utterly deluded. There is no way, no how, no chance, no practical ability to presume to bring the existing and ever growing elevated CO2 levels back to the equilibrium stability level... by simply planting trees.

Such a pessimistic view for someone that wants to actually do something about it. And as I said, it is one solution we can implement now and expect results later on. If you are not willing to at least look at the possibility, then you are going to hurt yourself in the long run. We did not get into this mess overnight, and will not get out of this mess overnight. But people are expecting instant results, which will always disappoint and fail them.

With a tinge of sarcastic frivolity, when I initially didn't believe you were actually serious, I previously asked you to quantify your premise - how many trees/ppm reduction? I'll ask that little ditty again then...

As many as it takes. You do agree that deforestation is a problem, but reforestation is not a solution?

trees/plants are not a sustainable commodity...

Commodities are bought and sold. You can't put a price tag on the air. If you do then you have already lost the battle. However if someone was able to bottle clean air and market it, you bet people will buy it. Bottled water is a good example of just that.

not when AGW climate change is helping to erode growth environments, not when deforestation proceeds, essentially unabated... not when there is no political will to stop development and encroachment on land/forests... there is no political will to relocate existing encroachments on land/forests... etc., etc., etc. There's a reason there's an imbalance today... why CO2 levels are ever rising. Deforestation is a small part of that imbalance equation.

So the lack of will seems to be the big issue here. Specifically the political will to do anything about it.

do you think there's any particular reason why your planting trees 'natural solution' isn't being touted/hyped... even by the most denying of the deniers?

Because it is not a commodity as you indicated. Commodities can be bought and sold. However, looking at it as a commodity is only going to hurt you in the long run. This will be vital to life on the planet on the whole, which means there is no price that can ever be put on it. There will not be an investment return on your money, so don't expect any. If you are expecting to make money on a solution like this, then you are the one who is deluded.

[waldo]

So the lack of will seems to be the big issue here. Specifically the political will to do anything about it.

bingo! ... notwithstanding your deluded "plant more trees", natural solution, is impractical (obviously - duh!)... it won't bring about a return to equilibrium CO2 stability... and even if it could (which it can't), you're presuming the world can continue to use fossil fuels unabated waiting on the decades for tree growth... assuming a global political will surfaces!

since you now formally acknowledge your AGW denier position, why do you even engage in a discussion presuming to address elevated CO2 levels by advocating your deluded "plant more trees", natural solution? You state you don't accept the impact of anthropogenic sourced CO2 on climate... what's your interest in presuming to advocate for growing more trees?

[GostHacked]

bingo! ... notwithstanding your deluded "plant more trees", natural solution, is impractical (obviously - duh!)

Really? Impractical? Planting trees to mitigate at least PART of the problem is not practical? Are you kidding me? Even when you admit that we are devastating forests at the rate which does as you admit lower the planets ability to reduce C02 int he air which puts the pressure on the oceans which you say can't handle the current CO2 levels, let alone the rising levels?

It's practical, it's inexpensive and you don't need to maintain a forest. It does it on it's own.

... it won't bring about a return to equilibrium CO2 stability... and even if it could (which it can't), you're presuming the world can continue to use fossil fuels unabated waiting on the decades for tree growth... assuming a global political will surfaces!

All your schemes like the Cap and Trade and the Carbon Tax does little if nothing to solve the problem.If you pollute more, you simply pay more, which does NOTHING to mitigate the increase of C02 emissions. And I have said it before, in case you missed it, that this is but ONE solution that can be effective. Along with reducing toxic pollution emissions. So instead of complaining to me about a practical solution, you have to wonder why the governments of the world are not actively doing anything about it aside from telling us the sky is falling.

since you now formally acknowledge your AGW denier position, why do you even engage in a discussion presuming to address elevated CO2 levels by advocating your deluded "plant more trees", natural solution? You state you don't accept the impact of anthropogenic sourced CO2 on climate... what's your interest in presuming to advocate for growing more trees?

I'll use my home town of Sudbury as an example of reducing emissions and replanting to green up the place which is now having positive effects and results on the city.

Sudbury was barren black rock, because of deforestation. And the local environment was polluted with the mining operations going on. The superstack was modified a few decades ago to reduce emissions at the same time a huge re-greening effort was put into place. Reducing emissions and the re-greening efforts are starting to pay off. The city is in much better shape environmentally than it was 40-50 years ago. It's still pretty bad, but not as bad as it was. I was part of that effort in high school. All of the schools took part in this project in once fashion or another. My class spent a few days on the barren rocks spreading lime/grass seed, and other stuff on the ground to promote vegetation growth. 20 years later, the results are so obvious it should hurt. I recently went back to Sudbury and made a mental note of how much greener the city is. It is practical and it does produce results.

If you want to read about the re-greeing effort and see comparison photos. check out http://www.city.greatersudbury.on.ca/cms/index.cfm?app=div_landreclamation〈=en&currID=4038

Edited October 18, 2010 by GostHacked

[wyly]

Not many will. All the information you hear , rarely if ever talks about natural solutions to this problem. Resurrecting rain forests and other natural forests are going to take time, but eventually will be effective. We can start now with the replanting process and then let mother nature take over, but if we continue to take down the forests, we will see the problem accelerate some. To me this is the easiest short term implementation solution, with long term solution that will continue and maintain itself.

I've been called crazy here to propose this idea, and now I am glad that at least one person (you wyly) has thought about it a little.

Even if C02 is really not the problem it's made out to be, the replanting solution will help us all out all over the planet.

there is nothing wrong with the idea of reforestation but there enormous if not impossible obstacles to overcome...much of that deforested regions have been urbanized or turned into agricultural land, with 6.5 billion people to feed turning that land back into forests is problematic...in countries like brazil, Indonesia, and many African countries there is no social welfare system, it's feed your own family or starve... kicking millions of people off their farms claimed from tropical forests to reforest them amounts to a death sentence by starvation...are we willing to take in the millions of refugees forced off the land for forest reclamation?

even if it could be done to what point in past history do we reforest? do we reforest europe to it's former coverage? how do we persuade countries to give up their farms for forests, if we do manage that are we not obligated to do the same with southern Ontario and eastern USA ? are we willing to subsidize economic/agricultural losses of poor countries for a problem that is mostly of our creation?

I love the idea of reforestation but but for practical reasons reducing CO2 emissions are IMO the easier solution...

and I believe even if we could reforest to former levels those forests could not cope with all the emissions we produce, it would reduce them but not neutralize it...

[waldo]

Really? Impractical? Planting trees to mitigate at least PART of the problem is not practical?

yes, impractical... but we are making progress since you've now pulled back and speak to a "PART(ial)" solution. What you propose, even if a global political will were to suddenly miraculously appear, would require a monumental effort of land transformation over a decades long period... while CO2 levels increased in line with continued reliance on and use of fossil fuels. Any ball-park estimates for your pie-in-the-sky solution, particularly as might be compared to, uhhh... say actual reductions in fossil fuel emissions?

you also appear to have no insight into actual scientific work in this area of mitigation... yes... it is a mitigation approach, one of many. You offer a personal anecdote but seem oblivious to actual studies that have shown an effective mitigation might only arise within a tropical climates/latitudes context where year round growth is possible - because active growth is the key. You apparently aren't aware of studies that have looked at northern/temperate latitude implications to albedo impacts and slow/shortened growth periods... where trees in temperate latitudes have a net warming effect on climate outweighing their carbon sink abilities.

wyly pretty much nails it on the land reclamation point and the handling of affected peoples. Where would they go? - are you suggesting the same Harper Conservative like positions that threw up visa restrictions to Mexicans would suddenly open the borders to "thousands" of displaced refugees?

[GostHacked]

there is nothing wrong with the idea of reforestation but there enormous if not impossible obstacles to overcome...much of that deforested regions have been urbanized or turned into agricultural land, with 6.5 billion people to feed turning that land back into forests is problematic...in countries like brazil, Indonesia, and many African countries there is no social welfare system, it's feed your own family or starve... kicking millions of people off their farms claimed from tropical forests to reforest them amounts to a death sentence by starvation...are we willing to take in the millions of refugees forced off the land for forest reclamation?

Either some die because of food shortages or we all die because of C02 and AGW. And there really does not seem to be a lack of food. Seriously, check your grocery store, and check out how many wonderful products you can buy. What is lacking is a proper food distribution network in those areas that are starving for food.

even if it could be done to what point in past history do we reforest? do we reforest europe to it's former coverage? how do we persuade countries to give up their farms for forests, if we do manage that are we not obligated to do the same with southern Ontario and eastern USA ? are we willing to subsidize economic/agricultural losses of poor countries for a problem that is mostly of our creation?

OK, I see what you mean by impractical in terms of cities. That does make sense. No you can't just replace that, but you can green up the area and surrounding areas quite easily.

We can also stop with urban sprawl. We need to build UP and not out. There will eventually be a multi-faceted solution to the whole problem. But it will change our way of life very drastically. I don't see us changing those ways anytime soon.

I love the idea of reforestation but but for practical reasons reducing CO2 emissions are IMO the easier solution...

and I believe even if we could reforest to former levels those forests could not cope with all the emissions we produce, it would reduce them but not neutralize it...

Reducing is one but a positive step towards neutralization. It will also have other positive effects that I have yet to make connections to.

[waldo]

Reducing is one but a positive step towards neutralization. It will also have other positive effects that I have yet to make connections to.

other than your personal anecdotes and overly, most dramatically, simplistic view... do you actually have any studies, metrics, costing, impacts, etc., to suggest "planting trees" is more than a minimalistic mitigation possibility? Anything?

notwithstanding you still haven't answered the pointed question... in these latest posts, you now self-avow as a denier of AGW. What's your point in even discussing a mitigation approach... any mitigation approach... including the wildest, zaniest (see "planting trees").

[GostHacked]

other than your personal anecdotes and overly, most dramatically, simplistic view... do you actually have any studies, metrics, costing,

impacts, etc., to suggest "planting trees" is more than a minimalistic mitigation possibility? Anything?

I don't know how it will affect C02 levels. However my example of my hometown of Sudbury Ontario clearly shows the advantages of a regreening effort along with a reduction in toxic emissions from the mining facilities. All this was done long before C02 was even considered a problem, and look at the results. The link I provided has many PDFs for you to look at. It has over 40 years of data that show a regreeing effort is beneficial on many levels. It's not hard to conclude that it will also do a job for reducing C02 emissions.

Growing up the city was quite a barren landscape. It is a very different city now because people started doing something about it a long time ago. It does not happen overnight, but people have already started the process.

I've seen first hand what a regreening effort does in conjunction with reducing toxic emissions.

notwithstanding you still haven't answered the pointed question... in these latest posts, you now self-avow as a denier of AGW. What's your point in even discussing a mitigation approach... any mitigation approach... including the wildest, zaniest (see "planting trees").

The point is, even though I deny that C02 is the biggest problem for AGW, I am still at least proposing a solution. Which you have not. I've been concerned about toxic pollution for most of my life, living under that stack does make you aware of it.

Edited October 19, 2010 by GostHacked

[waldo]

It's not hard to conclude that it will also do a job for reducing C02 emissions.

and that's all you're offering - personal anecdote with no foundation in science or practical extension/deployment

The point is, even though I deny that C02 is the biggest problem for AGW, I am still at least proposing a solution. Which you have not. I've been concerned about toxic pollution for most of my life, living under that stack does make you aware of it.

as stated before, your attention to pollution (toxic level pollution) is admirable... it has little or nothing to do with effective global CO2 emission reduction. Again, it's the proverbial, "you can't see the forest for the trees" (pun intended). I've proposed a ying yang of solutions that leverage a combination of mitigation, prevention... and adaptation. We have a complete ongoing active MLW thread covering this very topic.

[GostHacked]

and that's all you're offering - personal anecdote with no foundation in science or practical extension/deployment

Did you look at even part of the information on the link I provided? I encourage you to at least take a look at it and then draw conclusions from there. Because when you said it was impractical, I have shown you that it has actually been done meaning it is 100% practical, and also effective and is being done.

I've witnessed it first hand what regreening can do.

as stated before, your attention to pollution (toxic level pollution) is admirable... it has little or nothing to do with effective global CO2 emission reduction. Again, it's the proverbial, "you can't see the forest for the trees" (pun intended). I've proposed a ying yang of solutions that leverage a combination of mitigation, prevention... and adaptation. We have a complete ongoing active MLW thread covering this very topic.

Then my solution can be filed under your 'mitigation' category.

Here is more evidence. If it is so impractical, why are people and cities already doing what I propose?

http://climatesolutions.org/solutions/reports/biocarbon-briefs/re-greening-cities-the-carbon-landscape

“The remarkable magnitude of observed carbon stocks in the rapidly urbanizing

Seattle region is particularly clear when compared to the biomass stored in

Amazonian rainforests,” researchers note. Central Puget Sound conifer forests at 182

MTC/ha compare favorably with the 197 MTC/ha found in a heavily studied Amazonian

rainforest tract.

The Seattle region lost 40 percent of its forest cover in the last 100 years, and is

projected to lose another 20 percent as metropolitan population grows 32 percent to 4.3

million by 2030. These “patterns of urbanization and sprawl . . . are not atypical for

Western U.S. cities.”

The Seattle region results send a broader message summed by the Seattle study team: Pay

attention to vegetation “as urban land covers and populations continue to rapidly

increase around the globe.”

A quick google search turns up many regreening projects in the US, Europe and Canada. Even Saudi Arabia is doing something about it. Stopping urban sprawl is ONE way, along with regreeing efforts. You can call me crazy, but others do see the benefits in this. And they are not waiting for the UN for a consensus on what we should be doing.

Edited October 19, 2010 by GostHacked

[waldo]

Over 40 years of regreening Sudbury is a prime example of my claim.

You want evidence? Go read my link.

yes, evidence of reclamation/regreening on a most isolated regional level... in a most northerly temperate climate. Nothing in your link speaks to mitigation effect/impact on global CO2 emissions. Since you suggest I didn't bother to look at your link I'll make the same suggestion towards you and offer you another opportunity to read a targeted extract; specifically:

you also appear to have no insight into actual scientific work in this area of mitigation... yes... it is a mitigation approach, one of many. You offer a personal anecdote but seem oblivious to actual studies that have shown an effective mitigation might only arise within a tropical climates/latitudes context where year round growth is possible - because active growth is the key. You apparently aren't aware of studies that have looked at northern/temperate latitude implications to albedo impacts and slow/shortened growth periods... where trees in temperate latitudes have a net warming effect on climate outweighing their carbon sink abilities.

[GostHacked]

Since you suggest I didn't bother to look at your link I'll make the same suggestion towards you and offer you another opportunity to read a targeted extract; specifically:

Wait, my link says nothing about C02, when you did not even read it? After reading most of it, you are correct. I am now looking for any studies related to carbon dioxide and the reclamation project in Sudbury.

I'll let you go back to your chicken little rants then and won't offer any more suggestions. Continue with the logging.

[wyly]

Either some die because of food shortages or we all die because of C02 and AGW. And there really does not seem to be a lack of food. Seriously, check your grocery store, and check out how many wonderful products you can buy. What is lacking is a proper food distribution network in those areas that are starving for food.

some die? likely millions will die, as it is now something like a billion people go hungry ever year, it won't take much of a change to push going hungry into starvation... how can you/I/we dictate to other countries that they will need to sacrifice millions of lives because of the problem we created?...that's never going to fly...I don't think better distrubution is our advantage, it's wealth what you and I pay for fresh fruit, veggies to be trucked in from california or florida is out of reach for someone in a third world country, poverty is the issue not distribution...

OK, I see what you mean by impractical in terms of cities. That does make sense. No you can't just replace that, but you can green up the area and surrounding areas quite easily.

an effective carbon sink like a rainforest is not a simple green up project, small isolated stands of rainforest aren't viable...

We can also stop with urban sprawl. We need to build UP and not out. There will eventually be a multi-faceted solution to the whole problem. But it will change our way of life very drastically. I don't see us changing those ways anytime soon.

I'd love to see the end of urban sprawl but the economic/industrial forces aligned against that idea in N America are very strong...you battling the economic heart of the free market, unlimited and inexpensive growth, that's a tough sell... Edited October 19, 2010 by wyly

[waldo]

Over 40 years of regreening Sudbury is a prime example of my claim.

You want evidence? Go read my link.

yes, evidence of reclamation/regreening on a most isolated regional level... in a most northerly temperate climate. Nothing in your link speaks to mitigation effect/impact on global CO2 emissions. Since you suggest I didn't bother to look at your link I'll make the same suggestion towards you and offer you another opportunity to read a targeted extract; specifically:

you also appear to have no insight into actual scientific work in this area of mitigation... yes... it is a mitigation approach, one of many. You offer a personal anecdote but seem oblivious to actual studies that have shown an effective mitigation might only arise within a tropical climates/latitudes context where year round growth is possible - because active growth is the key. You apparently aren't aware of studies that have looked at northern/temperate latitude implications to albedo impacts and slow/shortened growth periods... where trees in temperate latitudes have a net warming effect on climate outweighing their carbon sink abilities.

Wait, my link says nothing about C02, when you did not even read it? After reading most of it, you are correct. I am now looking for any studies related to carbon dioxide and the reclamation project in Sudbury.

I'll let you go back to your chicken little rants then and won't offer any more suggestions. Continue with the logging.

wow - progress! Although considering your quite liberal use of the 'mitigation' reference, one would have thought you actually had in mind... what you thought was being mitigated - huh! Obviously, you still can't be bothered to read what's presented to you now for the 3rd time. While you're looking for some fanciful imaginary projection of an isolated most regional northerly temperate zoned reclamation project to some global application, have a look for those studies that, as I keep pointing out to you, speak to the northern/temperate latitude implications of changing albedo impacts and the CO2 aspects of a slow/shortened growth period that exist in northern/temperate latitudes... the studies that basically conclude that trees in temperate latitudes have a net warming effect on climate - one outweighing their carbon sink abilities. Read the last few sentences again... and then beak-off about chicken little rants again while you keep puffing up your Sudbury re-greening example.

[GostHacked]

some die? likely millions will die, as it is now something like a billion people go hungry ever year, it won't take much of a change to push going hungry into starvation... how can you/I/we dictate to other countries that they will need to sacrifice millions of lives because of the problem we created?...

What will blow your mind is that that has already happened.

that's never going to fly...I don't think better distrubution is our advantage, it's wealth what you and I pay for fresh fruit, veggies to be trucked in from california or florida is out of reach for someone in a third world country, poverty is the issue not distribution...

I've said it before that distribution is the problem. I've been working in the grocery business in one form or another for most of my life. Distribution IS a problem.

an effective carbon sink like a rainforest is not a simple green up project, small isolated stands of rainforest aren't viable...

No they are not simple. Because that system did not occur overnight. Small isolated strands may not be viable but connect them to make the large viable forest will help.

I'd love to see the end of urban sprawl but the economic/industrial forces aligned against that idea in N America are very strong...you battling the economic heart of the free market, unlimited and inexpensive growth, that's a tough sell...

Urban sprawl will have to stop, I agree. Reducing CO2 emissions is only part of the solution. The way we live will change, the cities we live in will change, our energy production/consumption will change. Air travel will change. Everything will change. The way we produce food will change. I don't think people are really understanding how much of a change the whole world needs to go through to combat this so called C02 emissions.

You will also have to convince everyone to change. Good luck.

The fact that there is little to no political will to do anything about it (other than telling us the sky is falling).

[GostHacked]

wow - progress! Although considering your quite liberal use of the 'mitigation' reference, one would have thought you actually had in mind... what you thought was being mitigated - huh! Obviously, you still can't be bothered to read what's presented to you now for the 3rd time.

While you're looking for some fanciful imaginary projection of an isolated most regional northerly temperate zoned reclamation project to some global application,

You might want to see it for yourself. The Sudbury environment was devastated because of over logging and the mining. I grew up looking at barren rock covered in sulfur dioxide and other toxic substances. Now there are trees, along with that an eco system returned.

It has more than just C02 benefits, which is the point I am trying to drive home here. I tyhink the real problem with people who buy into the AGW crisis are just looking at C02 with little or no consideration for other toxic pollution that has a more immediate affect on your health and the environment, will do you no good in the long run. It's but one part of the equation, but we are told it is the BIGGEST THREAT EVER. That's chicken little.

have a look for those studies that, as I keep pointing out to you, speak to the northern/temperate latitude implications of changing albedo impacts and the CO2 aspects of a slow/shortened growth period that exist in northern/temperate latitudes... the studies that basically conclude that trees in temperate latitudes have a net warming effect on climate - one outweighing their carbon sink abilities. Read the last few sentences again... and then beak-off about chicken little rants again while you keep puffing up your Sudbury re-greening example.

So more trees in the north mean more global warming? Right, TIMBER !!!!!

[waldo]

You might want to see it for yourself. The Sudbury environment was devastated because of over logging and the mining. I grew up looking at barren rock covered in sulfur dioxide and other toxic substances. Now there are trees, along with that an eco system returned.

great - excellent... and you've previously received several kudos from me for your interest in offsetting toxic pollution. Of course, that has little/anything to do with the focus of global AGW climate change; specifically reducing global CO2 emission reductions.

It has more than just C02 benefits, which is the point I am trying to drive home here. I think the real problem with people who buy into the AGW crisis are just looking at C02 with little or no consideration for other toxic pollution that has a more immediate affect on your health and the environment, will do you no good in the long run. It's but one part of the equation, but we are told it is the BIGGEST THREAT EVER. That's chicken little.

when, by definition, AGW climate change centers directly on anthropogenic sourced CO2 emissions, your continuing to focus on an isolated, smallish, regional, temperate zoned, Sudbury land reclamation project, clearly shows you know nothing of AGW climate change and it's global reach. Couple that with your now self-avowed rejection (denial) of AGW and shove your chicken little statements... where Sudbury don't shine!

you also appear to have no insight into actual scientific work in this area of mitigation... yes... it is a mitigation approach, one of many. You offer a personal anecdote but seem oblivious to actual studies that have shown an effective mitigation might only arise within a tropical climates/latitudes context where year round growth is possible - because active growth is the key. You apparently aren't aware of studies that have looked at northern/temperate latitude implications to albedo impacts and slow/shortened growth periods... where trees in temperate latitudes have a net warming effect on climate outweighing their carbon sink abilities.

So more trees in the north mean more global warming? Right, TIMBER !!!!!

you can continue your silly bugger routine... or you could actually read those studies and presume to offer something to counter them.

[GostHacked]

great - excellent... and you've previously received several kudos from me for your interest in offsetting toxic pollution. Of course, that has little/anything to do with the focus of global AGW climate change; specifically reducing global CO2 emission reductions.

Which I think is the wrong focus. There are more immediate dangers we need to resolve that will have an impact on CO2 emissions.

All the other pollution which is toxic to the environment is killing the environments ability to handle and filter out CO2. This is why I say take care of that first and the rest will fall into place. We did not start by spewing CO2 into the air, we started by spewing toxic substances in the air, which is hurting the planets ability to filter out the C02.

It's one reason cars run a lot cleaner these days. The sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide were having a noticeable impact on the environment and our health as well. The overall levels of pollution may have stayed the same because regardless of vehicles getting more efficient, we just have a lot more on the road

when, by definition, AGW climate change centers directly on anthropogenic sourced CO2 emissions, your continuing to focus on an isolated, smallish, regional, temperate zoned, Sudbury land reclamation project, clearly shows you know nothing of AGW climate change and it's global reach. Couple that with your now self-avowed rejection (denial) of AGW and shove your chicken little statements... where Sudbury don't shine!

When you get countries like China and India on board, then you might have something. Again if AGW is true, as a company I can pollute all I want as long as I pay for the privilege of polluting. This is why the Cap and Trade and Carbon Tax do nothing to solve the issue. Hell it does not even mitigate it one bit.

My solution does. It may not be as effective as I want it to be, but it's more than what is being proposed by the powers that be.

you can continue your silly bugger routine... or you could actually read those studies and presume to offer something to counter them.

I know what can be done, I know it can be done. Question is when are we going to do it?

If you truly believe in this, then you must be doing something about it yourself right?

Edited October 19, 2010 by GostHacked

[wyly]

I've said it before that distribution is the problem. I've been working in the grocery business in one form or another for most of my life. Distribution IS a problem.

go set up a Superstore in the middle of africa or the interior of Brazil and let me know how many people can actually afford your produce that's been brought in from around the world...

[GostHacked]

go set up a Superstore in the middle of africa or the interior of Brazil and let me know how many people can actually afford your produce that's been brought in from around the world...

So if we here in Canada can get produce and stuff from all over the world (we get Jaffa Oranges from Israel), then you can surely do the opposite and Brazil can import all it's products if they choose. But if they are buying local, then no need to go abroad for many items aside from the ones that you must get elsewhere because they are not native to your area. This reduces C02 because you are not wasting energy and time to transport food all over the place.

Africa will have it's own infrastructure and distribution network. The fact that it really does not exist like it does in NA. So you need to build one. It won't manifest into a superstore type scenario or the network we have her in NA but some kind of network would have to be in place to get some of the benefits we have.

Right now you get a lot of aid/food flown and dropped in from a plane, because of a lack of infrastructure (roads/rail ect).

Like I said, it's going to take a rethinking of everything we do in life for this C02 reduction to happen. I will tell you this, my thinking is that the days of the superstore/big box stores are over. In time you will go back to the butcher, the baker ect ect .... the shift for some grocers is going local for the food. Why buy apples from Florida or B.C. when you already grow them in Ontario? How much C02 is wasted in transporting food all over the globe when we have local resources that work just as well?

[wyly]

So if we here in Canada can get produce and stuff from all over the world (we get Jaffa Oranges from Israel), then you can surely do the opposite and Brazil can import all it's products if they choose. But if they are buying local, then no need to go abroad for many items aside from the ones that you must get elsewhere because they are not native to your area. This reduces C02 because you are not wasting energy and time to transport food all over the place.

Africa will have it's own infrastructure and distribution network. The fact that it really does not exist like it does in NA. So you need to build one. It won't manifest into a superstore type scenario or the network we have her in NA but some kind of network would have to be in place to get some of the benefits we have.

Right now you get a lot of aid/food flown and dropped in from a plane, because of a lack of infrastructure (roads/rail ect).

and that going to cost trillions, trillions which they don't have...your view sounds a bit like "let them eat cake"

Like I said, it's going to take a rethinking of everything we do in life for this C02 reduction to happen. I will tell you this, my thinking is that the days of the superstore/big box stores are over. In time you will go back to the butcher, the baker ect ect .... the shift for some grocers is going local for the food. Why buy apples from Florida or B.C. when you already grow them in Ontario? How much C02 is wasted in transporting food all over the globe when we have local resources that work just as well?

and in some countries the big box store is already limited by law, they destroy communities and incomes...

[Michael Hardner]

and in some countries the big box store is already limited by law, they destroy communities and incomes...

Really ? From an environmental standpoint, I would think that they're beneficial. Why ?

- Bigger entities have more power to enact change

- Thin margins make them more susceptible to public opinion

- Economies of scale means more efficient use of energy

See Wal Mart's Wiki for examples.

[Oleg Bach]

Stop using the term "environment" - and bring things into reality -- and use the real word - NATURE...all problems are rooted in the destruction or the attack on the natural world...environmentalists are useless...what ever happened to the classic naturalist that taught people how to behave in harmony with the real world...Environ could be a stainless steel sink on top of your head...and stewardship of that small echoey place is pretty much an illusion when it comes to maintaining a healthy and prosperous human life.....The average kid who is taught about "taking care of the environment" - is and urban creature raised in an artifical defective world ---------the average person does not have a clue what nature is. So how can they protect what is un-known to them?

[Michael Hardner]

Stop using the term "environment" - and bring things into reality -- and use the real word - NATURE...all problems are rooted in the destruction or the attack on the natural world...

I reserve the right to use common words the way they're commonly used.

environmentalists are useless...what ever happened to the classic naturalist that taught people how to behave in harmony with the real world...Environ could be a stainless steel sink on top of your head...and stewardship of that small echoey place is pretty much an illusion when it comes to maintaining a healthy and prosperous human life.....The average kid who is taught about "taking care of the environment" - is and urban creature raised in an artifical defective world ---------the average person does not have a clue what nature is. So how can they protect what is un-known to them?

Well, let's see... pretty much everybody does what they're told because of the "economy" and nobody seems to know what THAT is.

[Pliny]

Well, let's see... pretty much everybody does what they're told because of the "economy" and nobody seems to know what THAT is.

I guess we need an "eco"nomy.

Are we starting to know less and less about more and more? Europe is getting a lesson in economics right now.