Mysteries, Chemtrails, Aerosols :: Mysterious NZ New Zealand based Discussion Forums The strange & mysterious, archaeological anomalies, modern oddities... Current affairs, health & medical issues, Aerosol Spraying in NZ... ...and general interest: ARCHIVES
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 387
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 8:58 pm Post Subject: Greens to Contemplate Treeless World?
The Green Party is obviously delighted with the current ‘global warming and looming ecological disaster’ scenario. More power to them, I bet they can’t wait until the next election. The situation suits their agenda of getting us all back to simpler, less technologically driven times and away from reliance on fossil fuels and the use of private vehicles etc. Conversely, it is also a rather strange and perhaps unsettling time as they find themselves sharing the same ecological ’bed’ with some strange bedfellows - given that every other political party in New Zealand seems to have jumped onto their bandwagon.
But there could be nothing stranger for them than having to perhaps embrace (hug?) a possible global warming solution from a team of scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California that involves removing the world’s trees:
Quote:
A new tree line
TREES are good. Good enough to hug. Trees have a nifty biochemical strategy called photosynthesis that enables them to take carbon dioxide in through their leaves, and swap that nasty gas for oxygen, a nice one. They use the carbon thus sequestered to make molecules like cellulose, and thus more tree.
That is why some rich people who love to burn things containing carbon, such as petrol and aircraft fuel, have recently started paying others to plant trees on their behalf. Burning adds oxygen to carbon, making carbon dioxide. And carbon dioxide makes the world warmer. A warmer world will mean higher sea levels. So if people burn things without offsetting the carbon dioxide thus produced, their holidays in the Maldive islands will disappear, along with the islands themselves.
This chattering-class environmental picture is not necessarily wrong, but it does include many assumptions. One of them, that planting trees will make the world cooler than it would otherwise be, is the subject of a newly published study by Govindasamy Bala, of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, in California, and his colleagues. Dr Bala has found, rather counter-intuitively, that removing all of the world's trees might actually cool the planet down. Conversely, adding trees everywhere might warm it up.
Clearcut cooling
The reason for this is that trees affect the world's temperature by means other than the carbon they sequester. For instance forests, being generally green and bristly things, remain quite a dark shade even after a blizzard. They are certainly darker than grasslands smothered in snow, and thus they can absorb more of the sun's heat than vegetation, which might otherwise cover the same stretch of land. That warms things up.
Transpiration—the process by which plants suck up groundwater and evaporate it into the atmosphere—is another and opposite matter. Woodlands are usually better than other ecosystems at getting water vapour into the air. In warm places this tends to make things cloudier, and those clouds, in turn, reflect the sun's heat back into space. That cools things down…
Hopefully the slant of the report was presented with tongue firmly planted in cheek, however it demonstrates to me the lunacy of large sections of the current debate. I’ve got a solution also, get all humans off the planet and allow nature to sort the problem out – if there is a problem of course, and that’s not a certainty…
Quote:
They took all the trees
Put em in a tree museum
And they charged the people
A dollar and a half just to see em
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 387
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 11:55 pm Post Subject:
I know this forum category is supposed to be Climate Change Politics, but in the spirit of both the above post and lunacy, I couldn't resist posting this:
Quote:
For Environmentally Friendly Death, Cremation Not The Way To Go
MELBOURNE, April 18 (Bernama) -- You can still play a part in preventing global warming after you die - by not opting for your body to be cremated.
Prof Roger Short of the University of Melbourne said the average Australian male produces over 50kg of carbon dioxide (CO2) during cremation as the body is heated to 850 degrees Celsius for an hour and a half.
And that's not counting the carbon cost of the fuel and the cost of emissions involved in producing and burning the wooden coffin, he added.
"Think earth to earth, but not ashes to ashes or dust to dust," he said at the Fifth World Science Journalist Conference here, Wednesday.
Short's idea came in the wake of China's policy of encouraging cremation due to lack of space and the Hindu practice in India of burning the body on a funeral pyre made with wood.
"A single tree over a hundred-year period absorbs over a metric ton of CO2, so imagine the difference it could make if everyone was buried and had a tree planted in their memory," he said.
Short proposed for everyone to be buried in an upright position in a cardboard cylinder when they die, next to their favourite species of tree.
"Why not, instead of polluting, you fertilise that tree for the rest of your life?" he said.
He acknowledged that the idea clashes with some cultural sensitivities, legal issues and other obstacles but maintains that it was a practical idea that allowed everyone to contribute their bit in helping to combat climate change.
Short, a reproductive biologist, has also come up with the concept of lemon juice as a contraceptive and means of preventing HIV in women. The method is currently being experimented in Nigeria.
The science journalists conference, on from April 16 to 20, has participants comprising more than 400 journalists, scientists and environmental experts.
Some headline-hungry scientist or politition is going to realise soon that we produce lots of CO2 when we breath - then we'll all be encouraged to cut down on it... :oops:
Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 100
Location: Marlborough Sounds
Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 10:06 am Post Subject:
Hi John, just found this post.As a new green party member I agree with your 1st post.Its a shame that the major parties have hijacked green issues as the greens are forced to support them yet do they realise that the outcomes from these policies wont serve the end that the greens want.e.g. the ets impacts on farming wont necesarily lead to farming the green way.As the major parties arent averse to GEs or major chemical use it could mean we actually pollute the environment and our food more.If we had the greens as a major party we would all find that alot of their policies that may sound far out would actually be very palatable to all of us, if they werent modified by any forced cross party deals etc.The greens farming policy is a case in point.
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 387
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 1:00 pm Post Subject:
Yes, the Greens' farming policy seems to be good common sense and in fact reflects actions that must be taken in order to preserve new Zealand's ecology and quality of life. Unfortunately, cross party agreements (if the greens get the chance to influence - and that's not certain) will determine that, at best, the destruction of our waterways will only diminish slightly but may give the populous the impression that something significant is being done.
Preserve the ecology or preserve profits - these two are mutually exclusive. In my opinion, major changes to the status quo are vital, unfortunately the various lobbies that represent vested interests will fight tooth and nail to prevent this. Unless, of course, those affected were to receive billions in compensation from the public purse...
I dont see myself voting for the Greens but I think Sue Kedgley did some great work for that party, everything that came out of that womans mouth resonated with me. Sue for prime minister!!! Hell I think I will even give her some PR he he!!...
Quote:
Sue Kedgley has been a Green Party MP since 1999, and is Chair of Parliament’s Health Select Committee.
She has been a safe food campaigner for many years and was a founder of the Safe Food Campaign in New Zealand and the National Food Safety Network. She helped secure the Green budget bid for a $3 million dollar Nutrition Fund for schools and is working closely with the Minister of Health on the Food & Nutrition Guidelines for Schools.
She has an MA (Hons) in Political Science, and is the author or co-author of seven books, the most recent one entitled ‘Eating Safely in a Toxic World’.
She was a Wellington City Councillor for 7 years, a TV reporter/director/producer for 8 years, and worked for 8 years in the United Nations Secretariat, promoting women's issues and organising international conferences.
She is married to Denis Foot and is the mother of 18 year old Zac.
Green Party Spokesperson on: Animal Welfare, Arts & Culture, Broadcasting, Consumer Affairs, Environment (Assoc), Health, Organics, Safe Food, Transport (Assoc Wgtn) , Womens’ Affairs
Speaking of the Green party ... I took a trip into Blenheim yesterday afternoon - (Friday - election date announcement day) ... spotted 2 'Vote for me' billboards on main route from Renwick to Blenheim.
Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 100
Location: Marlborough Sounds
Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 6:04 pm Post Subject:
Yeah I got an email with pictures of 3 billboards gone up. Something about as soon as the election date is announced its all go.So we get 7 weeks of bulls#@t from all of them.
