From: spike66 (spike66@attbi.com)
Date: Sat Nov 30 2002 - 13:51:34 MST
> John K Clark wrote:
>> "The Kyoto agreement--if fully complied with--would likely reduce the
>> gross domestic product of the United States by 2.3 percent per year...
As I understand it the Kyoto agreement had more to do
with slowing the emissions of carbon dioxide than the
far easier task of drawing it back out of the atmosphere.
Would it not be better to divert the Columbia and the
Sacramento rivers that flow from the U.S. west coast,
wasting fresh water into the sea, send the water inland
to nourish fast growing trees, such as eucalyptus. We
could sequester as much carbon as we wanted in the form
of logs. The only technology needed has been with us
for some time, just pipes and pumps. Why not convert
the otherwise useless American grassy plains to forest?
Last time this came up, someone argued the soil isnt
good enough out there for that. I question that notion,
for I have seen eucalyptis grow just fine in sandy
shallow soil nearly devoid of nutrients. However if
it is true, and we *really* cant figure out how to grow
a forest in crummy soil, another option is to cut wood
from Siberia, tie the logs into enormous bundles and float
them into the Arctic Sea to prevent or slow the rotting
process. Cutting the Siberian trees would make space for
more trees to grow on those vast unused expanses of forest,
thereby sequestering still more carbon in the form of wood.
After the nice pleasant November we have enjoyed this year,
global warming is sounding better all the time. However
if we decide we wanted to, it seems like a relatively easy
task to adjust the planet's CO2 level to whatever we want
it to be, without having to reduce our emissions at all.
spike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:30 MST