Breathing for the future

Towns and cities should have more green space and more trees...roofs should be planted too...this is a win-win. It solves other problems like overloaded storm drains too.

Trees are good, there are plenty of varieties... but they tend to come in green

Del

Yes I believe our living within the bounds of the natural ecosystems envelope would provide a favorable future.

Have a quick question about the current levels of technology on this subject; perhaps the question is "off the wall" as I claim only a surface knowledge of the subject.

I believe that photosynthesis is the process (or part of the process) by which trees convert CO2 in the air to O2 for release back into the atmosphere. Is it not practical to develop a chemical process for simulating the photosynthetic reactions and converting excess CO2 into O2? Seems like the time would be ripe for someone to market such a technology.

Is it not practical to develop a chemical process for simulating the photosynthetic reactions and converting excess CO2 into O2? Seems like the time would be ripe for someone to market such a technology.

Quite right, though not only is it the Co2 to o2 conversion but the humidity and biological effects of the leaf drop and a tree can sometimes support many micro climates in which isolated ecosystem exist. We do not have the science to replace "green" and the repercussions we're becoming aware of are a gentle wake up that we have much to learn. Have you ever heard the advice given the young frog?

There is a process currently in operation/development that uses CO₂ from gas/coal power generation to grow algae, right next to the power plant, from which biodiesel is produced.

Bah. Relying on outdated technologies such as dirt and photosynthesis should be left to crop farmers and little old ladies who grow prize petunias. Simple, rational, cost-effective solutions like going green are short-sighted. As men and women of science I think it is incumbant upon us engineers to constantly find new and exciting ways of altering our ecosystem. And by that I of course mean more lucrative for us.

Giant space mirrors made of diamond, reflecting heat from the sun. Grand fleets of zepplins criss-crossing the sky with high voltage cables that electrostatically precipiate pollution away. Genetic/mechanical enhancements to create animals/people that actually prefer higher CO2 levels. Giant ship-based factories that emit a peppermint-scented fog to enshroud ozone-holed southern continents, protecting them from excess UV.

This my fellows...this is the future toward which we should be working.

Okay, for the sake of discussion let us say that your comment represents plan A, and the context of the thread is plan B to maintain the stability of our planets ecological balance in it's current state of being while science; definition - trial & error, attempts to up grade to a theoretical higher equation.

First We need stabilize the platform of "green" as you said was short lived though functioned well until the last century.

What do you think and expound upon these exiting ways of altering our ecosystem.

Your approach to this problem is a bit of idiotic.....it is like saying bah....we should replace human body parts with something modern like heart with a nuclear pump ....brain with parallel processor, stomach with diesel engine....and legs with michellin wheels (you know why....because its more powerful eh..) .....If I was a boss (science point of view), the most cost effective approach is to go green because its very low maintanance cost and its very productive....besides...fauna and flora has billions of years of knowledge through evolution under their belt....and we are just a small pint in their time line....there is lots to learn...

As it is April and you have hidden behind guest, I trust that this is just a later April 1 st joke....

Maybe you should look at the calendar more often!!!

Plants good. Developers bad, kill plants. Make developers grow more plants.

"un-told 2. too great or too numerous to be counted or measured; incalculable"

If we are, in fact, losing "untold" species "daily" this planet would be devoid of any animal activity within a short period of time. I am not without compasion for the lower species, but I think we could spend a lot less money by buying cameras, documenting that there once was a spotted owl and show the pictures to our offspring. I never saw a live dinosaur but I have seen artists depictions of them, and I do believe they existed many years ago. They are, or were, fascinating beings, but I do not feel slighted or cheated that I never saw one alive. I am not sure I am up to a foot race with old T-Rex. Let the course of Nature follow its given path. Who are we to interfere. Mother Nature has always managed the distribution of the species over the planet without help from Homo Sapiens. Let us now allow her the freedom to continue with that endeavor without our interference.

The extinction of the spotted owl, if it comes to that, will be replaced by the possible entry of the "unspotted owl", an animal with as much distinction and renown as its predecessor. Our children will awe at the pictures of the dinosaurs as we did when we were young, and they will be able to look at pictures of the spotted owl on the net if their fancy is so inclined.

Let the course of Nature follow its given path. Who are we to interfere. Mother Nature has always managed the distribution of the species over the planet without help from Homo Sapiens. Let us now allow her the freedom to continue with that endeavor without our interference.

Think man what is it we are doing if not interfering?

"...what is it that we are doing if not interfeing?"

Actually, we are LIVING. We are following the course that has been assigned to us by "Mother Nature", if you like. We can not allow the daily activity of "living" to be impaired by the few who would argue that the existance of a small, insignificant creature, such as the spotted owl, is more important than the delivery of energy producing oil to a raft of people whose very survival may well depend on that commodity. Perhaps more important is the premise of "survival of the fittest." We, as humans, are instilled with the passion and compulsion to survive. And, of course, we will. This survival becomes more cumbersome when it is hampered by those who would put the survival of a bird before the survival of our own species.

The act of living or "being" is the ultimate goal of human beings. We will propagate and we will continue to be the strongest and most intelligent beings on the planet, although that intelligence idea can often be challenged! We can not allow our daily activities to be considered as interference with the existence of lower species. Interference with "Mother Nature" would be to try to stop or impede the drive that has been instilled in us to do exactly the oposite. Is the attack of the lion against a gazelle interference with "Mother Nature's" plan. Of course not. It is Nature's way. Just as are our activities. We could corral all the gazelles so they would not perish at the "paws" of the lion, feed the lions road kill found on the highways of the world and boast about how benevolent we are for saving the poor gazelle. What we would, in fact, have accomplished is "interference". There is a difference, you see.

Interference is meant to describe the destruction of ecosystems we (human kind) have been engaged due greed or personal gains without an operable social consciousness.

I disagree with your argumentative details about the spotted owl controversy.

We can not allow the daily activity of "living" to be impaired by the few who would argue that the existence of a small, insignificant creature, such as the spotted owl

We do not have data to support this claim...

This survival becomes more cumbersome when it is hampered by those who would put the survival of a bird before the survival of our own species.

The spotted owl fiasco (the spotted owls don't use the old growth trees as habitat) was a sterling example of executive bumbling, nonfactual impetus with no stability not hampering human survival but eliminating a commercial sale (by the private owner) of forest products to Japan. In the same vein poor government oversight in a sector not a responsibility of theirs defined as meddling.

Thank you for correcting me. I used the spotted owl scenario as an example of man's willingness to protrect the existence of that bird at the expense of many humans. I am aware the the spotted owl story was not centered around oil delivery, but I took "poetic license" and used the owl's name because it would be recognized by more readers as it was the focal point of a huge controversy some number of years ago. I must remember the audience I am reaching with these comments and give them more credibility than my axample allows.

The long and short of what I was trying to convey is the mistaken (my opinion)premise that lower life forms are more important than we humans. I am, as my first discertation admits, not without compassion for these beautiful little creatures. I just think that we can allow their existence to infringe on my capability to function in the manner in which I feel is best for me, my family and my species.

My use of the spotted owl perhaps was not a good choice. Perhaps if I had used the King Island Emu, I would have had more credibility. The point I was trying to make is that there are many extinct birds, turtles, dogs, cats, etc., but there are very few extinct Homo Sapiens. And, as a matter of opinion, I do not believe I have missed out on anything by not having ever seen a King Island Emu. I'm not THAT old!

Thank for explanation and the concept is of a greater depth than you are expressing. For example there was a bird known as the Gooney that has become extinct some years ago. It is the lack of this one bird that is leading to extinction of several other species because they rely upon a function the Gooney can not deliver so they perish.

I am not directly striking at evolution or its lack of evidence only that if you remove a link in a ecological chain the entire chain suffers and often catastrophically.

With our knowledgeability and stature we as the managers of our world should take all into consideration and not casually discard elements of it.

"Interference is meant to describe the destruction of ecosystems we (human kind) have been engaged due greed or personal gains without an operable social consciousness."

Actually, how aboutthe neat foodcrops and angus beef and cool dog breeds our "interference' has created.

It ain't all bad.

However, if the religious belief is that humans are a virus infecting the planet, then yes, all is bad and going worse.

On the other hand, if you believe in the importance of humans and humanity,then our existential joy of engineering a planet better suited to supporting more humans in abetter quality of life than that in the past when we were subject to each and every force and pestilence, is well on our way. We need to improve our efficienecies, but

I am happy that my children were born now, and not , say, inthe early 1920's before polio vaccines...

I for one, vote for the humans as the yardstick, not the adoring worship of the planet, where humans are little more than an STD.

milo

I for one, vote for the humans as the yardstick, not the adoring worship of the planet, where humans are little more than an STD.

I agree and I don't worship the planet I worship the creator and we need only tend the garden.

Cool.

I do not dispute the wisdom of or need for better stewardship of our garden, just the hysterical tone of some of the "newly converted," who are desparatley lungeing for the controls...

"Lets just hit this Carbon Button, That'll surely help..."

Peace.

milo

If we are, in fact, losing "untold" species "daily" this planet would be devoid of any animal activity within a short period of time.

If it were only one species per day it would be untold also.

Ahhh, beware, bwire. You are allowing your emotions to cloud your thoughts. Look again at the definition of untold. It has no room for emotion. It is empirical in that it does not allow you to interject "conditions" when utilizing the word. The term implies that the number is too great to measure. By reducing the number by a factor of the number of days in a year or the number of "losses" in a day would still leave a number, theoretically, that is still "too great to measure." But your compassion for the lesser of the species is commendable and I would never belittle you, or anyone else, for that attribute.

Thank you as feel we should oversee the garden but this is not an emotional issue for me.

when utilizing the word. The term implies that the number is too great to measure. By reducing the number by a factor of the number of days in a year or the number of "losses" in a day would still leave a number, theoretically, that is still "too great to measure."

The fact is no measurements are taken prior elimination of the possibility of measurement.

In your personnel management practices do you not completely utilize a resource before discarding. Then the concept of destruction without knowledge of the consequences should be apparent. We learn early not to use words we don't understand but in ignorance of the principle we destroy without understanding because we are so smart?

Not so, my friend. By defining the parameter and imposing the limitation as "...one species per day..." you have removed it from the definition of "untold".

I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that you were stating that the loss of even one species per day would be "too many" and interjecting the word "untold" for that purpose. That would imply an emotional connection. If I assumed that incorrectly, I am wrong and I humbly accept my criticism. If, in fact, I am not wrong, then I stand by my original posting.

The term was used in reference to a possibility not a defined parameter.

Certainly everyone knows that the bulk (75% plus) of CO2 conversion is done by blue/green algae, in the planet's oceans. The answer? Kill the whales!

I love this troll - intelligent, and with a vicious sense of humor.

Can we keep it?

There are more trees in North America now than there were 200 years ago, mainly due to lumber and paper companies which grow trees as a crop. With proper forest management even forest fires could be reduced greatly. Unfortunately the lovers of the primitive untouched by man environment won't allow those practices. So thousands of acres of forest burns each year, contributing to CO2 which they say they want to stop.

Fires create meadows for wildlife by destroying the trees, clear cutting and replanting also creates meadows, but it does not destroy the trees, because they are used. Cutting only 25% of a forest in each century leaves plenty of space for the animals.

We have many housing developments. The nice ones are where they cut down only those trees where they built the house and just cleared out the underbrush, leaving the large trees for shade. Too many though remove every tree and green plant for acres. Why? Because construction workers can only walk in straight lines and they would run into any trees that were left and get stuck, unable to turn or back up and change direction. I can just picture them, arms full of tools and materials, face first into a tree, their feet digging trenches as they tried to go straight ahead.

The second part of your comment contradicts the first?

There are more trees in North America now than there were 200 years ago, mainly due to lumber and paper companies which grow trees as a crop.

Not hardly. Most figures are based upon logging industry reports and photos sent to congress 100 years ago depicting density of old growth forests. But the photos were taken after thinning processes had occurred. In old growth forests fires are not a problem because there is no underbrush or fuel; very little sunlight filters down to the forest floor. Four hundred years ago there were hardwood forests from the Atlantic shore to Illinois and south to the Caribbean coast. In the pacific north west where once 185' trees grew so close light was dim at the forest floor now trees are clear cut or thinned to the extent they are 40-60' a part (western Montana) except in areas where they have been specifically protected and on private property (Washington).

With proper forest management even forest fires could be reduced greatly.

The status quo of proper forest management is what we have and is the authority that in the recent past prohibited the use of forest fires as a management tool.

Though it may seem so I am not a tree hugger but I value quality of life and industry of the last two hundred years is responsible for the lack of good clean drinking water and poor air quality globally.

Enough, social responsibility is not optional...