> --
> replace [at] with [@] to reply

> Dennis Jensen wrote in message
> <9k7n04$7o...@fang.dsto.defence.gov.au>...
> <snip>

> >Sorry, Ace, you have this wrong. I used to be forrestation was the
> answer
> >too. However, according to New Scientist and Scientific American, grass
> is
> >actuallt a FAR better CO2 sink per acre than trees.

> >Dennis

> On Wed, 1 Aug 2001 09:48:47 +0800,
> "Dennis Jensen" <jen...@amdaat.com.au>
> put fingers to keyboard and tapped away writing:

> > ? >
> ? > You just don't get the problem - do you?
> ? >
> ? > The World has enormous carbon deposits which have lain undisturbed for
> ? > millions of years.  These carbon deposits (mostly oil and coal) are
> ? > being exploited.  For each carbon molecule burned, two oxygen
> ? > molecules are taken from the air, forming carbon di-oxide.
> ? >
> ? > The increased levels of carbon di-oxide in the atmosphere act like a
> ? > blanket around the world, keeping the sun's heat in and not allowing
> ? > it to radiate out.
> ? >
> ? > The effect this has is to warm the oceans, and water expands with
> ? > heat.  In the short term, effects are minimal as the oceans are so
> ? > vast it will take a very long time to warm the oceans even by one
> ? > degree.
> ? >
> ? > Unfortunately, reversing the trend is like stopping a fully laden oil
> ? > tanker - it takes a long time, and even when you start to act the
> ? > tanker ploughs on regardless.
> ? >
> ? > There is no known short term solution to the problem - which is what
> ? > President George III is banking on when he says that technology will
> ? > find a way.
> ? >
> ? > The Kyoto protocol gives a way of slowing the tanker (or at the very
> ? > least reducing the rate of acceleration) by setting targets for carbon
> ? > emissions.  The Kyoto Protocol is, at the very most, a medium term
> ? > solution.
> ? >
> ? > The only known long term solution is to physically remove the carbon
> ? > from its oxygen bond.  One very efficient way to do this is by growing
> ? > trees.  The problem there is that it would take massive re-forestation
> ? > to achieve.  The only areas large enough for re-forestation on such a
> ? > scale are the deserts - and that would take water... lots of it.
> ? >
> ?
> ? Sorry, Ace, you have this wrong. I used to be forrestation was the
answer
> ? too. However, according to New Scientist and Scientific American, grass
is
> ? actuallt a FAR better CO2 sink per acre than trees.

> It's carbon sinks that are required not CO2 sinks.  The O2 is useful
> to keep in the atmosphere.

> On Wed, 1 Aug 2001 15:04:50 +0800,
> "Dennis Jensen" <jen...@amdaat.com.au>
> put fingers to keyboard and tapped away writing:

> > ? > ? Sorry, Ace, you have this wrong. I used to be forrestation was the
> ? answer
> ? > ? too. However, according to New Scientist and Scientific American,
grass
> ? is
> ? > ? actuallt a FAR better CO2 sink per acre than trees.
> ? >
> ? >
> ? > It's carbon sinks that are required not CO2 sinks.  The O2 is useful
> ? > to keep in the atmosphere.
> ?
> ?
> ? That's true, and, as such, grasses are far better carbon sinks as well.

> Short term only.

> Longer term trees store far more carbon.

> ?
> ? Dennis
> ?

> Best wishes, Ace

> ====================

> Upon Saint Crispin's Day fought was this noble fray,
> Which fame did not delay to England to carry.
> O when shall English men with such acts fill a pen,
> Or England breed again such a King Harry?

>  On Thu, 2 Aug 2001 11:40:33 +0800,
>  "Dennis Jensen" <jen...@amdaat.com.au>
>  put fingers to keyboard in alt.folklore.military
>  and tapped away writing............

> ?
> ? "Ace" <Agincourt1.rem...@btinternet.nospam.com> wrote in message
> ? news:ekkfmtc333k9ci7sn43om7anoc8h1rtuhn@4ax.com...
> ? > Hi Dennis,
> ? >
> ? > On Wed, 1 Aug 2001 15:04:50 +0800,
> ? > "Dennis Jensen" <jen...@amdaat.com.au>
> ? > put fingers to keyboard and tapped away writing:
> ? >
> ? > > ? > ? Sorry, Ace, you have this wrong. I used to be forrestation was
the
> ? > ? answer
> ? > ? > ? too. However, according to New Scientist and Scientific
American,
> ? grass
> ? > ? is
> ? > ? > ? actuallt a FAR better CO2 sink per acre than trees.
> ? > ? >
> ? > ? >
> ? > ? > It's carbon sinks that are required not CO2 sinks.  The O2 is
useful
> ? > ? > to keep in the atmosphere.
> ? > ?
> ? > ?
> ? > ? That's true, and, as such, grasses are far better carbon sinks as
well.
> ? >
> ? >
> ? > Short term only.
> ? >
> ? > Longer term trees store far more carbon.
> ? >
> ?
> ? Not correct, look at the magazines I pointed to. Think about the area
that
> ? individual trees cover, and think about both the amount of grass itself,
and
> ? the root systems.
> ?
> ? > Another solution is to grow trees in the rain forests, then harvest
> ? > them and store the wood in the deserts and plant more trees in the
> ? > rain forests.
> ? >
> ?
> ? That wood will eventually decompose.

> In the British Museum they have a 3000 year old sun dried body.  Wood
> too can last that long and longer.  Where did coal and oil come from?

> ?
> ? Dennis
> ? >
> ? > ?
> ? > ? Dennis
> ? > ?
> ? >
> ? >
> ? >
> ? > Best wishes, Ace
> ? >
> ? > ====================
> ? >
> ? > Upon Saint Crispin's Day fought was this noble fray,
> ? > Which fame did not delay to England to carry.
> ? > O when shall English men with such acts fill a pen,
> ? > Or England breed again such a King Harry?
> ?

> ok ta
> DC

> Still Ive yet to completely understand Europe's position on nuclear power
and
> why it is "bad" and yet fossil fueled power is "good" despite it being
"bad" in
> Kyoto speak!...and I AM European!!

> That's exactly what the rest of the World is doing by signing up to
> the Kyoto Protocol.

> So you deny the fact that over 160 nations are still signed up to the
> Kyoto Protocol and only one nation has pulled out of discussions
> completely?

> ?
> ? They're still producing CO2, just negotiating a way to blame other
people as
> ? being worse.

> The fact remains that the US is the World's leader in per capita and
> total tonnage pollution - and is the only nation refusing to sign up
> to the treaty.

> ?
> ? YOU need to go out and stop people from using items requiring the
production
> ? of CO2.

> And the US doesn't?

> ?
> ? Tell people their cars, regardless of how many mph they get, make CO2 as
> ? well as the energy production to make electricity or plastics and
whatnot.

> Exactly - so over 160 countries are agreeing to limits to CO2
> emissions.