<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt">Plastic isn't allegedly killing our entire civilization. Buried plastic doesn't act as a greenhouse gas, at least as far as I'm aware.<br><br>Paul<br><div><span><br></span></div><div><br></div> <div style="font-family: times new roman, new york, times, serif; font-size: 12pt;"> <div style="font-family: times new roman, new york, times, serif; font-size: 12pt;"> <div dir="ltr"> <hr size="1"> <font face="Arial" size="2"> <b><span style="font-weight:bold;">From:</span></b> Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe@gmail.com><br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> Paul Rumelhart <godshatter@yahoo.com> <br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Cc:</span></b> Moscow Vision 2020 <vision2020@moscow.com> <br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Tuesday, July 30, 2013 4:08 PM<br> <b><span
style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [Vision2020] Sea-level rise threatens 1,400 towns<br> </font> </div> <div class="y_msg_container"><br><div id="yiv9512879123"><div><div>Plastic stays in the ground a very long time. By your logic, we shouldn't worry about it!?!</div><div><br>On Jul 30, 2013, at 2:57 PM, Paul Rumelhart <<a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div style="color:#000;background-color:#fff;font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt;">Is it true that CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a very long time? If so, that one fact changes the entire game.<br><br>Paul<br><div><span><br></span></div><div><br></div> <div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt;"> <div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times,
serif;font-size:12pt;"> <div dir="ltr"> <hr size="1"> <font face="Arial" size="2"> <b><span style="font-weight:bold;">From:</span></b> Joe Campbell <<a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a>><br> <b><span style="font-weight:bold;">To:</span></b> Paul Rumelhart <<a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>> <br><b><span style="font-weight:bold;">Cc:</span></b> Moscow Vision 2020 <<a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a>> <br> <b><span style="font-weight:bold;">Sent:</span></b> Tuesday, July 30, 2013 2:53 PM<br> <b><span style="
font-weight:bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [Vision2020] Sea-level rise threatens 1,400 towns<br> </font> </div> <div class="yiv9512879123y_msg_container"><br><div id="yiv9512879123"><div><div>You're not looking at it realistically. You take the most extreme reading of everything posted on this topic.</div><div><br>On Jul 30, 2013, at 2:01 PM, Paul Rumelhart <<a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div style="color:#000;background-color:#fff;font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt;">I'm just trying to look at it realistically. If it's really true that the worst predictions are going to come true with regards to expected consequences, then we have to stare that bald fact in the face. CO2 isn't going to get scrubbed naturally in a *long* time, so we best forget that
strategically.
Since we are also talking about having to scrub CO2 out of the atmosphere ourselves faster than we are putting it in, then we are pretty screwed there too. We basically need a CO2 scrubbing industry to rival the fossil fuel and coal energy industries. Good luck with that.<br><br>Given all that, the only thing we can do is be ready as a civilization to react when we need to. That requires not stifling our energy production in a vain-glorious attempt to curb our CO2 emissions
problem.<br><br>That's if we believe the worst predictions of the climate scientists, which I am skeptical of.<br><br>Paul<br><div><span><br></span></div><div><br></div> <div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt;"> <div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt;"> <div dir="ltr"> <hr size="1"> <font face="Arial" size="2"> <b><span style="font-weight:bold;">From:</span></b> Joe Campbell <<a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a>><br> <b><span style="font-weight:bold;">To:</span></b> Paul Rumelhart <<a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>> <br><b><span style="font-weight:bold;">Cc:</span></b> Moscow Vision 2020 <<a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"
target="_blank" href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a>> <br> <b><span style="font-weight:bold;">Sent:</span></b> Tuesday, July 30, 2013 1:00 PM<br> <b><span style="font-weight:bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [Vision2020] Sea-level rise threatens 1,400 towns<br> </font> </div> <div class="yiv9512879123y_msg_container"><br><div id="yiv9512879123"><div dir="ltr"><div>No one is trying to get everyone to stop emitting CO2. That is a
hopeless endeavor. The idea is to limit production, to conserve energy
("conserve" as in "be conservative"). You are thrashing at a person made
of straw, not a view that policy makers hold. Suppose we rephrase your
first point with this in mind:<br>
<br>"... while the majority of CO2 dissolves in the ocean within 200 years
or so, what's left can stick around in the atmosphere for hundreds of
years. So getting everybody to [limit production of] CO2 is really a
non-starter in the cost/benefit analysis arena."<br><br></div><div>That sounds like a pretty bad set of reasoning.<br><br></div>That's it for now!<div class="yiv9512879123"><div class="yiv9512879123"><img class="yiv9512879123"></div>
</div></div><div class="yiv9512879123gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="yiv9512879123gmail_quote">On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:25 PM, Paul Rumelhart <span dir="ltr"><<a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="yiv9512879123gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">OK, a few thoughts.<br>
<br>
First, while the majority of CO2 dissolves in the ocean within 200 years or so, what's left can stick around in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. So getting everybody to stop producing CO2 is really a non-starter in the cost/benefit analysis arena. Cutting back on our civilization's progress would be hampered greatly if we all got religion and turned off all the coal plants and stopped burning fossil fuels or using natural gas or plastics while we waited for renewables to take up the slack. I kind of like staying warm in winter, refrigerating my food, running fans when it's hot, and so forth.<br>
<br>
They suggest removing it from the air. Since we're not going to turn off all the coal plants anytime soon and start riding bicycles, these magic carbon removal technologies would have to scale up to where they were removing more CO2 from the air than mankind was putting in. I don't see that happening any time soon.<br>
<br>
These cities that are threatened by sea level rise have hundreds of years to figure something out about it. It happens continually; it's not like on one random day 300+ years from now the sea level rises 4 ft in a few hours. It happens slowly enough that simple natural building abandonment will take care of much of the problem. How many buildings do we have that are 300 years old? When they tear down the old building and rebuild, they will move it back a few feet. We're talking a few millimeters a year in sea level rise. The ones that get slowly flooded will be abandoned and new ones built farther back. If you watched it in some kind of simulator, you'd see the city slowly creep back from the water line and move farther inland, one building at a time.<br>
<br>
But, if we're worried about it, we should move to a nuclear supplemented by renewables energy scheme right now on a global scale. Start building new nuclear reactors with the newer designs, and start researching ones that use thorium or current nuclear waste products as fuel. Then everybody buys a Tesla, and we just have wait as the CO2 is naturally scrubbed from the atmosphere and the world cools down until it's a blessed paradise. A blessed paradise without plastics or lubricants, but I'm sure we could solve those problems.<br>
<br>
Paul<div><div class="yiv9512879123h5"><br>
<br>
On 07/29/2013 07:33 PM, Joe Campbell wrote:<br>
</div></div><blockquote class="yiv9512879123gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div><div class="yiv9512879123h5">
Check out this article from USA TODAY:<br>
<br>
Sea-level rise threatens 1,400 towns<br>
<br>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://usat.ly/1chGyVt">http://usat.ly/1chGyVt</a><br>
<br></div></div>
==============================<u></u>=========================<br>
List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.fsr.net/">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
mailto:<a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
==============================<u></u>=========================<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div><br><br></div> </div> </div> </div></div></blockquote></div></div><br><br></div> </div> </div> </div></div></blockquote></div></div><br><br></div> </div> </div> </div></body></html>