In the past years, carbon emission reduction from transportation & industries has remarkably remained obscure & unsettled, mainly because of threats to life & impending restrictions on livelihood and economy besides domestic concerns. As one of the means to curtail waste gases from transportation & industries, bio-fuels (as alternative energy) were adopted, coming from plants’ biomass or food materials or excrements. Recycling was also recommended as further means to stop or cut short industry production. But nothing much has changed because CO2 is also emitted by bio-fuels, bioreactors and other bio-technologies (i.e., the same waste gas problem) even though these have low carbon content or grade level. In making it into a law by some states, it apparently showed either confusion on the subject of varied carbon fuel sources. Unknowingly, methane grew since the world is unaware that, in extreme cases, there is a shortage or loss of O2 and burnt carbon takes up hydrogen instead, meaning: photosynthesis is immensely overtaken by respiration, causing a lop-sided leverage on O2 vs. CO2.
Pragmatically speaking, the treaty & its recommendations are deceitful being inconsistent or in total conflict with nature’s universal laws that were taught to us in basic sciences such as biology, chemistry & physics. UN & its scientists cannot entirely ignore or discard our empirical scientific facts (since time immemorial) and apply their own new & current studies in its final recommendations and then let the international treaty control. It is the primordial aim of scientists to apply these branches of sciences with which we should & must engage to determine which universal laws should be followed.
Contrary to studies of UN, the scientific community should not & must not entirely secure certainty on the objective of carbon emission reduction where no precise, accurate & careful scientific analyses were thoroughly rendered by UNEP, enveloping the subject of environment. There is no rationale that by suspending the production of CO2, we could eliminate warming. A compound of gas like CO2 can only be broken by chemical processes, not by just leaving it alone. We have to do something to lower the volume by breaking the compound in order to get its O2 as one of our goals to repair our ozone layer, to cool our atmosphere, to build the glaziers back, to strengthen our immune system and so forth.
To philosophize, it is analogous to say that the treaty can be compared for instance by telling people to reduce breathing, which may come from high level of CO2 respiration such as aerobic exercises. And therefore, this is absurd just as that of the treaty, isn’t it? The treaty would then be meaningless & senseless, completely unintelligible. If the treaty has no metaphysical explanation, why push something that is not based on approximation of the characteristics of the universe. As author Winston Kayanan from the Philippines has been telling the authorities, the topmost source of CO2 emissions actually come from soil carbon of organic matter (already eaten up by dominant microorganisms such as fungi, amoeba, decay bacteria & others) and loss of earth’s vegetations & forests (such as abandoned farms, ruined or destroyed lands by war, urban development & expansion, wildfires, etc. in which more than 60% is already desertified). And the best way to treat excess carbon in the atmosphere is carbon plant than carbon sink (as what scientists depend & rely on) or plant forest (as what UNFCCC had recommended).
In this dilemma, it is essential to ascertain what good effect such treaty will have upon the status of people (whether progressive or retrogressive, safe or dangerous, pro-life or anti-life). Without first finding the biological & chemical origin of carbon, the treaty is then bastardized. To simply elaborate this, let the author ask you these linking questions & answers on the subject of transportation & industries alone, to wit:
FIRST: Where do CO2 & CH4 waste gases come from? Answer: From carbon of burnt fossil fuels (be they good or bad combustion) like coal (with 90% carbon content) & oil (with 80% carbon content). In the absence of O2, methane is produced.
SECOND: Where do coal & oil come from? Answer: From dead plants & other organisms under the soil.
THIRD: Where do plants get their carbon? Answer: From top soil of fertile lands, rich in carbohydrates & other sugars (likewise of carbon compounds) via absorption other than CO2 in the atmosphere via photosynthesis.
FOURTH: Where is the origin of carbon? Answer: From decomposing organic matter, having as much as 30-35% carbon content.
From the foregoing reverse order of arrangement (from final destination to first appearance), UN & its scientists (including IPCC) stopped their studies after the second. They just followed the carbon cycle and did not continue from third to fourth to complete the fundamental evolutionary aspect of carbon known as organic
That is my biggest problem with the AGW theory. According to the IPCC and other climate scientists basically all CO2 and methane are man made and very little comes from nature. This doesn’t explain the 280ppm baseline for CO2 which was the level in the 1800′s prior to the huge industrial age take off. Especially before the building of thousands of coal burning power plants. One report that I skimmed from the IPCC said that a 80% reduction in man made CO2 will drop the level of CO2 from 380 ppm to around 240 ppm. How can you drop CO2 below the baseline when the baseline is from natural sources?
September 4th, 2009 at 9:14 am
That is my biggest problem with the AGW theory. According to the IPCC and other climate scientists basically all CO2 and methane are man made and very little comes from nature. This doesn’t explain the 280ppm baseline for CO2 which was the level in the 1800′s prior to the huge industrial age take off. Especially before the building of thousands of coal burning power plants. One report that I skimmed from the IPCC said that a 80% reduction in man made CO2 will drop the level of CO2 from 380 ppm to around 240 ppm. How can you drop CO2 below the baseline when the baseline is from natural sources?
References :