The Stimulus: What Everyone Green is Saying About It

540 million years ago CO2 was 7000ppm (when land animals appeared).

170 million years ago CO2 was 1700ppm (when dinosaurs roamed the Earth)

250 years ago CO2 was 250ppm (after Little Ice Age)

currently, because of man, CO2 is 385ppm.

Plant life dies at 150-180ppm through asphyxiation.

CO2 is a finite resource. Nature has been sequestering it underground for 540 million years. At the rate of decrease over the last 170 million years, Earth would have hit 150ppm in about 10 million years. Odd as it may seem, man had inadvertently increased the life essential CO2 concentrations, and if we were to disappear today, the added CO2 probably adds another 10 million years to plant life on Earth. However, man is clever, and may find a way to bury CO2 and make it unavailable to nature at an accelerated rate. Thus, we may yet find a way to kill off most of the planet's plant life, thus ending the 3rd atmosphere.

Meanwhile the Obama Administration and most of the press focus on the wrong components.

N2O, which has no carbon, is 296 times worse than CO2, and 3% of fertilizer for corn to make ethanol is emitted into the air as N2O. Will that be regulated? And if so, will the cost of food soar?

CH4 (methane) is emitted from rotting wood and is 22X worse than CO2. Will that be regulated? Termites create considerable methane, how will regulate that? And will it receive equal penalties for unequal effect?

H2 (hydrogen) in the atmosphere combines with hydroxyls (-OH) and removes H2 from the air. Hydroxyls normally combine with free methane to remove it. A hydrogen economy may actually increase the longevity of methane in the air, thus increasing Global Warming Gas effect. Will the EPA control that?

Burning wood reduces the amount of methane released but increases CO2 over letting it rot which releases much more methane and less CO2. Methane oxidizes in about 9 years to CO2. Will the EPA promote burning scrap wood as a means of decreasing the overall GW effect?

The current policy doesn't actually use science in its decision making. What is at stake is that if the government controls CARBON it controls LIFE.

I grow trees. Agricultural growth rate has increased 30+% because of the increase of CO2 in the past 250 years. It is projected to increase further with any continued rise of CO2. What is the political end game? Are ecopoliticians trying to reduce CO2 to preindustrial 250ppm? Do you realize that we would lose the 30% agricultural gain and thus cause massive STARVATION across the planet. And do you know what happens when global concentrations drop to about 150ppm? Most life on Earth DIES. Is this what you want to promote?

Randy Dutton of WA 1:56PM March 02, 2009

I am skeptical of carbon sequestration. Apparently it reduces power production by 20 or 30 percent to extract the CO2 and pump it into the ground. And there will be a tremendous amount of CO2 - we would need a pipeline system comparable to what we now have for petroleum. What's likely to happen if a power company runs into financial difficulty, or there's some disruption in that pipeline (anything from industrial accident up to war). Remember that CO2 is a colorless, odorless gas. If some leaks, nothing bad happens right away.

And wind power is great, but on average you only get a quarter of the rated power, and you still have to invest in a gas power plant (or hydropower, or something) to take up the slack when the wind isn't blowing. So, yes, you can avoid some CO2 production when the wind is blowing, but the capital costs are high.

Jim Van Zandt of NH 12:36PM February 11, 2009

Green energy sources have only just begun in the imagination and practice in this country. We must develop what we have in abundance and the infractructure (grid) must be put in place to take advantage of it. This takes time, effort and money. In Brazil, they used what they had in abundance: sugar cane. They became green and independent of imported oil in about 20-25 years. They began in earnest after the artificial oil shortage & price spike of the 1970's. The same plan Jimmy Carter advanced for the U.S. is the one now finally being talked about. But think about all the coastline available to the U.S. including all of both borders plus the bonus of the Gulf of Mexico. Tides influenced by the moon never cease like winds come and go. Harnessing the energy of the tides with underwater like devices similar to the way windmills operate on land is one as yet untapped source of endless green energy. Combine all the sources available in the U.S. and we once again become the wonder of all the world.

HillbillyBill of TN 8:24AM February 11, 2009

Wind farms have a small footprint becuase there are still few of them. To comply with the mandated percentages of power generated approved already and under consideration in many states, obviously the footprint will greatly exceed the curent acreage in use.

As for installation if farm acreage, the pollination interference problem is unlikley to be solved.

Consdiering the demands for electric power by a nation of 300 million and growing, the land-intensive alternatives are unlikley to provide even a mid-term solution.

Carbon capture and sequestration along with modern filters and scrubbers remove the pollutant effects of coal-burning plants, allowing us a bridge technology until the engineering solutions of frictionless surfaces and perfect semiconductors allow us to far more with less energy inputs.

Focusing on the generation-side of the problem is the mistake in our R&D focus. He investment should ne in technologies which allow us to achieve the same taks at far lower energy inputs.

Drew of VA 6:54PM February 10, 2009