Science!

[Colonel Flagg]

If you think this is surprising, consider that plastic, which was always thought to be "permanent" - remember the commercial "10,000 years in a landfill"? - decomposes in less than 50 years in the ocean. This is a problem, unfortunately, since the additives in plastic bottles, which went unregulated for many years in the '60s and '70s, are now being indiscriminately "added" to the ocean, which is causing environmental and biological havoc among oceanic wildlife and habitat.

But the oceans are resilient - I recently saw a TED webcast which showed underwater photos of underwater habitat in Australia and New Zealand which was decimated as recently as 25 years ago, came back to life and vigor under protective stewardship. And in Philly, the Schuylkill river was, when I was growing up, a cesspit of garbage, detritus and very many dead fish. Now, it is actually used for recreation, right in the middle of the city - boating, swimming and fishing.

So I don't find it surprising. Even anthropogenic global climate change can be limited or reduced to the point where nature takes over again. IF it exists, that is - in case you were unaware, there is still some debate on this point. (We probably talked about this before , when coonholio was still actively posting crap, but I can't be bothered to look it up. )

[Zhukov]

It's coming back? I... I can go outside again?

[Pentegarn]

Originally Posted by Colonel Flagg

So I don't find it surprising. Even anthropogenic global climate change can be limited or reduced to the point where nature takes over again. IF it exists, that is - in case you were unaware, there is still some debate on this point. (We probably talked about this before , when coonholio was still actively posting crap, but I can't be bothered to look it up. )

I think only coolie thought climate change was a myth

That said, he did touch (inadvertently I do not doubt) on something I do take issue with. Cap and trade tax (or penalties). I feel it sets a dangerous precedent. We know CO2 is considered a gas that effects global warning, so how long before a country is charged a cap and trade penalty for their population because exhaling while breathing emits CO2?

In essence, cap in trade is potentially a 'breathing tax'. I take issue with that. Time was when we worried about CO2 emissions, we planted trees. What happened to those days?

[Colonel Flagg]

Originally Posted by Pentegarn

That said, [coolsterino] did touch (inadvertently I do not doubt) on something I do take issue with. Cap and trade tax (or penalties).

Ah, but he was the only one bringing it up, tacitly assuming he was the ONLY ONE who was against "cap-and-trade".

Not true.

But he never listened, or stayed around long enough to find out.

That being said, there is still hefty debate going on in the scientific community on anthrpogenic climate change - man's contribution to the global carbon cycle - and that is still a matter of some disagreement. Most of the climatologists believe there is a tipping point above which the balance of carbon will drastically shift, bringing about a drastic change in the average global temperature. That still remains to be seen; the world is a complex place.

I just think we should limit the production of greenhouse gases to lessen the impact hiumans have on the global environment, and to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. I think that makes good economic and environmental sense.