Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

The Geoengineering Thread Pt. 2

Re: The Geoengineering Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby dohboi » Mon 08 Sep 2014, 22:32:00

Ummm, airplanes are one of the causes of climate change.

Yes, they could spray all sorts of nasty shit, but...oh, never mind.

This is a hammer we have, so we will treat the problem as a nail.

What could possibly go wrong?
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: The Geoengineering Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Graeme » Mon 08 Sep 2014, 23:29:10

Hope nobody is "fool"ish enough to do this. There must be a better way. DAC?
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: The Geoengineering Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Graeme » Sun 28 Sep 2014, 17:28:01

What the McKinsey GHG Abatement Curve Tells us About CDR

The CDR field has begun to emerge out of relative obscurity recently as scientists have grown more confident that we will need to remove carbon from the atmosphere to prevent climate change. But CDR is not a new concept. In fact, there are a handful of CDR approaches that have been hiding in plain sight.

Take the following supply curve of GHG abatement options that the consultancy McKinsey has prepared.


Image

The approaches highlighted in orange are all CDR techniques. So what does this chart tell us?

CDR isn’t new. McKinsey first produced this widely distributed chart in 2007. While CDR might not have been a concept that was widely known at the time, this chart shows that many CDR techniques were clearly on the radar of climate change analysts.

CDR is relatively inexpensive. The handful of CDR abatement options considered here all are expected to cost less than 20 Euros / tCO2 by 2030 (note: this chart shows estimates for McKinsey’s expected cost/potential of different GHG abatement options in 2030 — not actual costs/potential as they stand today).

The supply of CDR techniques is potentially quite large. The techniques considered by McKinsey are able to provide around 5 tCO2 per year, which could provide a significant fraction of the likely demand for CDR, as shown in the chart below:


theenergycollective
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: The Geoengineering Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby dohboi » Mon 06 Oct 2014, 22:47:22

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/cana ... lant-18136

World’s First Carbon Capture Power Plant Switches On

Sooooo, this is the technology that is now an abso-f'n-lute necessity for a survivable world and so far the whole entire global industrial system has been able to cough up exactly...

...

...(crickets...)

ONE of them.

Well, then. All is well. We can all sleep secure that the great overlord has put all aright and eternal happiness will soon follow...
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: The Geoengineering Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Graeme » Sun 12 Oct 2014, 17:45:16

New ‘Slurry’ Could Make Carbon Capture More Efficient

Carbon capture and storage, or CCS, is costly and complex, but technology is being developed that could make it happen on a broad scale, scientists say.

A team of scientists from California, Switzerland and China think they have developed a technology using a special “slurry” that will make CCS more efficient and cost-effective, they wrote in a study published Thursday in Nature Communications and led by Berend Smit, director of the Energy Center at Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne in Switzerland.

Capturing carbon usually happens in one of two ways. Most often, liquids are used to absorb the carbon dioxide, but the process is expensive and extremely energy intensive because the liquid has to be boiled as part of the process.

A less expensive process uses a solid powder that will bond to carbon dioxide at a power plant. That powder has to be transported to a site to be stored, which can be an engineering challenge, the study says.

A more effective solution is a mixture of a solid and a liquid using chemicals that could more easily absorb the CO2 than the solid powder and liquids used most commonly today, the study says.

A slurry couples the low-cost and efficiency of the powder with the benefits of the liquid method of capturing carbon without requiring large amounts of energy, the study says.


“It remains the case that a carbon tax of some kind would be necessary to stimulate large-scale implementation of CCS technology, at least until production of oil and gas naturally becomes much more expensive due to increasingly challenging and expensive extraction technology,” Kelemen, who wasn’t involved in the new study, said. “Most climate scientists would agree that ‘natural’ increases in fossil fuel cost will come too late to avoid very damaging climate change.”


climatecentral
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: The Geoengineering Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Graeme » Tue 14 Oct 2014, 19:33:29

Storing greenhouse gas underground—for a million years

When Canada switched on its Boundary Dam power plant earlier this month, it signaled a new front in the war against climate change. The commercial turbine burns coal, the dirtiest of fossil fuels, but it traps nearly all the resulting carbon dioxide underground before it reaches the atmosphere. Part of this greenhouse gas is pumped into porous, water-bearing underground rock layers. Now, a new study provides the first field evidence that CO2 can be stored safely for a million years in these saline aquifers, assuaging worries that the gas might escape back into the atmosphere.

“It's a very comprehensive piece of work,” says geochemist Stuart Gilfillan of the University of Edinburgh in the United Kingdom, who was not involved in the study. “The approach is very novel.”

There have been several attempts to capture the carbon dioxide released by the world’s 7000-plus coal-fired plants. Pilot projects in Algeria, Japan, and Norway indicate that CO2 can be stored in underground geologic formations such as depleted oil and gas reservoirs, deep coal seams, and saline aquifers. In the United States, saline aquifers are believed to have the largest capacity for CO2 storage, with potential sites spread out across the country, and several in western states such as Colorado also host large coal power plants. CO2 pumped into these formations are sealed under impermeable cap rocks, where it gradually dissolves into the salty water and mineralizes. Some researchers suggest the aquifers have enough capacity to store a century’s worth of emissions from America’s coal-fired plants, but others worry the gas can leak back into the air through fractures too small to detect.

To resolve the dilemma, geoscientists need to know how long it takes for the trapped CO2 to dissolve. The faster the CO2 dissolves and mineralizes, the less risk that it would leak back into the atmosphere. But determining the rate of dissolution is no easy feat. Lab simulations suggest that the sealed gas could completely dissolve over 10,000 years, a process too slow to be tested empirically.

So computational geoscientist Marc Hesse of the University of Texas, Austin, and colleagues turned to a natural lab: the Bravo Dome gas field in New Mexico, one of the world's largest natural CO2 reservoirs. Ancient volcanic activities there have pumped the gas into a saline aquifer 700 meters underground. Since the 1980s, oil companies have drilled hundreds of wells there to extract the gas for enhanced oil recovery, leaving a wealth of data on the site’s geology and CO2 storage.


Even so, the fact that CO2 stayed locked up underground for so long at Bravo Dome despite ongoing industrial drilling should allay concerns about potential leakage, Hesse says. Carbon capture and storage “can work, if you do it in the right place,” he says. “[This is] an enormous amount of CO2 that has sat there, for all we can tell, very peacefully for more than a million years.”


sciencemag
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: The Geoengineering Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Graeme » Tue 28 Oct 2014, 18:04:13

Soft geoengineering could mitigate change

The American soil scientist Rattan Lal and others argue that restoring vegetation on degraded lands and increasing soil organic carbon (SOC) on existing farmland has the potential to sequester sufficient CO2 to substantially mitigate climate change if done on a large scale. This form of "soft geoengineering" is a safe, win-win solution, since land restoration and soil improvement also restore watersheds, foster biodiversity, improve productivity and assist with rural poverty reduction.

The potential to reduce climate change by sequestering atmospheric C02 in soil and vegetation is huge.

Photosynthesis converts 112 billion tons of atmospheric CO2 into biomass annually. (By comparison, only nine billion tons of carbon emissions are produced from fossil fuel combustion.) However, almost all of the CO2 synthesized by plants is returned back to the atmosphere through plant and soil respiration.

According to Lal, if 10 per cent of what plants photosynthesize annually - about 11 billion tons - could be retained in the biosphere, it would be possible to balance the global carbon budget, halting climate change.

Lal explains that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 from fossil-fuel combustion and land-use changes has increased by 30 per cent since 1750, resulting in gradual global warming. Since the Industrial Revolution, global emissions of carbon are estimated at around 270 billion tons due to fossil-fuel combustion and about 136 billion tons due to land-use change and soil cultivation.

Emissions due to land-use change include those from deforestation, biomass burning, conversion of natural ecosystems to agriculture, drainage of wetlands and soil cultivation. Depletion of the SOC pool has contributed around 78 billion tons of carbon to the atmosphere. Some cultivated soils have lost one-half to two-thirds of the original SOC.

The depletion of SOC is accentuated by soil degradation and exacerbated by land misuse and soil mismanagement.

Soil is the third-largest carbon sink after oceans and fossil fuels. Soil contains 4.5 times the sequestration capacity of all vegetation (including trees) and 3.3 times that of the atmosphere.

While Rattan Lal estimates that 10 to 20 per cent of annual greenhouse gas emissions could be removed each year by sequestering carbon in cultivated land, a study by the Rodale Institute was more optimistic. It states, "multiple research efforts verify that practical organic agriculture if practised on the planet's 3.5 billion tillable acres, could sequester nearly 40 per cent of our current CO2 emissions."


thestarphoenix
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: The Geoengineering Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Graeme » Fri 31 Oct 2014, 16:50:17

Does CDR Provide 'Moral Hazard' for Avoiding Deep Decarbonization of our Economy?

No. But the fact that some environmentalists question the value of developing Carbon Dioxide Removal (“CDR”) approaches for this very reason merits greater analysis. The “moral hazard” argument against CDR goes something like this: CDR could be a “Trojan horse” that fossil fuel interests will use to delay rapid decarbonization of the economy, as these fossil interests could use the prospect of cost-effective, proven, scaleable CDR technologies as an excuse for continuing to burn fossil fuels today (on the grounds that at some point in the future we’ll have the CDR techniques to remove these present-day emissions).

The key problem with this “moral hazard” argument is the hypothesis that “cost-effective, proven, scaleable CDR solutions” are poised to proliferate at greater rates than GHG emission mitigation technologies (such as renewable energy and energy efficiency) that are required to decarbonize our economy. Today, CDR solutions remain largely in their infancy. Installed bio-CCS plants can be counted on one hand, for example, and not a single commercial-scale Direct Air Capture project has been built to date. Renewable energy, however, has had a considerable head start on CDR technologies on reducing costs. Take solar PV systems as an example. As the chart below shows, solar PV panels have dropped in cost from over $75/W to under $0.75/W over the past four decades.


This cost reduction in the price of solar PV panels happens to be exactly what economic theory would predict. Learning curve models show that that costs of energy technologies come down in a predictable fashion as cumulative installed capacity increases. The graph below shows learning curve estimates for a range of energy technologies.


Image

So what does this mean for the “moral hazard” argument against developing CDR solutions?

For this “moral hazard” argument to be valid, we would have to believe that CDR approaches will be able to not only catch up to other renewable technologies in cost within a short-time frame, but then continue to reduce costs more quickly. Otherwise, renewable technologies will continue their inevitable march down their cost curve, and will continue displacing fossil sources in our energy mix.


theenergycollective
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: The Geoengineering Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Graeme » Thu 20 Nov 2014, 20:14:42

Is Climate Change Reversible? Can Regenerative Agriculture Farming Solve the Climate Crisis?

The Role of Sequestering CO2 in Agriculture

So the BIG QUESTION: How does the CO2 from the air get sequestered? Dr. Christine Jones, one of the world's leading carbon-cycle scientists, describes the "liquid carbon pathway" -- a process whereby plants absorb the CO2 from the air, break it down via photosynthesis into carbon and oxygen, and then combine the carbon with hydrogen from water to create sugars, hence "liquid carbon." This liquid carbon flows out through the roots into the soil where it is stored and able to be reused by nature. The oxygen, as we know, is released for us to breathe, yet another example of nature in its balanced state.

So what is it about regenerative agriculture farming? It's all about our soil. A healthy soil will comprise high levels or carbon rich organic matter. Healthy soil, in fact, relies on carbon to promote healthy plant growth. During photosynthesis, plants draw carbon down from the atmosphere -- in the form of CO2 -- to use in the creation of sugars and starches, for bartering with microorganisms in the soil, for nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen. This is part of nature natural living system, where nothing is wasted; everything is re-used in the cycle of life.

Andre Leu, President of the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, states:
We are not talking about inventing some new untested technology like 'carbon capture' that requires billions of dollars of investment and years of testing. We are talking about upscaling current existing good practices used by organic farmers. This is the cheapest solution. All that is needed, is training and good technical assistance to farmers. With a fraction of the billions of dollars earmarked for the current suite of untested technologies, we could easily help all farmers transition to organic methods in a few short years and reverse climate change.


huffingtonpost
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: The Geoengineering Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby dohboi » Fri 28 Nov 2014, 00:22:16

Sorry, G, but a number of recent articles aren't very kind to some major geo-engineering schemes (I did find it interesting that your article above argued for CO2 removal technologies not being a moral hazard because they are essentially non-existent and are therefore totally useless!!)

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-1 ... al-warming

Geoengineering Doesn’t Provide ‘Magic Bullet’ for Global Warming

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... ate-change

Reflecting sunlight into space has terrifying consequences, say scientists

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30197085

Geo-engineering: Climate fixes 'could harm billions'
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: The Geoengineering Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Graeme » Sat 29 Nov 2014, 16:53:21

Yes, I agree. This issue has been thoroughly examined recently, and although it will be a disaster to implement, it still is being keep in the background as a last resort in case we still pursue BAU.

Could geoengineering make climate change worse?

Geoengineering – which sometimes seems to be the despairing climate scientist’s Plan B – simply won’t work.

It won’t offer a quick fix to the planet’s burden of global warming, and it will be difficult to convince anybody that it could work at all.

Geoengineering is any deliberate, large-scale intervention in the workings of the climate machine that might offer a way of containing global warming. The accent is on the word deliberate.

Humans are already “engineering” the climate just by continuously adding carbon dioxide by burning fossil fuels, but the climate change that will follow is an unhappy consequence, not a deliberate plan.

Since governments have been either slow, or very slow, to agree on systematic plans to drastically reduce dependence on fossil fuels, researchers have in the last decade or so begun to propose ways in which deliberate steps might counter global warming.

Problems

They have suggested darkening the skies with deliberate discharges of sulphate aerosols to block incoming radiation.

They have proposed “seeding” the ocean with iron to encourage photosynthesis and increase carbon uptake by phytoplankton, they have suggested brightening the clouds by spraying salt particles into them to make them more reflective.

Now British researchers have taken a long hard look at three aspects of geoengineering research and arrived at a bleak conclusion: it would just be better not to emit greenhouse gases on a prodigal scale.



The British scientists don’t dismiss geoengineering outright. That is because if, under the notorious “business-as-usual” scenario, nations go on burning fossil fuels, then by 2100 the consequences could be catastrophic.


rtcc
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: The Geoengineering Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby dohboi » Sat 29 Nov 2014, 19:10:26

" in case we still pursue BAU"

Which we seem to be pretty much doing.

That seemingly intelligent, moral people ever even considered these schemes has always struck me as one of the surest signs of how utterly desperate we really are.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: The Geoengineering Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Subjectivist » Sat 29 Nov 2014, 21:52:18

dohboi wrote:" in case we still pursue BAU"

Which we seem to be pretty much doing.

That seemingly intelligent, moral people ever even considered these schemes has always struck me as one of the surest signs of how utterly desperate we really are.


If my life has taught me anything it is this, humans will refuse to change anything they are comfortable with until circumstances force them too, 99 percent of the time. People will fight for BAU until they can't, and then most of them will wish to go back too it at the first opertunity even if their changed life is improved from an objective observers POV.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
Subjectivist
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4700
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 07:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: The Geoengineering Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby dohboi » Sat 29 Nov 2014, 22:56:47

That's pretty much what this guy says in this interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhDL1kCUUVk#t=239
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: The Geoengineering Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Graeme » Thu 04 Dec 2014, 17:10:09

Buckyballs enhance carbon capture

Rice University scientists have discovered an environmentally friendly carbon-capture method that could be equally adept at drawing carbon dioxide emissions from industrial flue gases and natural gas wells.

The Rice lab of chemist Andrew Barron revealed in a proof-of-concept study that amine-rich compounds are highly effective at capturing the greenhouse gas when combined with carbon-60 molecules.

The research is the subject of an open-access paper today in Nature's online journal Scientific Reports.

"We had two goals," Barron said. "One was to make the compound 100 percent selective between carbon dioxide and methane at any pressure and temperature. The other was to reduce the high temperature needed by other amine solutions to get the carbon dioxide back out again. We've been successful on both counts."

Tests from one to 50 atmospheric pressures showed the Rice compound captured a fifth of its weight in carbon dioxide but no measurable amount of methane, Barron said, and the material did not degrade over many absorption/desorption cycles.

Carbon-60, the soccer ball-shaped molecule also known as buckminsterfullerene (or the "buckyball") was discovered at Rice by Nobel Prize laureates Richard Smalley, Robert Curl and Harold Kroto in 1985. The ultimate curvature of buckyballs may make them the best possible way to bind amine molecules that capture carbon dioxide but allow desirable methane to pass through.

The Rice lab used buckyballs as crosslinkers between amines, nitrogen-based molecules drawn from polyethyleneimine. The lab produced a brown, spongy material in which hydrophobic (water-avoiding) buckyballs forced the hydrophilic (water-seeking) amines to the outside, where passing carbon dioxide could bind to the exposed nitrogen.


sciencedaily
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: The Geoengineering Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby dohboi » Thu 04 Dec 2014, 17:24:25

Not sure that we can say for sure that this kind of nano-technology is exactly "environmentally friendly" for certain.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: The Geoengineering Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Graeme » Thu 04 Dec 2014, 17:36:43

At this early stage, we're not sure how they will be fixed in flues, and how CO2 will be disposed of later presumably underground but let's look out for this. I know somebody will think of some ingenious way of utilizing this confined CO2. Image Just saw this:

We Now Know How to Save the Planet. For $17.6 Trillion

The Saskatchewan project, for instance, came with a price tag of C$1.4 billion ($1.23 billion) despite favorable geological conditions. At that rate, fitting all the world’s power stations with carbon-capture technology would cost about $17.6 trillion.


bloomberg

I wonder if costs would come down even further if they used BBs?
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: The Geoengineering Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby dohboi » Thu 04 Dec 2014, 18:50:13

Did you mean if they use BS?? :lol: They're already doing that, it looks like.

But really, now I'm all in favor of requiring every new and existing coal plant to outfit itself with one of these things. Seems to me that such a regulation would work even faster than carbon taxes to reduce coal use.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: The Geoengineering Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby dohboi » Sun 07 Dec 2014, 00:26:21

Geo-engineering is getting some particularly stupid coverage from Newsweek, featuring turning humans into Hobbits!: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/1 ... k-hobbits/
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: The Geoengineering Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Graeme » Thu 11 Dec 2014, 21:30:43

This is better coverage:

Fears of a bright planet

SHINY things absorb less heat when left in the sun. This means that if the Earth could be made a little shinier it would be less susceptible to global warming. Ways to brighten it, such as adding nanoscale specks of salt to low clouds, making them whiter, or putting a thin haze of particles into the stratosphere, are the province of “geoengineering”. The small band of scientists which has been studying this subject over the past decade or so has mostly been using computer models. Some of them are now proposing outdoor experiments—using seawater-fed sprayers to churn out particles of the exact size needed to brighten clouds, or spewing sulphur particles from underneath a large balloon 20km up in the sky (see article).

The aims are modest. The scientists hope to understand some of the processes on which these technologies depend, as a way of both gauging their feasibility (can you reliably make tiny puffs of sea salt brighten clouds?) and assessing their risks (how much damage to the ozone layer might a stratospheric haze do, and how might such damage be minimised?). The experiments would be far too small to have any climatic effects. The amount of sulphur put into the stratosphere by the experimental balloon would be 2% of what a passenger jet crossing the Atlantic emits in an hour.


There are all sorts of reasons why geoengineering may prove impossible, either politically or scientifically. It may be too dangerous to countenance, and the circumstances which might make it an appealing complement to cutting emissions may never arise. But to treat research into the subject as taboo on the basis that ignorance is a viable defence against folly would be a dangerous mistake.


economist
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests