I just read this over at New Scientist, and I’ve seen it on a few other news sites. It’s a strategy which is supposed to “fix” our polution problem, but it just seem like crazy bullshit to me. You can read a bit of the article at New Scientist :
“Their rationale is that large countries have more natural vegetation to absorb pollution…”
So we end up with poluted vegitation, as it magically disapears, ok…
“…and more fields and forests to provide natural resources for the world”
So we can polute away, and then sell poluted vegitation and trees to the rest of the world.
So large countries can be fined land for the amount of polution it emmits. So who gets the land and for what pourposes, are they going to plant trees or plants there to help heal the problem?
And what constitutes polution, does that include radioactive particles from nuclear testing dispursed over Earth? Im sure that would be a heafty f@#$in’ fine.
I really do hope i’m missunderstanding this, if so, someone please explain it to me. It just seems to defy logical common sence to me.
The article does not specify the type of pollution we are talking about. In this case its Co2.As you probably know the main green house gaz humans reject in the atmosphere (which is the source of all the big debate going on) is CO2 or Carbon Dioxide. Co2 causes the earth to heat up but is an essential part of our atmosphere (80% or somethign like that ) and is responsible for the green house effect the atmosphere has on our planet. Without it we would be freezing but too much of it will cause the temperature to rise etc etc (you can look it up on google or anywhere else its a widely discussed subjet) Unlike living creatures, plants use co2 to breathe and grow. They take it and transform it in oxygen which we breathe (and we do it the other way, use it and reject Co2 if I remember correctly).
To sum it up, countries with large forest will be able to release more Co2 since their vegetation recycles it and this does not lead to polluted vegetation. The problem right now is that there is too much co2 compared to the recycling of co2 so it ends up in the atmosphere doing what it does…contributing to the green house effect.
Thats about it and please correct me if I’m wrong on some part (its a quick answer )
On the other hand the article does not concern radioactive or other types of thrash etc
Thanks for the post there. I do understand that plants use Co2 and produce oxegen, and do realize that just Co2 alone would be an all right solution.
Maybe its just the fault of the reporter writing it as polution and not mentioning what kinds. I understand that Kyoto is focused on Co2, but they also list other greenhouse gases as targets, some which would not be benificial to plants, animals and us.
So if it was just the article summing it up as polution, that is where the problem lies, because polution can mean so much. Let’s hope they dont employ such loose wording in the acctual agreement if it ever goes through, and they specifically cite Co2 as the polutent they are refereing to.
