Carbon Credit

[level_head]

The word “carbon” is often used as a shorthand for carbon dioxide. Environmentalists talk of “carbon footprints” and “carbon pollution” and have injected such terms into the language. But not too long ago, we all recognized that Earth’s biosphere was one of “carbon-based life.” That is, of course, still true. But humans are changing the picture a

Comments

[justgoto]

Thank you!

[deckardcanine]

Ironically, the people who care most about getting soy in their diets are probably more likely than average to fear global warming.

This was an interesting, informative read. I'm just not crazy about the "slavery" terminology. How do we know the bacteria want to be free? Of course, we get a lot of disturbing implications when we humanize non-animals. Some years ago, I noticed a trend in the news that made me wonder if astronomers need a hug: analogies of "bullying," "suicide," and even "cannibalism" at the galactic level.

[level_head]

Thanks!

"How do we know the bacteria want to be free?"

You're quoting documents from the early 1800s, aren't you? That was one of the arguments put forward by the Democrats.

One difference from astronomical interactions: The players in this micro-drama are alive. But I used that imagery to convey the relationship more clearly than phrases like primary and secondary endosymbiosis.

===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

[deckardcanine]

I was unaware of those documents. I should think that human slaves communicate with human masters better than bacteria communicate with human scientists. Well, except in that sense.

[level_head]

The argument that slaves didn't want to be free was advanced quite seriously. Consider, much more recently, the idea that Iraqis were "not ready for democracy." This was put forward on news programs and by many politicians and pundits, and a colorable argument could be made for it.

In the case of slaves, there were practical issues with simple manumission. George Washington was concerned that freed slaves would simply be free to starve without a national policy and programs to address it. His own approach was to free some slaves during his life (arranging for their continued employment) and setting up a will that freed the rest at his death and provided a pension for them (which lasted more than a third of a century).

The problems were large, and the politics and economics both presented obstacles. Happily, that grim time in US history is over, except for the shadows of slavery in the economic dependency imposed by the US welfare state.

In the meantime, jihadists captured more slaves this morning.

===|==============/ Keith

[marycatelli]

But not too long ago, we all recognized that Earth’s biosphere was one of “carbon-based life.”

Also known as organic.

the only inorganic foods in existence are water and salt.

[level_head]

I agree with you in principal, though I would note that if we include salt, there are a variety of other additives that do not contain carbon. They're usually in our food and not eaten separately, but for most of life that's true of salt as well.

But the notion that carbon dioxide is bad has become a religious one. And unlike most religions, this one is based upon a central premise that is demonstrably, evidentially, quite false: that the modest current and projected rise in atmospheric CO2 will result in catastrophic consequences.

A look back at Earth's history - the last 600 million years are shown above - shows that even with twenty times the 20th century's CO2, the Earth remains within a narrow temperature envelope. And warmer is better! For people, for crops, and for weather extremes (as the current dearth of tornadoes and hurricanes demonstrates).

===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

[marycatelli]

Ah, but are those additives essential for life?

[level_head]

"Ah, but are those additives essential for life?"

In some cases, yes. But not necessarily as additives; animals generally get an adequate supply through food.

Just as with salt. There are some creatures that quite enjoy a salt lick (or in the case of macaws, a clay lick!). Humans, of course, really value the effect, to the point where salt was synonymous with money. That still shows in our language, from "worth his salt" to the word "salary" (literally, a salt ration).

===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

[rowyn]

The idea that an increase in carbon dioxide will negatively impact crops is ... really reaching. Oif. x_x

[level_head]

To a catastrophist, it naturally follows from doctrine. Scientific American in August 2007 was flogging an article stating that "beer will be poisonous" and "popcorn will no longer be able to pop." But they were hardly alone. Hundreds of scientific papers put forward the idea that a higher CO2 will mean that crops will be less nutritious.

And of course, these less nutritious crops will cause harm to good insects, but cause bad insects to prosper. Catastrophism is amazingly selective that way.

This paper is fairly typical, from a couple of years ago. Every effect is bad. There will be more evaporation, which is bad, but that evaporation will not fall anywhere, so desertification will increase. (Of course, we are seeing the opposite effect.)

And high temperatures will stunt plant growth and prevent them from being fertile. (Of course, we are seeing the opposite effect.)

And bad insects will increase; at least they won't become fertile, apparently

[rowyn]

Listening to people talk about climate change is an exercise in understanding confirmation bias. -_-

[level_head]

Well, sort of. If I personally believed in a coming climate catastrophe (as I sort of do professionally), it would not suddenly change the data on the record low numbers of landfalling major hurricanes and tornadoes.

But I freely admit to reading such papers, grimly noting that I am familiar with the references made and thus mentally refuting as I go.

At this moment, I am listening to a podcast from the other area of true believers: creationism. These folks are blaming all of the Naxis' murders and communism and the Columbine massacre and school bullying and racism and ... basically all of our moral collapse, on the acceptance of Darwinism. But every single argument being offered is one I am so familiar with, and have researched and written about in some cases decades ago, that they cannot get out the tail end of a sentence before the front end has been dissected.

===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle