Author Topic: Cutting Carbon Dioxide Use (Read 4596 times)

MikeLigalig.com · « **on:** January 14, 2009, 10:34:55 AM »

More carbon dioxide needs to be absorbed than emitted by 2050 in order to prevent catastrophic climate change.

That is the conclusion of a report by the Worldwatch Institute which urges bigger cuts in greenhouse emissions.

The authors say that even a rise in temperatures of 2 degrees C poses unacceptable risks to natural systems.

But they add that it is still possible to arrest and manage climate change with renewable technologies and more efficient ways of living.

"Sealing the deal to save the global climate will require mass public support and worldwide political will to shift to renewable energy, new ways of living, and a human scale that matches the atmosphere's limits," said Robert Engelman, vice president for programmes at the Worldwatch Institute. - BBC

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=17186.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #1 on:** January 15, 2009, 11:09:41 AM »

World governments need to invest in planting trees and growing destroyed populations of conifers and or oak trees that were eradicated during the logging era.

Trees--are eukaryotic organisms--whose sole form of energy is photosynthesis. Critical to the production of energy is CO2 (Carbon Dioxide).

This is a very simple solution to a very complex problem.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=17186.0

kiamoy · « **Reply #2 on:** January 15, 2009, 06:16:39 PM »

here in the Phil, I hope elementary pupils will be asked to plant at least 5 trees EACH during scouting lessons.

we had that in our time. And in my college, we were asked to plant one tree before we graduate.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=17186.0

Ginger · « **Reply #3 on:** January 15, 2009, 08:55:55 PM »

here in the Phil, I hope elementary pupils will be asked to plant at least 5 trees EACH during scouting lessons.

we had that in our time. And in my college, we were asked to plant one tree before we graduate.

how about planting a tree on your birthday?

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=17186.0

kiamoy · « **Reply #4 on:** January 15, 2009, 09:19:08 PM »

lol! asa man pud? at least if schools, they know where to plant. hehe

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=17186.0

A Layman · « **Reply #5 on:** January 16, 2009, 12:04:52 AM »

Cutting emission of Carbon Dioxide is a horrendous thing Boholanos dare not to do. It literally means cutting on camote eating habit. Sus, ginoong gagmay ug dagko! Wa nay manamun unya anang mga kamote! Tiaw ba. Lami ra ba tong pughakon tuslo sa ginamos, di ba? LOL

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=17186.0

ayessa · « **Reply #6 on:** January 16, 2009, 01:38:24 AM »

Don't we dont know that a lot of methane emissions come from the rice fields? Methane is twenty times more effective as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide is. (IPCC. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. United Nations Environment Programme)

It holds more heat.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=17186.0

bol-anon_ko · « **Reply #7 on:** January 16, 2009, 01:46:41 AM »

dotn worry about 2050... 2012 is a lot closer

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=17186.0

ayessa · « **Reply #8 on:** January 16, 2009, 01:47:26 AM »

It is necessary to understand the international mechanism that support for the reduction of the emission of GHG gases.
The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The major feature of the Kyoto Protocol is that it sets binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European community for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions .These amount to an average of five per cent against 1990 levels over the five-year period 2008-2012.

The major distinction between the Protocol and the Convention is that while the Convention encouraged industrialised countries to stabilize GHG emissions, the Protocol commits them to do so.

Recognizing that developed countries are principally responsible for the current high levels of GHG emissions in the atmosphere as a result of more than 150 years of industrial activity, the Protocol places a heavier burden on developed nations under the principle of â€œcommon but differentiated responsibilities.â€

The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on 11 December 1997 and entered into force on 16 February 2005. 184 Parties of the Convention have ratified its Protocol to date. The detailed rules for the implementation of the Protocol were adopted at COP 7 in Marrakesh in 2001, and are called the â€œMarrakesh Accords.â€

We have to take note that it is only United States which has not yet signed the Kyoto Protocol. China did not signed and it is only not required because it is still a developing country

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=17186.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #9 on:** January 16, 2009, 02:59:13 AM »

Don't we dont know that a lot of methane emissions come from the rice fields? Methane is twenty times more effective as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide is. (IPCC. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. United Nations Environment Programme)

It holds more heat.

Roy,

That is true, rice paddies do emit methane gas, which is a green house gas. However, Roy, 70% of warming potential in the atmosphere is contributed to CO2. Methane levels are rather miniscule, in comparison, since its only at +- 23%.
(http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/05/asian_rice_emit.php)

You pose an interesting point, however, one that is important for Asia and rice-producing regions since rice is a staple food.

Do we reduce rice production for fear of increased methane levels or do we increase rice production to suite and assess the demand for rice as population continues to rise?

For me, I think its a lesser evil to plant rice--yet at the same time reduce the massive 70% heating caused by the CO2 production. And at the same time assess the populatory demographic demands.

I will admit that we are experiencing some aspects of what Malthus talked about.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=17186.0

ayessa · « **Reply #10 on:** January 16, 2009, 03:12:31 AM »

Why have you deleted your previous reply Lorenzo?
You claimed photosynthetic properties of rice to be ecologically beneficial. and my comment was answer to your claim.

Dili lang unta ta mu delete sa atong mga comment nga dili nato masupportahan.. does it shame you?

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=17186.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #11 on:** January 16, 2009, 03:16:28 AM »

Roy,

I merely rephrased my point in the last post.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=17186.0

ayessa · « **Reply #12 on:** January 16, 2009, 03:18:42 AM »

what youve said in your deleted reply is that Boholano should not worry so long as they plant rice because rice has photosynthetic properties.

This implies that rice plantation helps in minimizing CO2 emissions. But ironically, they may aid in minimizing CO2 emissions but they contribute to the methane emissions.

Hello?I was not saying to stop the production of rice. That is outside the topic. This was just a reply to your statement which is rather unsupported.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=17186.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #13 on:** January 16, 2009, 03:24:13 AM »

what youve said in your deleted reply is that Boholano should not worry so long as they plant rice because rice has photosynthetic properties.

This implies that rice plantation helps in minimizing CO2 emissions. But ironically, they may aid in minimizing CO2 emissions but they contribute to the methane emissions.

Hello?I was not saying to stop the production of rice. That is outside the topic. This was just a reply to your statement which is rather unsupported.

I merely simply pointed out the positive in rice fields, I did not deny that rice paddies emit green house gas, which you did point to us that it emits methane.

Ingoon lang ko that though methane gas is emitted, current trends indicate that 70% of heat contributing to the green house effect is primarily Carbon Dioxide (CO2). The planting of Rice, which is eukaryote that depends on photosynthetic activity in conversion to energy. And in the process of photosynthetisis--chemoautotrophs or autotrophs are responsible for taking in Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and converting that to energy.

So what we have here, is CO2 being minimized and reduced, yet at the same time I admit that methane gas will be emitted. But considering the fact that CO2 is the leading cause of the green house effect (standing at +-70%) as compared to the minisucule levels of methane at +-23%, its a lesser evil of the two per se.

My original post in this thread was for the replanting of trees--namely anything green. As it does lead to the reduction of CO2 levels.

I don't know why you are overreacting. My apologies if you took offense.

Lorenzo,

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=17186.0

ayessa · « **Reply #14 on:** January 16, 2009, 03:28:22 AM »

This was your claim lorenzo. Rice plantations are good because it is "green" and because of its photosynthetic properties. According to you, if the Boholanos continue to plant rice, this would surely benefit reduction of green house gas emissions.

But you fail to point out that rice fields contribute to methane emissions which is 20 times more powerful than CO2 and holds more heat.

So please dont delete your previous postings. It is also a humbe expression of intelligence to accept inaccuracies.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=17186.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #15 on:** January 16, 2009, 03:28:40 AM »

what youve said in your deleted reply is that Boholano should not worry so long as they plant rice because rice has photosynthetic properties.

This implies that rice plantation helps in minimizing CO2 emissions. But ironically, they may aid in minimizing CO2 emissions but they contribute to the methane emissions.

Hello?I was not saying to stop the production of rice. That is outside the topic. This was just a reply to your statement which is rather unsupported.

Roy,

Secondly, I added the importance of rice paddies and rice production because it has a massive economic and social impact in the region. We understand that methane is emitted in the process--pero one has to realize and analyze the situation in a full view. We must understand the ecological situation, but also keep in mind the economic and the political.

We know that the region is suffering from rice shortages, leading to increased prices due to the rising population, a high demand and a lack of rice resource. The importance of rice production is imperative for human balance in the region, to global trade, and at the same time, its growth does play a role in the reduction of CO2 levels--hence green house levels. (though I am not denying that methane is emitted, I submit that that itself is a fact).

Merely analyzing the situation in a full level.

Regards,
Lorenzo

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=17186.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #16 on:** January 16, 2009, 03:29:22 AM »

lol, chill out dude.

It's a forum.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=17186.0

ayessa · « **Reply #17 on:** January 16, 2009, 03:32:37 AM »

you never mentioned social and economic benefits of rice in your deleted post. and the discussion of the socio-economic benefits of rice is beyond the point.

lol lorenzo really. Admit it very simply, that rice plantations does not categorically help in minimizing green house gas..

why have you deleted the post in the first place?

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=17186.0

ayessa · « **Reply #18 on:** January 16, 2009, 03:33:05 AM »

Because you admit that it is an inaccurate statement!.....

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=17186.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #19 on:** January 16, 2009, 03:33:51 AM »

you never mentioned social and economic benefits of rice in your deleted post. and the discussion of the socio-economic benefits of rice is beyond the point.

lol lorenzo really. Admit it very simply, that rice plantations does not categorically help in minimizing green house gas..

why have you deleted the post in the first place?

Roy,

Can't a man add in points?

lol, is there no freedom of speech?

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=17186.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #20 on:** January 16, 2009, 03:37:51 AM »

you never mentioned social and economic benefits of rice in your deleted post. and the discussion of the socio-economic benefits of rice is beyond the point.

lol lorenzo really. Admit it very simply, that rice plantations does not categorically help in minimizing green house gas..

why have you deleted the post in the first place?

I restructured my position and added depth to the previous statement.
I added the economic situation because it gives a fuller understanding that we cannot just simply reduce rice production for fear of methane gas increase--at the same time forgoe the demands of rice production and the current population situation.

And to correct you, Roy, rice plants doe reduce CO2 levels.
You cannot scientifically disprove that; as plants are photosynthetic organisms. Critical to their energy production is the intake of CO2 and conversion to energy.

lol, goodness gracious.

Lorenzo,

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=17186.0

ayessa · « **Reply #21 on:** January 16, 2009, 03:38:06 AM »

There is no connection to the freedom of speech. But in academic discussions you have to support your claim accurately and categorically.

And as an administrator here, you should know... that deleting your previous post is a manner of misleading the discussion.

you claimed to be an ethical person, right?

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=17186.0

ayessa · « **Reply #22 on:** January 16, 2009, 03:39:31 AM »

A good excuse. But this is a waste of time. I dont want a discussion of false claims and misleading discourse.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=17186.0

ayessa · « **Reply #23 on:** January 16, 2009, 03:40:40 AM »

This is just simple. Re post your deleted reply in its complete form and rethink what you have posted.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=17186.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #24 on:** January 16, 2009, 03:41:55 AM »

Roy, we are severely digressing from the subject matter.

And I think you are taking things way too personal.

Relax, calm down, and lets get back to the party.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=17186.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #25 on:** January 16, 2009, 03:44:45 AM »

here in the Phil, I hope elementary pupils will be asked to plant at least 5 trees EACH during scouting lessons.

we had that in our time. And in my college, we were asked to plant one tree before we graduate.

I like what your college asked of your batchmates, Kiam.
Very idealistic, and at the same time, very logical.

I admire that.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=17186.0

bol-anon_ko · « **Reply #26 on:** January 16, 2009, 04:29:52 AM »

mag uyab bya mo kadugayan ana inyu lalis- lalis ha.. dghan ra ba ingun ana ang kasugdanan.. eheheh

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=17186.0

david · « **Reply #27 on:** January 16, 2009, 04:31:59 AM »

katawa lang ko ha...hahahhahahhahaha

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=17186.0

A Layman · « **Reply #28 on:** January 16, 2009, 06:22:41 AM »

Aha kamo ha! Sugod sugod na sab mo ana. War peace, peace war! Hate loves, love hates! He he he...

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=17186.0

A Layman · « **Reply #29 on:** January 16, 2009, 06:42:34 AM »

I believe really that rice paddies emit methane gas out of the soaked vegetations rotten under the standing water. This does not come from the rice plants itself but may I repeat, from the rotten rice stalks and other vegetations. Although vegtations like greening rice plantations serve as basin in containing and absorbing CO2 the arithmetic remainder is still is the methane gas but now of lesser quatity. This scenario poses some challenging venture for environmental scientist to further search ways and means to reduce further emission of methane gas from rice paddies. It might be a change in rice farming methods of reducing rotten vegetations while maintaining the organic nutrients of the soil. Or rice farming using hydroponic methods fitted in flood-free areas. There's no possibility to reduce rice production here in our country than closing down large manufacturing industry emitting CO2. People can afford to walk with full stomach than ride a luxury car with hungry stomach.

Cattle industry in Australia, the biggest producer of dairy milk from cattles is also culprit of methane gas emission from manures. Did they stop cattle raising just for that? Of course not because of socio-economic impact.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=17186.0