Comments on: A letter to you about saving the ocean

By: debt relief

debt relief — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:54:21 +0000

i love helping out on the beach by picking up some trash

By: debt relief

debt relief — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:50:58 +0000

i love helping out on the beach by picking up some trash

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:41:59 +0000

Azkyroth: Please turn that effort you are making into an argument that will actually reduce the release of fossil carbon or that will buffer the ocean acidity problem rather than simply mucking up the blogosphere!

And no, I’m not picking on you. I’m picking on everybody today.

By: Azkyroth

Azkyroth — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:34:38 +0000

While I agree with the letter…

coordinated by Sheril Kirshenbaum

…isn’t it a little, ah, confrontational?

Don’t we need to let people know that their high carbon lifestyles are compatible with ecological soundness? If we tell them they have to give up using resources and emitting CO2 the way they’re accustomed to, they’ll just reject our message, after all.

By: Caravelle

Caravelle — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 19:54:32 +0000

You know, I’ve been arguing with some GW deniers of the “the Earth used to be a lot colder/warmer !” stripe, an argument that’s obviously bankrupt (we didn’t have agriculture back then, or even people for most of it).

But I guess this makes me wonder about ocean acidification : if the level of CO2 has been higher than now in the past, were the oceans also more acid ? And if so, how did shelled animals manage then ? Did their shells have a different composition, did they make their shells faster ?

(of course none of this applies to the current situation, because even if it’s possible for animals to be adapted to acid oceans, today’s animals aren’t. But, you know. I’m curious)

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:38:49 +0000

Are you suggesting that someone is getting PAID OFF??????

By: Jason Thibeault

Jason Thibeault — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:35:14 +0000

Isn’t coal / oil heavily subsidized by the government, thus making it so cheap? I am under the impression that there was a little palm-greasing going on to keep CO2 based fuels on top of the heap.

By: Stephanie Z

Stephanie Z — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:29:55 +0000

Passing direct legislation has an effect on other countries in the sense that it makes it much easier to negotiate international treaties if the other countries involved believe we have the political will to ratify and enforce the treaty in our own country. Also, direct legislation will create very powerful incentives for companies, the same companies that have been profitting from carbon production, to apply those profits to the kind of research and production of energy we need. We’re far past the point where we can rely on individual effort to get us out of this mess.

By: Nathan Myers

Nathan Myers — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:36:02 +0000

Direct legislation won’t reduce carbon output, because China, Russia, and India are not subject to US law, and also because the US is still largely controlled by carbon producers. The only way carbon output will be reduced is to make some other source of energy cheaper than burning coal. When burning coal is no longer the cheapest way to make power, people will instantly stop mining and burning it. Coal extraction is already mature and costs must already be close to minimum.

What each of us can do to help is to invest in research, development, and capitalization of alternative power — wind, solar thermal, what-have-you — that have some chance of undercutting coal. That might involve supporting legislation to fund such work, and to subsidize starting businesses to apply it. It includes work on ways to store energy, and to transport it efficiently from where it’s produced.

By: Sheril R. Kirshenbaum

Sheril R. Kirshenbaum — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:11:53 +0000

Thanks for joining us Greg! Here’s hoping we’ll hear more in the media on ocean acidification and take action globally!