We’ve been told by paid “scientists” that landfills are bad when they are actually good for the climate. We’re told that recycling paper and plastic Is good when it is actually bad for the climate. And we’re told that cutting down forests is bad when it is actually good for the climate. The truth is, in the 1970s, the plastics industry paid for the ads that vilified landfills and promoted plastic recycling so they would not have to buy new expensive oil.
If we were honestly concerned about reducing carbon in the biosphere, we should be consuming MORE plastic and NOT recycling any of it. This forces the plastic manufacturers to buy new oil, thus ending fossilized petroleum combustion and its resulting carbon emissions sooner.
But, what about all the plastic floating in the ocean? This is not plastic’s fault; it is our habit of tossing our trash in the wrong places. For every ton of trash floating in the ocean, there is a million tons of trash that didn’t float. I am more concerned about poisoning our seas with heavy metals and “forever” chemicals than with floating plastic. Plastics should be buried in segregated landfills so we can dig it up again in about 1000 years.
Putting plastic back in the ground where it came from is a carbon neutral transaction. Using plastic and plant fiber for permanent applications, such as building houses out of trees, effectively removes 200% of that carbon from the biosphere. The new plant matter that replaces the removed tree consumes carbon at a faster rate than the old growth. The carbon bonds in plastic are quite stable and should remain intact nearly forever if sequestered in a dark place.
By the way, recycling aluminum and other metals is very important because mining and smelting ore is very bad for the environment. Also, the creation and extinction of species is a natural part of God’s design, and we shouldn’t be worried about every little frog, but we probably should worry about bees. We need them.
This is a very serious issue that affects the entire future agricultural economy of Idaho and eastern Washington. Extremist environmental groups plan to also go after the remaining dams on the Snake and Columbia Rivers and end all logging, mining, and grazing on Federal land.
The truth is we can have the dams and the fish too. According to early data from Bonneville Dam, fish counts increased by over 250% since all the other dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers were built.
The reason for any current decline is loss of spawning habitat, expanded sport fishing, hundreds of native gill nets, now protected seals and sea lions now feast on the returning salmon, Caspian terns, cormorants, seagulls, bass, and walleye feast on the rest of the survivors. East Sand Island in the Columbia River was formed from dredging deposits in 1983. Environmentalists got the island protected by the government, and now is the largest nesting colony of these non-endangered birds in the world feasting on salmon as they enter the ocean. The salmon themselves are not endangered in any way. They are a sub-species that evolved in the Columbia basin after the end of the last ice-age and would not be expected to survive this inter-glacial period or the next ice-age. The Frazier River in Canada is very similar to the Columbia River system but has no dams and has the same fish problems.
The dams themselves are beneficial for salmon migration, especially females. The fish ladders are easier to climb than natural rapids, the salmon can then rest in the deeper cooler water in the reservoir before continuing upstream. The Snake River, running semi-naturally would be too hot and shallow for the fish.
Improvements in barging smolts and building acclimation ponds can greatly increase fish availability for sport fishing. Eliminating East Sand Island and barriers to harvesting seals and sea lions would also help.
The salmon have lived somewhere other than the Columbia Basin for 19.9 million years out of the last 20 million years (99.5%) and will continue to thrive somewhere else and there has been no climate period in the last 40 million years that is too hot for salmon. Why we need more dams and not fewer dams will be explained in the last section.
The social and economic value of the inland seaport and develop-able water frontage is immeasurable. The north central region of Idaho is in a unique position for attracting diversified industrial and technical manufacturing businesses. I believe that stopping the growth of the northern Idaho economy is Simpson’s motive for breaching the dams. Southern Idaho is in danger of losing control of Idaho. The unintended result is unfortunately, the environmentalist complete takeover of the state’s economy.
Climate change deniers are ignorant and climate change alarmists are lying to you. If you only look at the negatives and ignore the much greater positives of climate change, then you are exactly as ignorant and close-minded as the climate change deniers.
As a software engineer, I've developed environmental modeling tools that have actually been misused by government agencies and businesses to support their predetermined positions. Global warming has been happening since the "native" Americans discovered America.
The alarmists are hiding the fact the climate cycles are a closed-loop self-limiting system. Also, every CO2 molecule from combustion comes with an H20 molecule. So, we will have significantly more fresh water than we have now, and the warmer air will hold more fresh water. Fossilized petroleum is just stored water, carbon dioxide, and sunlight that got trapped by geologic events millions of years ago and we are just releasing that water, carbon dioxide and sunlight.
Stopping fossil fuel combustion will not stop the global climate cycle. Mother Nature's power should not be underestimated. We need to prepare for a future with some real engineering challenges. Cities will need to relocate to higher ground. Sea-ports should just offload containers onto self-driving rail-cars that deliver the goods to the appropriate Amazon distribution center.
Anything that is beneficial for humanity is bad for the establishment and anything that is beneficial for the establishment is bad for humanity. The global establishment, New World Order, World Economic Forum, policy is calling for a substantial (95%) reduction in world population to "save" humanity, apparently from itself. In reality, the global benefits to humanity of climate change greatly outweigh the costs. Back when this carbon was in the biosphere, dense forests reached the shores of the Arctic Ocean and jungles covered eastern Montana and Wyoming. All the excess carbon emissions we generate now will be consumed by increased biomass production, in other words, food. Satellite imaging is already showing a significant greening of the earth.
California will need to choose between people or farms. They don’t have enough water for both.
The dust bowl of the plains will become a permanent weather feature and tourist attraction.
Texas and Oklahoma will be sand dunes and oil wells with an occasional “enclosed” city.
Florida, which is just a big old sandbar, will just wash away one night while no one is looking.
Wild weather patterns and agricultural zone shifts will make farming even riskier than it already is.
Build permanent infrastructure with wood, paper, and plastic to remove 200% of that carbon.
Don’t recycle plastic, dispose it properly.
Don’t try to regulate carbon emissions. It is not worth the trouble.
Build homes smarter, not smarter homes.
Copyright © 2024 Paul Sand - All Rights Reserved.
Powered by GoDaddy Website Builder