So, I was sitting there thinking about my garden. I am doing an overhaul next spring to devote more space to production. Having a nice sized city lot, I have also been entertaining the idea of a functional greenhouse (ie - big enough that if I change my mind inside I don't have to step out to do it! haha). These daydreams led me to the next step - if I get my greenhouse, should I utilize a CO2 generator to increase productivity?
Then something went 'click'.
Hmmm... I thought - in this hysterical world of Man-Made Global Warming can I even buy a CO2 generator any longer? Or will they be banned? Afterall their sole purpose is to generate EXTRA CO2 !! Will there be an extra fee? Will I have to buy Carbon Credits to run the thing?
Obviously, my little greenhouse, if she comes to be, will not be large and thus I probably don't really need it. Yet - it sure got me thinking.
So, you guessed it - I googled CO2 generators and greenhouses. WOW! There are lots and lots of them available! The few I scanned made no mention of what kind of environmental effect all this generating of CO2 may have in contributing to the nasty monster of CO2 derived 'Global Warming' and it is important to note that the majority of these devices use propane or natural gas to produce the needed CO2. The goal is a concentration more than three times that of our atmosphere - around 1000 ppm. The this level production can increase by 40%. Nice return.
But how much CO2 is used exclusively by the plants to generate bio matter? Logic dictates that there will always be a slight excess in order to maintain optimum production. Since airflow is crucial in this contained environment there is no denying that some of this excess CO2 will 'escape' and thus add to the 'monster of GW' (not Bush).
Why then, is this never mentioned as one of the contributing factors in Carbon derived global warming? I've never heard it mentioned, outside of the so called 'deniers' stating that higher CO2 levels leads to greater biomass production - in other words - plants LOVE it! Which of course begs the question - if CO2 is the culprit it is claimed to be, and 'every little bit helps', why are these devices still being sold? You'd think they would be on the 'chopping block' of these Carbon Credit (tax scheme/money grab) supporters.
As I stated, these were just my musings. Yet, the hypocrisy is just to blatant to ignore.
10 comments:
there is one large scale greenhouse operation that employs these.
that I know of.
Check out http://www.rosaflora.com/
this enables them to get the flowers to grow quicker, thereby maximizing profitability.
Yeah, they are used around here all the time too.
Yet they are never mentioned by the CO2 alarmists.
I just find it to be one of those oddities that pop up when things aren't quite what they seem.
Thanks Buff, I do like it when a thing that is never mentioned, is er... mentioned. Yet another piece of the puzzle. Very good.
Thanks Nobody,
Another thing not mentioned is the amount of CO2 emmitted by Humans breathing. (Not to mention the rest of the animal kingdom).
Perhaps breathing should be outlawed.
And termites too.
And cow farts....
:]
I muse about global warming every day and constantly challenge people on it. One of my co-workers is a well indoctrinated elitist and climatologist (MSc weather predictions) and he thought man made global warming was real. Now he knows the truth, I just send him to www.petitionproject.org. He is also a chess master - its amazing how smart people can be fooled by all of this.
Sometimes we hire high school students, when taking the train home the other night one asked about what a good career path would be. I didn't ask him if he wanted to be worked to death or to starved to death. That was from an essay by Bertrand Russel in 1932 called "In Praise of Idleness" - the greatest 2000 words ever collected in one place I suppose.
Another student incredulously said to me "So they are just lying or are they stupid ?". I said they were just lying and "they" do it all the time, citing examples. He shook his head and thought I was an idiot I suppose.
Oh well, I met one young woman on the street on the way to work who knew it all, the UN, vaccinations, global warming, 9/11. She made my day.
You're not far off the mark, Buff. The CFR has declared that an ideal global population would be about 500M. The fellow who wrote that report then went on to come up with possiblities on how that might be achieved. It was basically a list of how to kill people in large numbers.
And sure enough the net's chief promoter of peak oil, Mike Ruppert, never misses an opportunity to declare the necessity of population reduction. You did read McGowan's complete demolition of Ruppert didn't you? It was a TON of fun.
Hi Doug, and thanks for chiming in!
I too am amazed at how many quite intelligent and thoughtful people do buy into this. I think the sell is easy, because there actually ARE real problems associated with the fossil fuel industry. Hence they are an easy mark to manipulate. IOW they're easy to hate.
There is also some 'real' evidence that increases in CO2 and higher sea surface temps can lead to acidification of ocean waters - which is another problem unto itself.
I am not against the lessening of our dependence on fossil fuels - just not for the same reasons that the alarmists quote - since they are mostly ficticious. Yet, that said there are certain areas of this world (northern hemisphere wintertime) that DO need effective methods of heating. Let's face it - not all 'alernative' energies can be used everywhere.
Another thing never, ever mentioned is the 'carbon footprint' of the great American War Machine (and all her obedient lackeys). There's another elephant in the room sitting herself on the stienway.
It's a mess darling!
Hiya Nobody,
I haven't read McGowan's take on Ruppert - but I've always had a bit of a suspicion about him.
Ahhh the CFR, what a wonderful lot! Do you recall Kissinger's musings over food as a weapon?
Oddly, my uncle could be his double - if Henry needed a stand in... oy.
oy
Maggie,
I believe the practical solution to our problems is (nuclear) electrical power.
The electric machine is far less complex, much cheaper and much more durable than "fossil" fuel driven machinery.
Full scale adoption of the electric car would change our civilization and greatly reduce waste causing a necessary reduction in workload.
The establishment must stick to petroleum for this reason. Anything else doesn't justify the required waste. Imagine working 10 hours per week instead of 40 ? -and buying one car that would last a lifetime with periodic upgrades to electrical systems ?
Post a Comment