Cook Islands aim for all-green power by 2020

Jul 16, 2011 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: TG Daily

For small islands, the incentive to end dependence on imported fossil fuels and embrace renewables is powerful.

Comments
21 - 40 of 56 Comments Last updated Jul 12, 2013

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Jul 19, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Having read what the science says about CO2, let's recap and check what our resident anti CO2 scientist has had to say on the subject:
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
The subject of 'vital to life' is totally unrelated to 'climate catastrophy'. Your mind is wandering.
The increase in atmospheric GHGs can indeed cause 'climate change' which threatens civilization, the economy and peoples lives.
That said, LIFE does not need CO2 any more than it needs sh*t. While both CO2 and sh*t will eventually be recylcied into things we DO need (i.e food and oxygen) they THEMSELVES are not a 'vital nutrient'.
Given your increasing incoherence, wandering mind, and lack of intelligent rebuttal, you should see if you can find a nursing home with an opening.
To date, no one has cited Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty's claims.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Jul 19, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Continued:
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
CO2 is not vital for life.
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
At no point will the CO2 be involved in LIVING processes.
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
CO2 is not used by living cells. And plants can live forever without it (or photosynthesis) if you supply them with what IS vital, such as glucose and oxygen.
Applications are being considered for anyone interested in feeding plantlife with glucose.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Jul 19, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Continued:
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
On the contrary. I have never claimed that animal life on planet earth could not survive without CO2. In fact, I claim that this is TOTALLY BOGUS. Animal life can live quite well with NO CO2.
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
CO2 is a combustion produce that is in NO way 'vital to life'. This is easily seen by any scientist sustaining life without providing CO2. To be 'vital' you would have to show that no life can exist without it.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Jul 19, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Continued:
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
CO2 is not vital to life any more than ashes are vital to a fire. You can convert the ashes to wood again and have a fire, or you can split CO2+H20 to water and glucose but those are not vital life processes. Those are natural 'recycling' using a purely photochemical process. Life exists without CO2 so CO2 is, by definition, NOT 'vital to life'.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
Jul 19, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Continued:
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
Get a brain transplant. THINK about what the cliam 'vital to life' means. Even OXYGEN is not 'vital to life' as there are ANAEROBIC bacterial that are KILLED by oxygen.

Got a clue yet?
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
Plants do not need CO2. They certainly live over night when NO photosynthesis is occuring. Please rent a clue.
But the STATEMENT was that CO2 was 'vital to life'. Not O2 is vital to animals.. or that plants can, on some days,'detoxify' CO2 to glucose and Oxygen by means of captured photons. Note that photosynthesis is also not 'vital to life'. It is purely a process that helps 'recyle nutrients'.
Please try to keep up.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
Jul 19, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LessFactMoreHype wrote:
While photosynthesis is required to RECYLCE CO2, nowhere is there evidence of CO2 itself being vital to ANY life.
"RECYLCE?"
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
Give it glucose, water and oxygen though. NO CO2 or sunlight and it will live to a ripe old age. You see, it is the Glucose and Oxygen that is required. Sunlight and CO2 can provide them from the 'detoxification' of the Chloroplasts but that is just how the carbon is recycled to produce what IS necessary for green plant life. Glucose and oxygen.

I agree. Water is also vital for life. In fact, it is vital for all life as far as I know, unlike oxygen which is only vital to SOME life.

Yes, but photosynthesis is NOT life. It is a means or recylcing carbon to produce the glucose and oxygen in a purely photochemical reaction. It is no more a requirement of 'life' than evaporation of pee to make water even if the detoxified results are. There is life requirments and then there is the long term recylcing of nutrients. Two separate issues.
"recylcing?"

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27
Jul 19, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Continued:
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
In the sap, you sap. Never heard of maple syrup?? Where do you think the glucose produced by the chloroplasts goes???
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
While oxygen and glucose are 'plant food' to most green plants, CO2 is of no use to them at any concentration.

That is why they must expend energy and effort to 'detoxify' it to recycle the oxygen and carbon.

To say that plants need CO2 is to say that animals need shit. Just because the 'nutrients' are recycled and you need the shit as an 'input' to the recycling.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28
Jul 19, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Now back in the real world.
-
Carbon Dioxide
-
The gas also exists in ocean water, where it plays a vital role in marine plant photosynthesis.
Read more: Carbon Dioxide - Gas, Air, Plants, Water, Life, and Black http://science.jrank.org/pages/1209/Carbon-Di...
Unit I - Ecology
Topic 1 - General Ecological Principles: The Biosphere

Biology: The Study of Life. 5th ed. Schraer and Stoltze 1993
-
The Earth's atmosphere is made up of two primary gases. It consists of 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen. There are also traces of other gases such as argon (just less than 1%) and carbon dioxide (about 0.03%). The atmosphere has many biological importances . For example the gases found in the atmosphere are essential to life. Plants use Carbon dioxide as their source of carbon for the synthesis of food not only used by the plants but also by all the consumers that feed upon them including the cecomposers.
http://www.chs.k12.nf.ca/science/b3201/WebCT-...

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29
Jul 19, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Is it any wonder that LessFactMoreHype is considered by 98% of posters to be the most stupid AGW proponent posting here?
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
LessHypeMoreFact

Orangeville, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30
Jul 19, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Animals need to expel waste and plants use that waste to make more food. Isn't life wonderful?
Yes. I have always been fascinated by the complexity and synergies of the natural world. I expect that I have more contact with it than most posters here. I've cleaned stalls for horses, helped herd cows, spend seven years working in the bush for a hunting and fishing lodge, etc. Most of my early life, the 'bush' was my backyard and accessible with a few steps.

And I've watched that area (hunting and fishing) stripped by logging interests (it is now nearly a wasteland even decades after the trees were removed). I have seen the lake I used to swim in declared off limits from the yearly 'overturning' bringing up balls of slime. I VALUE the natural ecosystem, and suspect that most who post here have never been outside of the city or to a zoo. It takes talent to be that indifferent.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31
Jul 19, 2011
 

Judged:

3

3

3

LessFactMoreHype wrote:
Yes. I have always been fascinated by the complexity and synergies of the natural world.
How sweet.
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
I expect that I have more contact with it than most posters here.
I'm not surprised you think that way, people who live their lives cut off from civilisation often do.
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
I've cleaned stalls for horses
That really sets you apart from the rest of us, doesn't it?
Probably not.
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
helped herd cows
Helped?
I've herded cows alone, you old duffer.
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
spend seven years working in the bush for a hunting and fishing lodge
That's seven years you'll never get back.
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
etc.
What's etc?
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
Most of my early life, the 'bush' was my backyard and accessible with a few steps.
Wood or stone steps?
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
And I've watched that area (hunting and fishing) stripped by logging interests (it is now nearly a wasteland even decades after the trees were removed).
Why didn't you replant it?
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
I have seen the lake I used to swim in declared off limits from the yearly 'overturning' bringing up balls of slime.
I see, so you rose to the surface.
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
I VALUE the natural ecosystem, and suspect that most who post here have never been outside of the city or to a zoo.
You 'suspect' that because you never gained life experience involving others,
You never managed to develop an imagination or bothered to question other people about their activities.
You're basically an inexperienced backwoodsman.
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
It takes talent to be that indifferent.
But it only takes being stupid to be like you.
Spread you wings and take a look around somewhere outside of Toronto, you could easily become a better, more worldly person.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32
Jul 19, 2011
 

Judged:

3

3

3

I'm not indifferent to pollution, but CO2 isn't a pollutant. Anything that's vital to the process of life can't be judged as good and evil, it just is. Carbon dioxide isn't just your children's breath, it's their food and drink. The last thing we should do is cut carbon emissions.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33
Sep 14, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Earthling-1 wrote:
Is it any wonder that LessFactMoreHype is considered by 98% of posters to be the most stupid AGW proponent posting here?
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
Make that 99%.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34
Sep 14, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
I'm not indifferent to pollution, but CO2 isn't a pollutant.
Nonsense of the first order. A pollutant is not a define object.

Arsenic for example is a 'pollutant' when it is over 0.05 mg/L. Yet arsenic is vital to some specific biological pathways and this we require a dietary intake equal to 12.5 to 25 g As/day.

A 'pollutant' is anything that is in the wrong place or wrong quantity and therefore 'pollutes' the resource. In this case, the air and the thermal eqilibrium is polluted by *too much* CO2.
Brian_G wrote:
Anything that's vital to the process of life can't be judged as good and evil, it just is.
Nonsense of the first order and a non-sequitur as well. No 'life' requires CO2. In fact, we have biological processes that demand we REMOVE it when the waste CO2 builds up in our blood.

There is a way to 'recycle' CO2 based on photochemistry ( chloroplasts in green plants) but this is energy conversion, NOT a life process.

Nor is this is way saying that excessive CO2 as a GHG is 'good or evil'. Those sorts of judgements do not apply. It is simply a problem we should avoid. Pollution is not inherently evil. It is just damaging.*Polluting* with no respect for other poeples rights (i.e not reducing CO2 emissions) is evil but let us not get into that.
Brian_G wrote:
Carbon dioxide isn't just your children's breath, it's their food and drink. The last thing we should do is cut carbon emissions.
Meanignless drivel just like the rest of your posts.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35
Sep 14, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

2

LessFactMoreHype wrote:
Nonsense of the first order. A pollutant is not a define object.
What's a, "define object?"
NoFactNoHope wrote:
A 'pollutant' is anything that is in the wrong place or wrong quantity and therefore 'pollutes' the resource. In this case, the air and the thermal eq[u]ilibrium is polluted by *too much* CO2.
CO2 is not a pollutant, it's necessary for the survival of all animal life on this planet.
NoFactNoHope wrote:
No 'life' requires CO2.
And yet without it, there would be no animal life on this planet.
NoFactNoHope wrote:
In fact, we have biological processes that demand we REMOVE it when the waste CO2 builds up in our blood.
That's true.
NoFactNoHope wrote:
There is a way to 'recycle' CO2 based on photochemistry ( chloroplasts in green plants) but this is energy conversion, NOT a life process.
Except for the fact that we wouldn't be here if it didn't exist.
NoFactNoHope wrote:
Nor is this is way saying that excessive CO2 as a GHG is 'good or evil'.
Would you care to rephrase that comment, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty?
NoFactNoHope wrote:
Those sorts of judgements do not apply. It is simply a problem we should avoid. Pollution is not inherently evil. It is just damaging.*Polluting* with no respect for other poeples rights (i.e not reducing CO2 emissions) is evil but let us not get into that.
"Evil?"
You really have lost the plot, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36
Sep 14, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Carbon is essential for life, CO2 is plant food, without it first they starve then we starve.
NobodyYouKnow

Orangeville, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37
Sep 14, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
Carbon is essential for life,
Again, we cannot metabolize pure carbon. Try eating a diamond or a lump of coal.
Brian_G wrote:

CO2 is plant food,
No. CO2 is a toxin that must be 'recycled' into oxygen and glucose before it is useful to life.
Brian_G wrote:

without it first they starve then we starve.
Certainly without recycling, the ecosystem would collapse. But saying that waste such as CO2 or shit is 'vital to life' is bogus. They are of no use until they are converted to other things that ARE useful to life.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38
Sep 15, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

2

NobodyYouEverWantToKnow wrote:
CO2 is a toxin
"At very high concentrations (a factor of 100 or more higher than its atmospheric concentration), carbon dioxide can be toxic to animal life."
NobodyYouEverWantToKnow wrote:
Certainly without recycling, the ecosystem would collapse.
Let's be thankful that the eco system recycles.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39
Sep 15, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>"At very high concentrations (a factor of 100 or more higher than its atmospheric concentration), carbon dioxide can be toxic to animal life."
Swell. Stop breathing and expelling CO2. See how it works for you. I give you two minutes tops before you will want to 'expel' the CO2 buildup.

The body seems to want to keep the levels down to some value well below the 'external' toxic level (which is mostly based on carbonic acid effects on mucous membranes) and good for it.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40
Sep 15, 2011
 

Judged:

4

4

4

NoFactNoHope wrote:
Swell. Stop breathing and expelling CO2. See how it works for you. I give you two minutes tops before you will want to 'expel' the CO2 buildup.
The body seems to want to keep the levels down to some value well below the 'external' toxic level (which is mostly based on carbonic acid effects on mucous membranes) and good for it.
For goodness sake learn to read, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty and note the words, "atmospheric concentration" in the following:
-
"At very high concentrations (a factor of 100 or more higher than its atmospheric concentration), carbon dioxide can be toxic to animal life."

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

6 Users are viewing the Alternative Energy Forum right now

Search the Alternative Energy Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Irresponsible Physicians Oppose Nuclear Energy (Dec '13) 1 hr SpaceBlues 256
MID considers customer ATMs, solar rebates, sto... 19 hr Riverbank resident 1
Expert: We must act fast on warming (Sep '08) Tue SoE 26,942
Clean and green? Study debunks ethanol fuel myth (Sep '09) Tue litesong 34
Plans for A 80m biomass plant at for MOD site a... Tue Lyn Bleakley 1
City of Columbus Dedicates CNG Station Mon Big Johnson 2
A roundup of recent Michigan newspaper editorials Mon Solarman 1
•••
•••