Paradox,
It seems to me that working from premise of doing no harm to the environement is a good point.
There is little doubt to me that extracting and buring fossil fuels is doing harm without CO2 considerations.
CO2 does seem related to world temp. to a point from paleoclimatic graphs. What that point is in ppm I haven't seen calculated. As the effect of raising CO2 levels seems to have been to increase global tempeatures in the last 200years or so (without CO2 changesfro models the world would be significantly cooler) adding to this seems fool hardy.
As for water vapour its conc. in the atmosphere is so high to change its concentration significantly enough to effectuate a change in its contribution to global temperature would take a huge influx of water vapour and therefore I think its reasonable to say that the Greenhouse gas effect from water although important to the world is relatively static.
Infra red raditation band width saturation is possible but remember CO2 has four bands due to the way it oscillates and can also absord in side bandwidths of thesse four.
Whether plants will bloom with increasing Co2 is debateable. It seems likely to me there will be a level to which growth will be enhanced and after that there will be no gain. That is there will be a optimal CO2 level for plants and the level for each plant will be different. What the optimal levels are is unknown although an easy experiment to do.
Therefore I feel reducing Co2 emissions seems a sensible approach.
As for all the actions of man that are causing harm (e.g. Pesticides, fertiliser, monoculture, overfishing, etc, etc, etc) just stop. It beggars beleive that on the whole organic farming once established can actually increase yields, improve soil (which hholds more CO2) and increases biodiversity.
Therefore do no harm, prevent actions that do harm, encourage actions enhance the environment.
Simple.
|