Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Climate Change - Is it Controversial?




My point is that coal and petroleum, being biofuels, were once part of Earth's biosystem. The carbon in them has been removed from the biosystem and is no longer available to the biosystem as a renewable energy source. So, perhaps they should be burned and returned to the biosystem.

Now, I do understand the concern that we might be burning fossil fuels too quickly and putting too much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at once, at a rate greater than can be absorbed by plant life. But, since fossil fuels were once part of the Earth's biosystem, and life seemed to flourish then, I see no reason that they cannot again be a part of it.


--- On Wed, 3/11/09, Folkerts, Timothy J <FolkertsT@bartonccc.edu> wrote:

From: Folkerts, Timothy J <FolkertsT@bartonccc.edu>
Subject: RE: [Phys-l] Climate Change - Is it Controversial?
To: rcarlson@physicstoolkit.com, "Forum for Physics Educators" <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Date: Wednesday, March 11, 2009, 10:45 AM
So, can we agree that coal and oil are biofuels?

Could you please make your point, and skip further
rhetorical questions?

"If coal & oil ARE biofuels then .... If they are
NOT biofuels, then
instead ...."

This would help us all know what you are getting at and why
this
question is so important to you. The general consensus
here seems to be
that they ARE biofuels, but what does it matter for climate
change (or
energy policy for that matter)?


Tim F