Zero emissions is a bunch of Bullsh!t

[hammuraby]

the rise of CO2 into the atmosfhere is became from 250 PPM to 350 PPM;
+ 100 PPMilion = 1 : 10 000,
then if a pressure of atm, is 1Kg every cm2 (as an BAR)
1: 10000 is also say then 1Kg of CO2 into un Mt2.... math!!

but a CARBON is a 333gr a M2 because the atomic weight is the same for O (667gr)  and C....

that means that a Kg/Mt2  of wood  (333gr of C) is the necessity to put
into solid state  the +C in the slice of air upplaced ....

the ONLY solution is: to save water necessity for encrease the biomass ,
and don't leave that all the rain came to river when raining;
and, stop a desertification whit a longtime live tree.... rise the TOT of biomass into the word!

wait, and you will see at NEW protocoll of Kopenaghen 2012 ,
that is the water THE SOLUTION  !!

""This is especially true for coal, where they gerrymander the CO2 back into the ground - essentially sweeping it under the rug.

Who's to say that CO2 won't come flooding back out one day killing millions in the low lying areas around it.  Or is that their plan..."


TRUE, this is a crazy handS, the energy wasted for do this IS ONLY a financing feedback to oil company, THEY....:

WHATEVER, a CO2 is not an emissionsfor  US ....unbelivable, but true !!

[jadaro2600]

The reason they haven't paid much attention to the CO2 is because we exhale it ...moving against CO2 is like moving against breathing - eventually they have to tell us to breath less or plant more trees or grass ..or whatever.

Now they pump it back into the ground - and they get a subsidy like corn farmers.

How about we all just let our yards go out of control, more leaf surface areas and the current housing crisis.

[Tito L. Oracion]

As soon as something becomes 'zero emissions' it becomes non existent.

Cold electricity?  ..is there a such thing?  And is it defined by conjecture?

A water fuel tank is just a thing - what uses it as fuel?

All transfers of energy are emissions, whether they are from one side of the machine to another.  The idea of 'zero emissions' is just silly.

We need emissions in order for their to be 'work done'  ... and yes, the idea of 'clean burning' is just as asinine as the idea of 'zero emissions'.  This is especially true for coal, where they gerrymander the CO2 back into the ground - essentially sweeping it under the rug.

Who's to say that CO2 won't come flooding back out one day killing millions in the low lying areas around it.  Or is that their plan?

Hi sir

i' ve read some of teslas work it says there that he perfected the cold electricity in his later works. maybe it was just suppressed.

and i beleive you sir but maybe they mean something different in zero emission and that is even there is an emission it is not harmful to the environment.
maybe they mean zero emission to harmful emission 

God bless
otits

[Tito L. Oracion]

We need emissions in order for their to be 'work done'  ... and yes, the idea of 'clean burning' is just as asinine as the idea of 'zero emissions'.  This is especially true for coal, where they gerrymander the CO2 back into the ground - essentially sweeping it under the rug.

Who's to say that CO2 won't come flooding back out one day killing millions in the low lying areas around it.  Or is that their plan?

hi sir

i've read that they shifted to C02 because it does'nt destroy the ozone layer of the earth. 

God bless
otits

[jadaro2600]

Hi sir

i' ve read some of teslas work it says there that he perfected the cold electricity in his later works. maybe it was just suppressed.

and i beleive you sir but maybe they mean something different in zero emission and that is even there is an emission it is not harmful to the environment.
maybe they mean zero emission to harmful emission 

God bless
otits

Less harmful emissions is also connotative - there's the 'dirty electricity' crew out there ...and the anti-CFL's.

Tesla's cold electricity was essentially experiments in high voltage?