BIGUN 1,312 #1 February 9, 2007 QuoteLONDON, Feb. 9 -- British billionaire entrepreneur Richard Branson, with former vice president Al Gore at his side, offered a $25 million prize Thursday for anyone who can come up with a way to blunt global climate change by removing at least a billion tons of carbon dioxide a year from the Earth's atmosphere..... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/09/AR2007020900693.htmlNobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #2 February 9, 2007 Ideas 1] Start planting trees and only cutting down trees from tree farms. 2] Convert vehicles to bio-diesel and add an algea tank that the exhuast flows through. 3] ..."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #3 February 9, 2007 It's easy. All we have to do is stop burning fossil fuels. Problem is, nobody wants to. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
speedy 0 #4 February 9, 2007 If that idiot plunges us into a new ice age there will be a lot of annoyed people out there Dave Fallschirmsport Marl Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #5 February 9, 2007 QuoteThe winner of the award must devise a plan to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere without creating adverse effects. The first $5 million would be paid up front, and the remainder of the money would be paid only after the program had worked successfully for 10 years. So they'll pay 1/5 of the prize up front for a working technology, and then pay the rest in ten years if the technology works. Does this mean reduction of CO2 or reduction of global temperature, or both? Most notably, this seems to come on the heels of the IPCC study that said that reduction in greenhouse gases won't cool the planet down. Are they hedging their bets? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #6 February 9, 2007 QuoteSo they'll pay 1/5 of the prize up front for a working technology, and then pay the rest in ten years if the technology works. Does this mean reduction of CO2 or reduction of global temperature, or both? I read the standard as a specific amount of CO2 removed: 1B tons/year. QuoteMost notably, this seems to come on the heels of the IPCC study that said that reduction in greenhouse gases won't cool the planet down. Didn't you earlier claim you read the study and now you understood this point? The study says the effect cannot be wholly stopped, not that it can't be improved. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites BIGUN 1,312 #7 February 9, 2007 So am I the only one thinking that if he just shut Virgin Airlines down, thereby reducing the pollution emissions from just his fleet alone - he could probably keep the money and call himself the winner?Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Butters 0 #8 February 9, 2007 Yes, we could stop doing all things that produce greenhouse gases. But that isn't going to happen. So we need to invent things that remove (or minimize) greenhouse gasses. PS: I do get a big kick out of celebrities talking about pollution, global warming, etc... while flying around in their personal jets."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kittikat 0 #9 February 9, 2007 The point I got from this, was that the money goes to someone who can figure out not how to prevent 1b/tons of CO2, but to physically remove 1b tons per year from the atmosphere that is currently there. They are still encouraging people reduce their emissions etc. but this is for someone who can not stop the increase, but actually decrease the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. And if it does cause an ice age - well, we know how to deal with that! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites BIGUN 1,312 #10 February 9, 2007 Well, if we just stop, I'm fairly confident Mother Nature can clean up the mess we've made so far.Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites vortexring 0 #11 February 9, 2007 As if. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 1969912 0 #12 February 9, 2007 I win the 25 Mil! Just sprinkle a buttload of Lithium Hydoxide all over the earth. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites speedy 0 #13 February 10, 2007 QuoteMost notably, this seems to come on the heels of the IPCC study that said that reduction in greenhouse gases won't cool the planet down. Maybe the reason for that is that the excess of CO2 is not warming the planet up Dave Fallschirmsport Marl Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites RMURRAY 1 #14 February 10, 2007 build a nuclear powered device (say 700 megawatts) to suck in air, clean up (someone else figure this out) and blow air back where it came from. Of course, have a 200 foot wide vertical wind tunnnel that runs 24-7.... rm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
BIGUN 1,312 #7 February 9, 2007 So am I the only one thinking that if he just shut Virgin Airlines down, thereby reducing the pollution emissions from just his fleet alone - he could probably keep the money and call himself the winner?Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #8 February 9, 2007 Yes, we could stop doing all things that produce greenhouse gases. But that isn't going to happen. So we need to invent things that remove (or minimize) greenhouse gasses. PS: I do get a big kick out of celebrities talking about pollution, global warming, etc... while flying around in their personal jets."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kittikat 0 #9 February 9, 2007 The point I got from this, was that the money goes to someone who can figure out not how to prevent 1b/tons of CO2, but to physically remove 1b tons per year from the atmosphere that is currently there. They are still encouraging people reduce their emissions etc. but this is for someone who can not stop the increase, but actually decrease the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. And if it does cause an ice age - well, we know how to deal with that! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,312 #10 February 9, 2007 Well, if we just stop, I'm fairly confident Mother Nature can clean up the mess we've made so far.Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #11 February 9, 2007 As if. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #12 February 9, 2007 I win the 25 Mil! Just sprinkle a buttload of Lithium Hydoxide all over the earth. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
speedy 0 #13 February 10, 2007 QuoteMost notably, this seems to come on the heels of the IPCC study that said that reduction in greenhouse gases won't cool the planet down. Maybe the reason for that is that the excess of CO2 is not warming the planet up Dave Fallschirmsport Marl Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RMURRAY 1 #14 February 10, 2007 build a nuclear powered device (say 700 megawatts) to suck in air, clean up (someone else figure this out) and blow air back where it came from. Of course, have a 200 foot wide vertical wind tunnnel that runs 24-7.... rm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
