The Footprint in Your Garden, Part 1



1.  Taken from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth
Assessment Report (2007) available at
Last accessed 7/7/2008.  The reports in the IPCC have probably undergone the
most rigorous review of any natural science research ever done.

2. This increase is from burning fossil fuels: You can calculate the amount of CO2 formed by knowing the molecular weights of carbon and oxygen, then knowing how much carbon is released in the combustion of a gallon of oil or pound of coal.  Oil and coal have set chemical structures with a known number of carbon molecules.  Atmospheric CO2 concentration measurements coincide with the rise in fossil fuel use.

According to Lamlom and Savidge “Carbon Content Variation in Boles of Mature
Sugar Maple and Giant Sequoia” published January 15, 2006 online in Tree
Physiology available at,
last accessed 7/11/08.

4.  Brown University (2008, April 27).  Biodiversity Is Crucial To
Ecosystem Productivity.  ScienceDaily.  Retrieved July 7, 2008, from 

5. All of the carbon in a rainforest system is aboveground…the soils are "poor."

4.  If you check out R.H. Whittaker’s book
Communities and Ecosystems, Ed. 2, 1975, there is a real nice chart in there
that provides much more detail.  Go ‘old skool’ and check it out in your local
Sending your yard waste to the incinerator adds additional CO2 to the system due
to the gas burned for transportation and firing the incinerator.

8.  And you
thought what happens in Vegas stayed in Vegas, didn’t you?


  1. You’re often asked by friends how much carbon your garden absorbs? Seriously?

    The post is interesting, but I pretty much snorked coffee through my nose when I read that. Sorry.

    Do you have any more beer? Where’s the mosquito spray? What’s THAT? Those are the type of questions I tend to get from friends strolling through my garden.

  2. I see that eventually you never answered that question even in this blog post.
    Next time if your friends ask that question, tell them 3.15 FetaTonnes. To make it more authentic, tell them the neighbors garden only absorbs 3.11 FetaTonnes because they have 419 less leaves.
    I’m only joking 🙂 Interesting blog post.

  3. Simply put, grow a diverse range of plants, compost the excess on site, add to soil and you are doing your part on your piece of the earth to help. Bringing in additional organic matter for the soil can be even more helpful for the earth and your plants. This was a very good post!

    About footnote #5. Rain forest, I presume. Never heard of a fairforest.

  4. That was fran-freaking-tastic!

    But when WILL someone make garden gnomes that can sequester carbon? Maybe the question is, do we want more gnomes anyway? And, what would a carbon sequestering gnome look like (tall, obtrusive, would it breathe and make odd, possibly offending noises that may startle visitors?). “What’s that?” “Oh, you’re just hearing my gnome sequestering carbon–if you leave him alone, he’ll leave you alone.”

  5. Great post! I’m so geeky, I ate it up and still want more. I can hardly wait for part 2.

    LOL, Benjamin. I want a carbon sequestering gnome, especially one that provides live entertainment.

  6. Thanks a bunch folks. I find the MSM does a real poor job passing the tremendous amount of research on to us lay folks. So it’s nice to have a blog outlet to do so.

    A few responses:
    1) I’m glad you all have a good sense of humor. About my friend’s asking about CO2– it’s either an indication of how boring my parties are, or, with a better spin- all my friends are just so way cool and eco-hip.
    2) A FetaTonne is equal to a Greek salad’s worth of lettuce and olives
    3) If one could invent a CO2 sequestering gnome, what sound should it make? These are the deep questions I’m glad this post spawned.
    4) I saw the fairforest and hoped that folks would either a) not read the footnotes (and miss out on a joke?) or b) just let it slide. Thanks for the correction.
    5) How many people would fly to Vegas vs. taking a road trip?
    6) Huge thanks to Susan for wrangling my twisted words into legible text.


  7. The UN IPCC models have consistently been incorrect in prediciting temperatures. The most spectaucular of these failures was when last year the models (seven) predicted warming and there was a .75 degree drop worldwide on an annual basis. Since fossil fuels produce only 4% of the wrold’s CO2, 4% of the current 285 PPM is 11.4 PPM. This is 0.0000114 part of the atmosphere or 1/100,000th. This one one hundred thousanths cannot be calculated to warm the earth. The only suggestion it can is by the UN panel who’s models have not been correct for the entire twenty years of their existance.
    To suggest we should impose taxes and limitations on our economy based on models that have never been corect is foolhardy.
    There is no science to human cause as demonstrated by the fact that more than one half of all scientists do not subscribe to it.
    Another fact is that North America is a carbon dioxide sink with more CO2 absorbed in North America than is produced by nature as well as man. This is what Johnsen alludes to in his piece.

  8. Readers will get caught up on Jon’s contributions here at GardenRant by putting that name into our search engine in the lower right sidebar. He always finds us when we talk about global warming.

  9. I guess I should be honored to have Jon’s response, but, Jon, if you could, please provide citations for your data (if you even bother to revisit). For example, last year’s temperature “drop” was due to a weak La Nina (still in effect) but the global average temperature was still higher than the average. The IPCC models look at larger trends, not year-to-year specific predictions.

    You claim on fossil fuel’s contribution to CO2 emissions is absolutely bizzare. Where did that come from? The math simply doesn’t add up to your claim.

  10. See- that’s what’s interesting about these characters that go around posting BS, particularly about global warming. They can never back it up and they never really follow up. I think these guys, and I’ve seen them all over the web in discussion groups, are actually paid to spread false rumors. Or they’re just really active Flat Earther types.

  11. …and where, amongst all this rain forest techno-babble, is it ever cited that our Midwestern tall grass prairies sequester (and hold) far more carbon than some distant rain forest?

    I know, I know … prairies are not nearly as exotic sounding as some distant rain forest that almost none of us will ever visit. I want to see these “experts” with a political agenda begin to cite the fact that on a summer day in a prairie environment, the CO2 at ground level is ZERO.

    Maybe our efforts would be better spent creating prairie plantings in the thousands of mown acres along our highways like they are doing in Iowa. It works … but it is not very sexy-sounding.

  12. IronBelly-
    Certainly a sound proposal to replant with prairie grasses. I know there’s been a lot of research on prairies recently- more recently than Whitaker’s productivity research in the early 70’s but grasslands generally scored lower on his productivity scale.. But I don’t think the “experts” have a political agenda for rainforests and against prairies. Care to expound?

    Interestingly, it looks like C4 plans (grasses) fair less well against their C3 cousins (other types of plants) with higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. When CO2 levels drops millions of years ago, C4 plants rose and, perhaps, helped the development of mammals.

  13. I am happy to supply some references for those of you that want to learn.

    DJ, here is some information on the IPCC’s comments on La Nina
    “Global Predictions
    The quasi-regularity of some natural climate forcing mechanisms, combined with knowledge of human-made forcings, allows projection of near-term global temperature trends with reasonably high confidence. Prediction for a specific year is a bit hazardous, as evidenced by an incorrect prediction of record global warmth made by the British climate analysis group for 2007. Such speculations are useful, as they draw attention to the mechanisms, and allow testing of understanding. Presumably part of the basis for their prediction was an assumption of a continued warming contribution from the 2006 El Niño. However, evidence of El Niño warmth disappeared very early in 2007.
    Solar irradiance will still be on or near its flat-bottomed minimum in 2008. Temperature tendency associated with the solar cycle, because of the Earth’s thermal inertia, has its minimum delayed by almost a quarter cycle, i.e., about two years. Thus solar change should not contribute significantly to temperature change in 2008.
    La Niña cooling in the second half of 2007 (Figure 2) is about as intense as the regional cooling associated with any La Niña of the past half century, as shown by comparison to Plate 9 in Hansen et al. (Hansen et al. 1999) and updates to Plate 9 on the GISS web site. Effect of the current La Niña on global surface temperature is likely to continue for at least the first several months of 2008. Based on sequences of Pacific Ocean surface temperature patterns in Plate 9, a next El Niño in 2009 or 2010 is perhaps the most likely timing. But whatever year it occurs, it is a pretty safe bet that the next El Niño will help carry global temperature to a significantly higher level.
    Competing with the short-term solar and La Niña cooling effects is the long-term global warming effect of human-made GHGs. The latter includes the trend toward less Arctic sea ice that markedly increases high latitude Northern Hemisphere temperatures. Although sea ice cover fluctuates from year to year, the large recent loss of thick multi-year ice implies that this warming effect at high latitudes should persist.
    Based on these considerations, it is unlikely that 2008 will be a year with truly exceptional global mean temperature. These considerations also suggest that, barring the unlikely event of a large volcanic eruption, a record global temperature clearly exceeding that of 2005 can be expected within the next 2-3 years.”
    As far as I know the necessary volcanic eruption did not occur.

    As to my bizarre calculations:
    The level of carbon dioxide today is 285 Parts Per Million (PPM) this expressed as a fraction is .000338 parts. It is an accepted fact that fossil fuels are responsible for 4% of this carbon dioxide. This would would be .04 times the 338 PPM or 11.4 parts per million due to “man”. This is .0000114 parts or slightly over 1/100,000th of the atmosphere. This is indisputable and not argued by anyone. This small amount of “greenhouse gas” cannot raise the earth’s temperature by more than a tenth of a thousanth of a degree in 100 years. The calculations are very straightforward. Each greenhouse gas is capable of slowing down reflected radiation (water vapor is 95% of greenhouse gas) from the earth in well defined bandwidths. There is not enough energy to warm the earth or atmosphere with this small amount.

    To give the other side of the arguement. The human cause proponents develop models where they claim this small amount of human caused CO2 never gets absorbed as all other (97%) of carbon dioxide is by plant life on earth. This chemically identical CO2 somehow stays in the atmosphere and “forces” the level higher. It assumes some magic properties that only this man made CO2 has that keeps it forever in the air.
    So the results of these seven models that predicted rising temperatures for 100 years is that according to NASA there was a record drop in temperature on an annual basis of .75 degrees. Not much except the global warming claimed a crisis over a one degree rise over the last 100 years. I hope this helps and if you have any other questions I would be happy to try and help.

  14. Susan, I do read all the postings on Rant and do enjoy them. I have posted some comments unrelated to warming and I do enjoy many of the stories. I am an avid gardener that even composts, uses natural fertilizers on my lawn, recycles, drives a car with a certified “green” engine. I am a tree hugger. I do get upset when I see people mislead by failed theories. I get greatly upset when I see the damage that these incorrect theories have done by preventing our country from developing our resources and driving fuel costs so high that many people are in real trouble. To sit back and say you believe in these theories without really understanding them is foolish. You are an intelligent person and I am sure if you approached it with an open mind you could learn a lot.

    In any event thank you for providing much interesting material and even for allowing me to post my views.

  15. DJ, your childish and rude remarks were uncalled for. I am sure that you would not talk to me inperson like that. Watch your manners please.

  16. I have to apologize I inadvertently used .000338 for the portion of CO2 to represent 285 PPM. This of course would make it .000285. Using the 4% which is the amount caused by humans (fossil fuel burning). This makes the amount in the air .0000114. Sorry, I know many of you must have been confused.

  17. Jon-
    The delay and obfuscate approach to climate change and mis-information is dangerous. Our inaction in reducing CO2 emissions means people lose their lives ( Thus, if my approach is agressive or brash, I apologize, but it is only because I understand the gravity of the situation.

    Since you are willing to quote the IPCC, you should use their numbers for CO2 concentrations:

    From the IPCC 4th Assessment (main report, page 37)

    Pre-Industrial: 280 ppm
    2005: 379 ppm

    So we have a 26% increase since the Industrial Revolution. 2 questions for you: 1) Where did this 26% increase come from if not from fossil fuel combustion, and 2)what’s the fate of the trillions of tons of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion if not in the atmosphere? I’ve having a tough time with your 4% number.

  18. Actually the current guess is 385 according to the IPCC. the percentage that is human caused is 4% according to the IPCC. Please see the graphic at
    this shows a graphic from the IPCC on percentages of CO2 from natural and man made sources. One thing that you will not find from the IPCC is any calculation or test which indicates that this 1/100,000th part of carbon dioxide can raise the temperature of the earth. They claim to prove it with seven computer models. These models have never in the twenty years of existence have been accurate, not once. All seven predicited with full knowledge of La Nina and solar minimums that it was guaranteed to become warmer for the next several years and overall would continue to warm for the next 100. Instead as verified by NASA and every major source in the world the temperature annually dropped by the greatest recorded temperature drop in history. You say you know how serious it is. I say you are not aware of the evidence. We are asked to suffer greatly for a theory that has been proven false according to it’s own information. The UN IPCC made these predictions based on their models. They made the guarantee based on these models. Their information states that temperatures have risen 1 degree in the last 100 years and this is a crisis. In actuality the temperature worldwide dropped .75 degrees a full 3/4 of the crisis causing rise causing 1 degree in their estimation. I don’t know why anyone would subject themselves to the pain that we are being subjected to to reduce CO2 levels when it is entirely unecessary.
    If you against overwhelming evidence still think that CO2 must be reduced than you should be in favor of nuclear power because it is the only way to drop CO2 emissions and greatly reduce the 1.1 billion tons of coal we burn each year. Let me suppose that you are against this and will tell me we need renewables. We spend 20 billion dollars a year on subsidies for renewabls and after 40 years of effort wind produces les than 0.1 % of our power. One nuclear power plant produces .19% of our power. The proof. We have 103 nuclear plants in the US. They supply 20% of our power. Divide 20% by 103 and you get .19%. 100 more nuclear plants will supply enough power to drop coal burning for power by 40% or approximately 500 billion tons of coal burning. This would cost 500 to 600 billion dollars of private funds. Spend $600 billion on wind and you get 1/3 the nameplate power as wind has capital costs three times that of nuclear per kw. The wind power is 25% efficient so the wind would produce this power 25% of the time. 75% of the time fossil fuel would have to be used (coal burning) Considering nuclear is 90% efficient this means the power from wind is going to be about 8% that of nuclear. In addition the wind power that is generated will cost five times more and no power grid can accept the fluctuating nature of wind power for more than 10% of its supply. The cost of nuclear is less than 2 cents per kwh to generate, the cost of wind generated power is 10 cents.

    I am guessing (please excuse my jumping ahead) but I think that you are next going to tell me that you are afraid of nuclear. If this is the case I have to tell you that you have to live with one or the other of your fears; either the unreasonable one of human caused warming or the just as unreasonable one of nuclear power.
    I somehow feel you will contest this with emotion rather than reason so all I ask is that you keep an open mind.

  19. Jon- You’re being selective with the numbers from EIA or something. From the graphic in the link- Vegetation and soils exchange CO2, currently in the system, with the atmosphere for a NET absorption of .6 billion metric tons (120.2-119.6=.6). Oceans are absorbing a net 1.6 metric tons (92.2-90.6=1.6). And recent research is concluding that the oceans are becoming more acidic with the additional CO2 absorbed, which is killing organisms with shells (like krill and corals). So fossil fuel use is RELEASING 7.2 billion metric tons. That’s CO2 from under the ground, not in the system as it was pre industrial revolution.

    This is the correct interpretation from the figure in the EIA website you mentioned.

    Now, for your second major point– you are comparing year to year averages rather than long term trends and then not even adding correctly. La nina made 2006 a cooler year than the previous years but it still came in above the average. And NOAA reports that Global land temps set a record in March of this year:

    From their site: An analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center shows that the average temperature for March in the contiguous United States ranked near average for the past 113 years. It was the 63rd warmest March since record-keeping began in the United States in 1895.

    The average global land temperature last month was the warmest on record and ocean surface temperatures were the 13th warmest. Combining the land and the ocean temperatures, the overall global temperature ranked the second warmest for the month of March. Global temperature averages have been recorded since 1880.

    The complete analysis is available online.

    O.k, and then we’re on to Nuclear power. This ‘solution’ has many problems: a fundamental one being economics. No-one wants to buy them. In fact, Warren Buffet just turned down a nuke in Idaho because the economics don’t work out. The industry estimates a new plant costing anywhere from $12-22 BILLION per reactor. So, to build your 100 plants- which wouldn’t double nukes, but simply replace all the reactors that are now near or past their age limits, will cost $1-2 TRILLION. That’s some coin, that comes from someone’s hide. I’d rather than investment be in wind or solar panels. (for references and more info, check my post at Daily Kos )

    Then there is the little problem of national security (Al Q had plans targeting nuclear reactors and the security at the places suck) and the waste. Little problems.

    I try to present the information logically. There is a reason that every major industry is concerned, all the scientist are concerned, and every agency in the government is concerned and taking on this challenge.

  20. I am not being “selective or something”. Man made CO2 is 4% of the total according to the IPCC. The numbers are clear. 119 tonnes from land, 88 from the ocean and 6.6 from all fossil fuels. This is 4% of the total as shown by the IPCC chart. There is no other way to interpret it. This 1/100,000th of the atmosphere cannot be shown by any calculation to warm the earth, you either agree or will have to show me the calculation or test. You have to realize that 95% of greenhouse gasses are water vapor. Carbon dioxide is 4% of greenhouse gases. The total greenhouse gasses are only 4% of the atmosphere. We produce ten times as much CO2 from breathing as we do from burning fossil fuels. You mistakingly argue that fossil fuel burning has gone up, the earth warmed so fossil fuel is the cause.
    You are quoting old data from NASA before the cool down which for one year recorded the greatest recprded temperature drop in history. This is the latest data. The March you refer to is March 2007. Please, you are not being honest.
    We have had the greatest drop in temperature ever recorded for one year, verified by all four of the world’s most respected sources.

    UK’s Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature anomaly (HadCRUT) Dr. Phil Jones
    The NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies(GISS) Dr. James Hansen
    University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH) Dr. John Christy
    Remote Sensing Systems of Santa Rosa, CA (RSS)

    Source: Global ∆T °C
    HadCRUT – 0.595
    GISS – 0.750
    UAH – 0.588
    RSS – 0.629
    Average: – 0.6405°C

    There are 34 licenses applied for to build nuclear power plants. It cost millions to simply apply. You obviously didn’t investigate this or are trying to cover up the facts again.
    Please referencing the daily kos, you have to be kidding. This is where you get your information. WOW, I didn’t think anyone would admit to reading that hate-filled rancid website. PS, you should know that there is a 1/2 cent per kwh fee attached to user’s bills each month to cover Yucca Mountain and dismantling of decommissioned nuclear plants. There is no such budgeting to disassemble wind farms which have 20 year life spans. Didin’t you know this? Please you are going to have to do better than this. I am quoting the IPCC and NASA and you are quoting the dailykooks. Aren’t you a little ashamed? New plants in the world that are being built today cost 5 to 6 billion. Why do expect that it will cost 12 to 22 billion. Dismantling nuclear plants is not very difficult and has been done many times and your figures once again are intentionally wrong.
    Energy excise tax and fee collections in fiscal year 1999 were approximately $2.2 billion (Table 10). The collections were earmarked for a variety of energy-related trust funds. The largest share of energy excise tax collections ($1.4 billion) serves to fund a variety of programs that address environmental and safety problems associated with the production and distribution of petroleum and coal. In addition, approximately $642 million in user fees is collected annually from nuclear power producers to fund the development, acquisition, and operation of nuclear waste disposal facilities, (44) and $171 million is collected for the decontamination and decommissioning of uranium enrichment facilities.
    Energy excise tax and fee collections in fiscal year 1999 were approximately $2.2 billion (Table 10). The collections were earmarked for a variety of energy-related trust funds. The largest share of energy excise tax collections ($1.4 billion) serves to fund a variety of programs that address environmental and safety problems associated with the production and distribution of petroleum and coal. In addition, approximately $642 million in user fees is collected annually from nuclear power producers to fund the development, acquisition, and operation of nuclear waste disposal facilities, (44) and $171 million is collected for the decontamination and decommissioning of uranium enrichment facilities.

    Maybe you should tell the Department of Energy that their figures are all wrong according to the dailykooks.

    In order to blow up a nuclear plant it would take a nuclear attack. You assume that someone would use a nuclear bomb to blow one up when they could target New York, Washington DC, Chicago. Why? Sure nuclear plants have radioactive material but they would not add to the explosion of a nuclear bomb hitting them. You are not thinking clearly and logically.

    Logically explain how 1/100,000 part of CO2 can warm the earth. Logically explain why you think storing nuclear wastes at 103 nuclear plants and hundreds more military installations under what you describe as security that sucks is better than storing it in the desert surrounded by military installations in secure containers inside a mountain facility that is eartquake and nuclear bomb proof and designed to last for 10,000 years. Why? I think your only real objection is that nuclear power works. The whole philosophy of seems to be to raise prices and block anything that helps. Increase taxes, build wind and solar that don’t work and block any energy development or anything else that works. Why? What is the agenda? Make people suffer? Raise the energy costs higher? Weaken the economy more? Weaken our national defense? Why?

  21. Wow! Daily Kos pushes you over the edge! Hah! What a hoot. I had pointed the reader to MY post at Daily Kos that had more information and the references for Warren Buffet passing on investing in nuclear power, as well as the references for the industry quoting $12-20 Billion for new reactors.

    You say you are quoting the IPCC but you seem to be ignoring their warnings for reducing CO2 emissions and the changes that are being observed. So however you are twisting numbers around (because what you quite above is not to be found in the literature you cite) you are still only being selective in your analysis. IPCC EXPLICITLY stats that human induced CO2 emissions are the cause of warming.

    The cite you point to (some dude’s website – for a cooler January 2008 actually shows January 2008 to still be ABOVE the average temperature, but not by much. Look at the scale on the left of the top chart. January 2008 was .037 degrees C WARMER THAN AVERAGE. With the way you so artfully chose these stats, I must assume you know what you are doing and you’re not that blind and stupid.

    So are, like, way invested in nukes or what? You passionate in their defense. I just see the economics not working out for nukes. Yucca Mountain, which may never come on line because it leaks, can’t hold all of the current radioactive waste in the US, let alone finding space for a new generation of power plants. We could reprocess the waste, but that’s a major security risk to have lose Plutonium around.

    But, again, your logic breaks down. If, in your world, global warming doesn’t exist, why bother building nukes? The only reason they are even being considered is for possible CO2 reductions.

  22. As regards Warren Buffet and his decision on a nuclear plant in Payette.

    Is it any wonder that Warren Buffett has been scooping up utilities for Berkshire Hathaway? It owns 88% of Mid-American Energy Holdings, which does business in the United Kingdom and in midwestern and western states. Last year, MidAmerican’s earnings topped $1 billion.

    MidAmerican Nuclear Energy Company has made a decision to end its pursuit of a nuclear energy facility in Payette County, Idaho.
    We at MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company, the parent of MidAmerican Nuclear Energy Company, continue to believe that nuclear energy must be an important part of the nation’s energy future.

    Mid American also owns a 25% stake in Quad Cities I II nuclear plant as well as several other nuclear plants.

    So it seems that he has made a business decision not to build the plant in Payette. Of course the company he bought has several nuclear plants.

    Fortunately, new technologies and improved knowledge about risk factors have made it possible to produce modular light-water nuclear plants with fewer, standardized parts. (Unlike complex “heavy-water” reactors, light-water nuclear reactors use enriched uranium and ordinary water and cannot produce weapons-grade plutonium.) The cost of building these plants has fallen from the range of $2 to $6 billion to an estimated $1.4 to $1.6 billion, according to the January 31 edition of Forbes.

    This proves your figures incorrect for capital costs of a nuclear plant. Your source against Forbes is…..? ZERO.

    First you say that my figure for 4% carbon dioxide from fossil fuels is incorrect. I prove it with a direct reference from the UN IPCC and you try to tell me that I should interpret it differently from what it plainly states. You now seem to reealize that all my facts were correct and you want to know why after I have proven the IPCC predictions to be erroneous by their own statements and models that you somehow now think that because I used their own data to disprove their theory that it somehow seems strange to you that I don’t accept their disproved theory. You have a very strange logic pattern.

    Concerning the temperature data. The “dude” has simply compiled this data from the four most prestigious organizations in the world showing how temperatures dropped. You deningrate this information but somehow don’t supply anything to dispute it. I defy you to prove any of it incorrect, you cannot just as you cannot refute my numbers on the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. I think the actual way “greenhouse gasses” work and how any warming from them actually occurs is really beyond your grasp.

    I also note that you grasp on single months to try and disprove the cooling. The first time was the March of 2007 remark that I disproved and now you want the world to revolve around January of 2008. The annual temperature dropped .75 degrees when the IPCC said this would be impossible unless we had a huge volcanic eruption. I provided the quote from the IPCC and the data from NASA. You have denied this with…well…exactly zero.

    You rstaement that Yucca Mountain leaks is based on….well…..I’m waiting. Making these false and misleading claims with no coroberation and completely opposite to the facts may fly at the dailykooks, but if you want to debate with please bring some facts to the table. You are losing credibility with each post. Quit while you are ahead.

    Yes the only reason to build nuclear is to clean the air. It is also the only possible way to reduce carbon dioxide. It is alos a very good way to avoid the onerous carbon taxes that you no doubt favor. You see nuclear is the least expensive power, it is the cleanest and one nuclear plant produces double the power of all the wind farms in the US. 100 plants would cut the 1.1 trillion tons of coal we burn each year by 40%. Doing this would ruin the plans of those that do not want a solution. There can be no other explanation for the distortion. The motive political power at the expense of our economy and our national defense.

    It is a fact that you have not supplied one reference other than refering to your blogs on the far-left website dailykos.

    Another correction I must make to you, you keep refering to global warming, since it is actually cooling you must refer to it as climate change to conform to the IPCC and the dailykos.

    PS- it is amazing that you think the Yucca Mountain is leaking. You have to really be kidding.

    The Department of Energy’s Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management is using a “multiple” barrier approach to isolate the waste. This approach addresses the primary safety issues of:

    preventing water from reaching the waste canisters,
    limiting the rate that canisters and waste could be dissolved by water, and
    slowing or filtering out radioactive particles as they move away from the repository.
    This multiple barrier approach uses natural barriers and engineered – or man-made – barriers to ensure the radioactive materials stay inside the repository, located about 1,000 feet below the earth’s surface and about 1,000 feet above the nearest water table.

    You just keep coming up with unsubstantiated nonsense that I respond to with well documented references to very good sources. Your writing standards are deplorable.

Comments are closed.