[FRIAM] sometimes is pays to read the definitions

[sy at synapse9.com]

Of course. I didn't think I was precluding that. You are assuming that 100% permanent sequestration for continuing growing energy uses, regularly doubling, is both the most profitable direction of development and won't just transfer multiplying impacts elsewhere.  Isn't that abs. decoupling too?

Phil 
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Russell Standish <r.standish at unsw.edu.au>

Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 09:21:16 
To:sy at synapse9.com,       The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] sometimes is pays to read the definitions


On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 03:21:23PM -0400, Phil Henshaw wrote:
> 
> Absolute decoupling is needed for CO2 stabilization because CO2 in the
> atmosphere is  largely accumulative, not recycling.  The odd thing is

Not true. Some processes bury CO_2 on the mantle, or the ocean floor,
or in carbonate deposits, or oil and cola deposits. Its all about a
balance - for CO_2 stabilisation to occur, generation of CO_2 must
balance the rate of removal. 

However to retain economic growth, absolute decoupling must occur, in
order for economic growth not to increase the rate of CO_2 production.

-- 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathematics                         	 
UNSW SYDNEY 2052         	         hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au
Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------