Against my expectation, but to my pleasure, I've gotten the occasion
to once again write IPCC! The email to them follow below.
From - Sat Oct 15 14:10:27 2011 [3 lines of info] Message-ID: <4E997830.5060005@[info]> Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 14:10:24 +0200 From: "Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea" <[info]> User-Agent: [info] To: email@example.com Subject: Information you may be interested in... Points that may be key Content-Type: [info] Content-Transfer-Encoding: [info] Dear IPCC As I've written to WWF and Greenpeace recently, you may want the following information from me as well, for standing equal to them for also being your responsibility, I'd like you to consider both "The Overpopulation Problem" and how it should be _easy_ for IPCC to compute a simulation of reduction of people. I also like to remind you of Carbon-Ice and how it can help us to reduce the ppm-rate of C-particles in the atmosphere! The writing is the following: "A Reminder for Reduction of Carbon in the Atmosphere - Carbon-Ice" and it goes on my blog, whatiswritten777.blogspot.com: "Hello people out there. This is a reminder of how to control the levels of carbon in the atmosphere. You produce Carbonised/Carbondioxide Ice and this can be produced (as usual) out of constituents in the air, thus reducing carbon in the atmosphere to a suitable level. This can be stored in any cold place, but it's probably best to store it on one of the Poles, the Arctic or the other. Happy burning of fossil fuel, people!" So as a consequence of this "reminder", I would like the numbers worked out, and I think this idea is realisable/conceivable in highly realistic terms, the bottom line being that carbon-ice is shipped on a regular basis and dumped on the poles, either onto the surface by some kind of set-up, or just dropped into the sea. The surface option is probably the best because of the cold, but it's also the most demanding for making room or physical possibility for the dumps to happen. I have as of yet no clue for how much carbon-ice that's needed for reducing carbon-particles in the air from, let's say 350 ppm to 340 ppm. Therefore you get, partly, this new, little notice. I think the idea will require no more than 1 percent of Oxygen, tops! Being 1:2 for creating it, CO2 and C being nr. 12 and Oxygen being nr. 16. It takes only 3 "particles" of oxygen, by mass, to remove 1 particle of Carbon from the atmosphere. It now stands at about 370, I think. Further: Saving the planet is only that helpful if you ignore duties to mass-communications. We can push the governments and I hope you see clearly what is to happen now as this is written. Come on, IPCC-people, let's do it! There may also be a use for the following, that may be worth discussing with professionals like yourselves even though I agree the issue is fringe on the superficial level: A psychological softening for NOT getting "10 kids" may go something like this, if only aiming/planning for 2 kids is enough for both carrying the family tree into the future, we can all agree that "we stand equal as human beings and we equally represent one another as people on Planet Earth. As we manage to get 2 kids, we have completed a certain biological requirement and are prepared to make this happy people as well and thus making the kids happy and able parents. By being moderate on kids and affirming equality as people of the Earth, it should be as worthwhile as ever to only have 2 kids and at the same time aiding the Overpopulation problem and making 2 very happy children with quality time. Rather this than something else." Good? I just like to note how important it is in removing the racism card where every ethnical group is likely to "compete" with other ethnicities for being superior. This needs to FALL! Even though one is here discussing the environment, I think racism needs to be addressed in this manner. (A requirement to this end, is of course to also provide the means where this can happen, i.e., the contraception pills and condoms.) This is still in line with the Deep Ecology Movement and I hope you make the appropriate haste from your inferences of this information if you haven't set forth actions of these considerations already. I hope for some powerful statements from you in the time to come! Cheers! Sincerely yours, Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea Author and Layman-Philosopher and Layman-Scientist Email: [info] as Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea (I'm sorry that my email this time doesn't reflect my name directly.)