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: ipcc-sec@wmo.int
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.)
