120.153.174.70: Comment provided by newinitiation - via ArticleComments extension

2010-07-13T02:34:07Z

Comment provided by newinitiation - via ArticleComments extension

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:34, 13 July 2010
Line 30:		Line 30:

	--newinitiation 03:20, 13 July 2010 (BST)		--newinitiation 03:20, 13 July 2010 (BST)
			</div>
			== newinitiation said ... ==

			<div class='commentBlock'>
			Just where on earth would there be the least amount of CO2?
			Just as oxygen content varies from different regions of the earth it would likewise be the same for CO2
			Logically CO2 would be created in the greatest amount where the industrial output is the greatest per capita.
			This means the richest countries with the highest densely populated cities would consume the greatest amount of natural resources needing the equivalent industrial capacity to cater for the needs of the population.
			So essentially speaking the richer the country and highly populated the cities are the greater the emission of CO2.
			Since the main polluters of the world is combustion engines, livestock such as cows and heavy industries, the more concentration of these facilities means more pollution and more pollution means more CO2.
			So a city such as Los angeles would pollute more than say Bombay even though the latter city has more population.
			What we cannot discount though is factors like Co2 containment technologies or carbon capture technologies built into the industries.
			The more advanced nations would have more stringent environmental standards as opposed to the emerging economies like India and China.
			This means that these two countries would now be one of the worst offenders for CO2 emissions given that it's economies are growing at one of the highest levels in comparisons to the rest of the world.
			This equates with more people's standard of living increasing in these countries which inevitably leads to more consumption of energy and natural resources leading to more pollution and CO2 emission.
			So if the 1.3 billion people in China all had plasma TVs, computers, cars, washing machines, refrigerators, I-phones, big houses, more holidays requiring longer travels and every other electronic and consumer products and in their life time going through many cycles of these products depending on fads and trends then all those products consumed equates with the equivalent amount of destruction of the earth to produce these products, to power them and to dispose of them when they are dumped.
			Add to this the increasing lifespan of the population then you have a recipe for the greatest disaster ever known.
			USA makes up less than 20% of the world's population and yet consumes more than 50% of the worlds energy needs.
			Since majority of the worlds energy production is dependent on oil and coal, it boggles the mind just how much pollutants we humans are spewing in the air each day from the whole process of production, maintenance, distribution, consumption and reproduction of energy if we look at this on a global scale.
			No wonder the plejarens and BEAM is warning of the dangers of atmospheric collapse.
			So getting back to answering my own question, the regions with the least amount of CO2 and higher oxygen content would be somewhere tropical with many trees which is close by the sea preferably located in the Eastern part of the country with very small industrial activity and population density.
			So somewhere tropical and close to the sea would be ideal.
			But the factor to consider with these regional ares are that if the concentration of trees are high then so is the CO2 produced by these flora life forms at night.
			The global air current must also play an important factor as is the ocean current as well.
			Just as natural law dictates that everything flows in and out and goes through rhythm and cycles as in 'in-out, up down, to and fro' and so on, the concentration of CO2 in a particular region of earth would also move about due to cosmic, electromagnetic, geomagnetic and 4 other natural influences.
			This means if looked at in an yearly pattern and depending on climatic factors, in some year the CO2 level would be high and in other years it'll be lower.

			--newinitiation 03:34, 13 July 2010 (BST)
	</div>		</div>

123.208.112.109: Comment provided by newinitiation - via ArticleComments extension

2010-07-13T02:20:22Z

Comment provided by newinitiation - via ArticleComments extension

New page

<noinclude>Comments on [[Contact Report 489]]
<comments />
----- __NOEDITSECTION__</noinclude>

== newinitiation said ... ==

<div class='commentBlock'>
Just where on earth would there be the least amount of CO2?
Just as oxygen content varies from different regions of the earth it would likewise be the same for CO2
Logically CO2 would be created in the greatest amount where the industrial output is the greatest per capita.
This means the richest countries with the highest densely populated cities would consume the greatest amount of natural resources needing the equivalent industrial capacity to cater for the needs of the population.
So essentially speaking the richer the country and highly populated the cities are the greater the emission of CO2.
Since the main polluters of the world is combustion engines, livestock such as cows and heavy industries, the more concentration of these facilities means more pollution and more pollution means more CO2.
So a city such as Los angeles would pollute more than say Bombay even though the latter city has more population.
What we cannot discount though is factors like Co2 containment technologies or carbon capture technologies built into the industries.
The more advanced nations would have more stringent environmental standards as opposed to the emerging economies like India and China.
This means that these two countries would now be one of the worst offenders for CO2 emissions given that it's economies are growing at one of the highest levels in comparisons to the rest of the world.
This equates with more people's standard of living increasing in these countries which inevitably leads to more consumption of energy and natural resources leading to more pollution and CO2 emission.
So if the 1.3 billion people in China all had plasma TVs, computers, cars, washing machines, refrigerators, I-phones, big houses, more holidays requiring longer travels and every other electronic and consumer products and in their life time going through many cycles of these products depending on fads and trends then all those products consumed equates with the equivalent amount of destruction of the earth to produce these products, to power them and to dispose of them when they are dumped.
Add to this the increasing lifespan of the population then you have a recipe for the greatest disaster ever known.
USA makes up less than 20% of the world's population and yet consumes more than 50% of the worlds energy needs.
Since majority of the worlds energy production is dependent on oil and coal, it boggles the mind just how much pollutants we humans are spewing in the air each day from the whole process of production, maintenance, distribution, consumption and reproduction of energy if we look at this on a global scale.
No wonder the plejarens and BEAM is warning of the dangers of atmospheric collapse.
So getting back to answering my own question, the regions with the least amount of CO2 and higher oxygen content would be somewhere tropical with many trees which is close by the sea preferably located in the Eastern part of the country with very small industrial activity and population density.
So somewhere tropical and close to the sea would be ideal.
But the factor to consider with these regional ares are that if the concentration of trees are high then so is the CO2 produced by these flora life forms at night.
The global air current must also play an important factor as is the ocean current as well.
Just as natural law dictates that everything flows in and out and goes through rhythm and cycles as in 'in-out, up down, to and fro' and so on, the concentration of CO2 in a particular region of earth would also move about due to cosmic, electromagnetic, geomagnetic and 4 other natural influences.
This means if looked at in an yearly pattern and depending on climatic factors, in some year the CO2 level would be high and in other years it'll be lower.

--newinitiation 03:20, 13 July 2010 (BST)
</div>

Talk:Contact Report 489 - Revision history

120.153.174.70: Comment provided by newinitiation - via ArticleComments extension

123.208.112.109: Comment provided by newinitiation - via ArticleComments extension