ᐅ About Passive Houses, Plastic Bags, and Styrofoam Cladding

Imagine, Marvinius, that I am actually quite spiritual. Not exactly in a traditional biblical sense, but I haven’t lost a certain sense and appreciation for the infinite. Karsten

Marvinius II schrieb:
That’s a pity, going back to emotional messages from a *-ISM believer instead of a factual contribution....

Some people simply can’t live without a strong belief. Freedom is difficult after all...

I would call that self-reflection. Or was there any factual argument like in my case?

Apart from that, I think I’m the one here with the least belief in anything at all.

chand1986 schrieb:
I would immediately call “stop” on that. With this approach, burning oil and coal wouldn’t be an issue—after all, both had absorbed that CO2 millions of years ago, which would now be released again.

A logically correct approach, if you take your balance concept, would be that only as much should be burned as is simultaneously absorbed by processes elsewhere. No one would find it reasonable to burn today and collect it again next year—what happens in the meantime?

So, I have basically presented one of your stated facts as incorrect (or as poorly formulated).

I disagree. There are enough buffering systems such that you can produce carbon dioxide at location B at time A, and then reintroduce it into the cycle at location E at time D.
If it weren’t like that, you would need to wear a plant around your waist that immediately converts the CO2 you exhale back into O2...
Let’s just assume that the increased CO2 level in the atmosphere accelerates plant growth in Brazil. (Satellite images do show that plant biomass is increasing.) Due to the faster plant growth, x tons of CO2 more can now be absorbed—those that you have (hopefully without NOx and particulate emissions) emitted. Along the way, algae in the ocean absorb an additional y tons of CO2, so you could even emit more, namely x + y tons...

kaho674 schrieb:
Self-reflection, I would say. Or was there any factual argument, like I provided?

Aside from that, I think I am the one here with the least belief in anything.

Sigmund Freud said that excessive defense often points to a hidden, unacknowledged desire.[emoji2] Karsten

kaho674 schrieb:
Self-reflection, I would say. Or was there any factual argument like the ones I made?

Aside from that, I think I am the one here with the least belief in anything.

Just as an example:
“Butterflies are 80% dead”
Based on what starting point? What is the cause: Maybe shredded by wind turbines?

“Polar bears are dying”
They have always died, if you mean extinction: They are interbreeding with grizzlies, so extinction is out of the question.

Factual? Maybe if you studied “theater studies”…

Nordlys schrieb:
Sigmund Freud suggests that excessive defense mechanisms indicate a hidden, unacknowledged desire.[emoji2] Karsten

I’m not exactly sure what Freud meant, but I definitely have that.