<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Clean Energy Bank:  Financing the transition to a low-carbon economy</title>
	<atom:link href="http://climateprogress.org/2009/05/23/clean-energy-bank-deployment-administration/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/05/23/clean-energy-bank-deployment-administration/</link>
	<description>The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:27:35 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: James Newberry</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/05/23/clean-energy-bank-deployment-administration/#comment-59691</link>
		<dc:creator>James Newberry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2009 17:18:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/?p=7082#comment-59691</guid>
		<description>The statement that we have plenty of &quot;cheap&quot; natural gas to repower coal plants has no basis in fact. Further, the idea that we should invest in a fossil solution that would lock in infrastucture for decades is foolish. Lastly, ignorance and fraud have no shortage in America as demonstrated by statements for &quot;low carbon&quot; energy such as fossil fuel or clean, green renewable atomic fission. These are what are called &quot;dirty,&quot; as in contaminating. The nuclear industry has not received new investment for decades in America and there are numerous reasons why, starting with economic infeasibility. Even Wall Street doesn&#039;t want it. By definition, it is not &quot;clean&quot; or &quot;renewable.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The statement that we have plenty of &#8220;cheap&#8221; natural gas to repower coal plants has no basis in fact. Further, the idea that we should invest in a fossil solution that would lock in infrastucture for decades is foolish. Lastly, ignorance and fraud have no shortage in America as demonstrated by statements for &#8220;low carbon&#8221; energy such as fossil fuel or clean, green renewable atomic fission. These are what are called &#8220;dirty,&#8221; as in contaminating. The nuclear industry has not received new investment for decades in America and there are numerous reasons why, starting with economic infeasibility. Even Wall Street doesn&#8217;t want it. By definition, it is not &#8220;clean&#8221; or &#8220;renewable.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Neil Howes</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/05/23/clean-energy-bank-deployment-administration/#comment-59558</link>
		<dc:creator>Neil Howes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2009 10:29:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/?p=7082#comment-59558</guid>
		<description>Jim,
The problem with converting coal to NG is that the boilers cannot respond quickly to changes in demand. Many of these power plants are old, low efficiency will need replacing and its more sensible to replace with NG peak or NG combined cycle high efficiency. The CO2 released is only 35% of coal if you include the higher efficiency.

With an expansion or nuclear or wind we will need more peak capacity. We need all the NG peak power possible, fortunately most new power is wind or NG.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jim,<br />
The problem with converting coal to NG is that the boilers cannot respond quickly to changes in demand. Many of these power plants are old, low efficiency will need replacing and its more sensible to replace with NG peak or NG combined cycle high efficiency. The CO2 released is only 35% of coal if you include the higher efficiency.</p>
<p>With an expansion or nuclear or wind we will need more peak capacity. We need all the NG peak power possible, fortunately most new power is wind or NG.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David B. Benson</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/05/23/clean-energy-bank-deployment-administration/#comment-59326</link>
		<dc:creator>David B. Benson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 May 2009 22:27:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/?p=7082#comment-59326</guid>
		<description>Jim Beacon --- Take it one step further.  One of the best uses for biomass is to produce biomethane of high enough quality to go into the natural gas pipelines.  Some of this is alreaddy being done in the U.S. so it just needs scaling up.  In the meantime, burn natural gas.

That way you&#039;ll make everybody except King Coal and the railroads happy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jim Beacon &#8212; Take it one step further.  One of the best uses for biomass is to produce biomethane of high enough quality to go into the natural gas pipelines.  Some of this is alreaddy being done in the U.S. so it just needs scaling up.  In the meantime, burn natural gas.</p>
<p>That way you&#8217;ll make everybody except King Coal and the railroads happy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David B. Benson</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/05/23/clean-energy-bank-deployment-administration/#comment-59323</link>
		<dc:creator>David B. Benson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 May 2009 22:24:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/?p=7082#comment-59323</guid>
		<description>Jim Beacon --- Looks good to me.

Convince Drs. Chu &amp; Obama.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jim Beacon &#8212; Looks good to me.</p>
<p>Convince Drs. Chu &amp; Obama.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Beacon</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/05/23/clean-energy-bank-deployment-administration/#comment-59264</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Beacon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 May 2009 19:49:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/?p=7082#comment-59264</guid>
		<description>There is a very good interim conversion option for coal-fired power plants -- one that is very quick, easy and relatively cheap. And it doesn&#039;t require the near-impossible task of creating huge amounts of new biomass/biofuel overnight:

Burning natural gas releases only half as much CO2 as burning coal does. We could rapidly convert our 600 coal power plants to burn natural gas instead. The technology for this already exists and several coal plants around the country have already been converted to burn natural gas. The U.S. has huge reserves of natural gas and already has an extensive pipeline distribution system in place. Some claim the existing system couldn&#039;t handle the extra load, but it will take some time to covert all the plants. There is enough capacity in the system right now to get started converting some of them and we could expand the supply and pipeline system rapidly while we were building more conversion kits for the remaining plants.

Burning coal in power plants accounts for roughly 24% of total U.S. emissions of CO2. By converting the plants to natural gas we could cut that down to 12% in just a few years, using existing technology, expertise, infrastructure and *jobs* already in place (and also create more jobs, of course). This would get us almost 3/4 of the way to the 17% Waxman-Markey target for 2020 and do it quickly with no pain -- with nothing but economic gain for everyone (except for the coal industry, of course). By the time the natural gas started running low in 10 to 12 years, we would have bought ourselves the time to ramp up solar, wind, biomass, biofuel and yes, if it turns out to be absolutely necessary, maybe even a few carefully-considered and sited nuclear power plants. This plan is a win-win for everyone except the coal industry.

I have been advocating this transitional solution for some time now, but no one seems very interested in the idea. It feels like the clean power movement has its own political agenda and pet solutions and that something this simple, quick, relatively cheap and generally politically acceptable to the &quot;other side&quot; doesn&#039;t fit in with the plan.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is a very good interim conversion option for coal-fired power plants &#8212; one that is very quick, easy and relatively cheap. And it doesn&#8217;t require the near-impossible task of creating huge amounts of new biomass/biofuel overnight:</p>
<p>Burning natural gas releases only half as much CO2 as burning coal does. We could rapidly convert our 600 coal power plants to burn natural gas instead. The technology for this already exists and several coal plants around the country have already been converted to burn natural gas. The U.S. has huge reserves of natural gas and already has an extensive pipeline distribution system in place. Some claim the existing system couldn&#8217;t handle the extra load, but it will take some time to covert all the plants. There is enough capacity in the system right now to get started converting some of them and we could expand the supply and pipeline system rapidly while we were building more conversion kits for the remaining plants.</p>
<p>Burning coal in power plants accounts for roughly 24% of total U.S. emissions of CO2. By converting the plants to natural gas we could cut that down to 12% in just a few years, using existing technology, expertise, infrastructure and *jobs* already in place (and also create more jobs, of course). This would get us almost 3/4 of the way to the 17% Waxman-Markey target for 2020 and do it quickly with no pain &#8212; with nothing but economic gain for everyone (except for the coal industry, of course). By the time the natural gas started running low in 10 to 12 years, we would have bought ourselves the time to ramp up solar, wind, biomass, biofuel and yes, if it turns out to be absolutely necessary, maybe even a few carefully-considered and sited nuclear power plants. This plan is a win-win for everyone except the coal industry.</p>
<p>I have been advocating this transitional solution for some time now, but no one seems very interested in the idea. It feels like the clean power movement has its own political agenda and pet solutions and that something this simple, quick, relatively cheap and generally politically acceptable to the &#8220;other side&#8221; doesn&#8217;t fit in with the plan.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: paulm</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/05/23/clean-energy-bank-deployment-administration/#comment-59049</link>
		<dc:creator>paulm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 May 2009 05:08:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/?p=7082#comment-59049</guid>
		<description>I am convinced that  coal plants will be taken over by governments and either closed or more likely converted as Leland states. It is really the only practical solution to the current crisis. Events are just happening too quickly. 

It will be only a matter of time (18 months or so) that the reality that is has to happen will be apparent here in North America and Europe. 

Look at Australia (and to some extent China) where Hell and High Water has arrived!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am convinced that  coal plants will be taken over by governments and either closed or more likely converted as Leland states. It is really the only practical solution to the current crisis. Events are just happening too quickly. </p>
<p>It will be only a matter of time (18 months or so) that the reality that is has to happen will be apparent here in North America and Europe. </p>
<p>Look at Australia (and to some extent China) where Hell and High Water has arrived!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Leland Palmer</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/05/23/clean-energy-bank-deployment-administration/#comment-58894</link>
		<dc:creator>Leland Palmer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 May 2009 21:34:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/?p=7082#comment-58894</guid>
		<description>I love a good technological solution.

Pray while we roast. 

This seems like a truly original, creative real world solution!

Thanks Francis!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I love a good technological solution.</p>
<p>Pray while we roast. </p>
<p>This seems like a truly original, creative real world solution!</p>
<p>Thanks Francis!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike D</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/05/23/clean-energy-bank-deployment-administration/#comment-58867</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike D</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 May 2009 20:27:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/?p=7082#comment-58867</guid>
		<description>Whoa.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Whoa.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Francis</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/05/23/clean-energy-bank-deployment-administration/#comment-58845</link>
		<dc:creator>Francis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 May 2009 19:42:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/?p=7082#comment-58845</guid>
		<description>Simply, &quot;progress&quot;, so-called, is destroying the earth(land, air, water, vegetation, creatures) and perverting that which is Spirit(Light, Life, Truth, Love, Peace, Hope, Grace, Miracles, Faith, etc.) ;-(

Postings have been made at TheDestructionOfTheEarth.Wordpress.com  concerning such destruction and perversion and also concerning The Creator&#039;s(GOD, Father) promise that HE will &quot;destroy those who destroy the earth(HIS Creation)!&quot; (Rev11:18c)

Yet there is a Living, Lively Hope!

However, such Hope is not for that which is of the earth, earthly and fleshly, but there is a Living, Lively Hope for that which is Spirit, Heavenly and Spiritual.

Hope for that which is Spirit is Alive because &quot;progress&quot;, which is the product of mankind&#039;s &quot;imag&quot;ination, can pervert, yet not destroy that which is Spirit! For that which is Spirit is Real, and that which is Real is Forever!

So no matter how perverse this world&#039;s systems of religion become, that which is Spirit can only be abused and perverted, not destroyed!

That which is Spirit is Eternal.......

As for that which is called &quot;religion&quot;. 

&quot;Pure religion and undefiled before GOD  The Father(Creator) is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction and to keep oneself uncontaminated by the world.&quot; (James 1:27)

Simply, every other religion is impure and defiled!

As stated previously, &quot;that which is called &quot;&quot;progress&quot;  is of mankind&#039;s &quot;imag&quot;ination and can pervert, yet not destroy, that which is Spirit&quot;, and so it is that this world, and it&#039;s systems of religion, have their version of &quot;Light&quot;, which can be turned on and off;

Their version of &quot;Truth&quot;, which is of the &quot;imag&quot;ination;

Their version of &quot;Love&quot;, which should be called lust;

Their version of &quot;Peace&quot;, which needs be enforced;

Their version of &quot;Hope&quot;, which is but a desire for temporal &quot;things&quot;;

Their version of &quot;Faith&quot;, which is powerless;

Their version of &quot;Grace&quot;, which is the liberty to &quot;do your own thing&quot;;

And sadly, the favorite color of this world&#039;s religion is gray ;-(

So come out of the shadows! And as is said by many, &quot;Get Real&quot;!

Once again, &quot;only that which is Spirit is Real, and only that which is Real is Forever&quot;!

Hope is there would be those who &quot;see&quot; that The Life is in and of The Spirit. Those who &quot;see&quot; will no longer have their portion with the multitudes who are destroying the earth(and, air, water, creatures, vegetation) and perverting that which is Spirit(Light, Life, Truth, Love, Peace, Hope, Faith, Grace, etc.) ;-(

Simply, each breath(Spirit) you take is a revelation of The Source of Life.

And &quot;A Simple and Spiritual Life is the only Life that will survive!&quot;

Forever.......

So &quot;set your affections on Heavenly things&quot; and be not of those &quot;whose god is their bellies because they mind earthly things&quot;. Be not of those who &quot;love this world and it&#039;s things&quot; and who are &quot;progress&quot;ively destroying the earth(land, air, water, vegetation, creatures) and perverting that which is Spirit(Light, Life, Truth, Love, Peace, Hope, Faith, Grace, etc.).......

Peace, in spite of the dis-ease(no-peace) that is of this world and it&#039;s systems of religion, for &quot;The WHOLE world is under the control of the evil one&quot; (1John5:19) indeed and Truth.......

Truth is never ending.......          TheDestructionOfTheEarth.Wordpress.Com</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Simply, &#8220;progress&#8221;, so-called, is destroying the earth(land, air, water, vegetation, creatures) and perverting that which is Spirit(Light, Life, Truth, Love, Peace, Hope, Grace, Miracles, Faith, etc.) ;-(</p>
<p>Postings have been made at TheDestructionOfTheEarth.Wordpress.com  concerning such destruction and perversion and also concerning The Creator&#8217;s(GOD, Father) promise that HE will &#8220;destroy those who destroy the earth(HIS Creation)!&#8221; (Rev11:18c)</p>
<p>Yet there is a Living, Lively Hope!</p>
<p>However, such Hope is not for that which is of the earth, earthly and fleshly, but there is a Living, Lively Hope for that which is Spirit, Heavenly and Spiritual.</p>
<p>Hope for that which is Spirit is Alive because &#8220;progress&#8221;, which is the product of mankind&#8217;s &#8220;imag&#8221;ination, can pervert, yet not destroy that which is Spirit! For that which is Spirit is Real, and that which is Real is Forever!</p>
<p>So no matter how perverse this world&#8217;s systems of religion become, that which is Spirit can only be abused and perverted, not destroyed!</p>
<p>That which is Spirit is Eternal&#8230;&#8230;.</p>
<p>As for that which is called &#8220;religion&#8221;. </p>
<p>&#8220;Pure religion and undefiled before GOD  The Father(Creator) is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction and to keep oneself uncontaminated by the world.&#8221; (James 1:27)</p>
<p>Simply, every other religion is impure and defiled!</p>
<p>As stated previously, &#8220;that which is called &#8220;&#8221;progress&#8221;  is of mankind&#8217;s &#8220;imag&#8221;ination and can pervert, yet not destroy, that which is Spirit&#8221;, and so it is that this world, and it&#8217;s systems of religion, have their version of &#8220;Light&#8221;, which can be turned on and off;</p>
<p>Their version of &#8220;Truth&#8221;, which is of the &#8220;imag&#8221;ination;</p>
<p>Their version of &#8220;Love&#8221;, which should be called lust;</p>
<p>Their version of &#8220;Peace&#8221;, which needs be enforced;</p>
<p>Their version of &#8220;Hope&#8221;, which is but a desire for temporal &#8220;things&#8221;;</p>
<p>Their version of &#8220;Faith&#8221;, which is powerless;</p>
<p>Their version of &#8220;Grace&#8221;, which is the liberty to &#8220;do your own thing&#8221;;</p>
<p>And sadly, the favorite color of this world&#8217;s religion is gray ;-(</p>
<p>So come out of the shadows! And as is said by many, &#8220;Get Real&#8221;!</p>
<p>Once again, &#8220;only that which is Spirit is Real, and only that which is Real is Forever&#8221;!</p>
<p>Hope is there would be those who &#8220;see&#8221; that The Life is in and of The Spirit. Those who &#8220;see&#8221; will no longer have their portion with the multitudes who are destroying the earth(and, air, water, creatures, vegetation) and perverting that which is Spirit(Light, Life, Truth, Love, Peace, Hope, Faith, Grace, etc.) ;-(</p>
<p>Simply, each breath(Spirit) you take is a revelation of The Source of Life.</p>
<p>And &#8220;A Simple and Spiritual Life is the only Life that will survive!&#8221;</p>
<p>Forever&#8230;&#8230;.</p>
<p>So &#8220;set your affections on Heavenly things&#8221; and be not of those &#8220;whose god is their bellies because they mind earthly things&#8221;. Be not of those who &#8220;love this world and it&#8217;s things&#8221; and who are &#8220;progress&#8221;ively destroying the earth(land, air, water, vegetation, creatures) and perverting that which is Spirit(Light, Life, Truth, Love, Peace, Hope, Faith, Grace, etc.)&#8230;&#8230;.</p>
<p>Peace, in spite of the dis-ease(no-peace) that is of this world and it&#8217;s systems of religion, for &#8220;The WHOLE world is under the control of the evil one&#8221; (1John5:19) indeed and Truth&#8230;&#8230;.</p>
<p>Truth is never ending&#8230;&#8230;.          TheDestructionOfTheEarth.Wordpress.Com</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dorothy</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/05/23/clean-energy-bank-deployment-administration/#comment-58755</link>
		<dc:creator>Dorothy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 May 2009 16:22:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/?p=7082#comment-58755</guid>
		<description>James - Unless you really are joking, you should do a little more research on the effect of CO2 on plants. Start with &quot;Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production&quot; from New Scientist Magazine, May 16 2007
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-myths-higher-cosub2sub-levels-will-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production.html

Here&#039;s a clip: &quot;However, while experiments on natural ecosystems have also found initial elevations in the rate of plant growth, these have tended to level off within a few years. In most cases this has been found to be the result of some other limiting factor, such as the availability of nitrogen or water.&quot;

Then, James, look at the findings of Duke University ecologist Robert Jackson and USDA Agricultural Research Service researchers, &quot;End of &#039;free ride&#039; on ecosystem CO2 absorption,&quot; May 15, 2002
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-05/du-eo051502.php

A quote: &quot;We found that many of the plants&#039; physiological processes responded fairly linearly to increases in carbon dioxide, and plant production went up,&quot; said Jackson. &quot;However, production and soil carbon storage basically saturated above 400 parts per million, a CO2 concentration very close to the current one. 

&quot;For me, this was the most interesting part of the study, because it indicates that we are now right at a threshold where the benefits of extra CO2 may not be all that great.&quot; Particularly important, said Jackson, were the measures of soil nitrogen availability. Soil bacteria metabolize organic matter, mobilizing nitrogen as ammonia and nitrate, which serves as the plants&#039; nitrogen nutrient source

&quot;Our measurements showed that soil nitrogen decreased about threefold in a nonlinear way, such that as CO2 went up, available nitrogen went down,&quot; said Jackson. &quot;So that&#039;s where the fundamental nutrient limitation of the system occurred. The decrease in nitrogen availability apparently constrains the ability of the plants to use extra CO2. &quot;

And, James, stop and think about what the elevated level of atmospheric CO2 is doing to increase the acidity of our oceans. This science is disputed by no one, not even the most strident climate change deniers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>James &#8211; Unless you really are joking, you should do a little more research on the effect of CO2 on plants. Start with &#8220;Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production&#8221; from New Scientist Magazine, May 16 2007<br />
<a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-myths-higher-cosub2sub-levels-will-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.newscientist.com/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>article/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>dn11655-climate-myths-higher-cosub2sub-levels-will-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production.html</a></p>
<p>Here&#8217;s a clip: &#8220;However, while experiments on natural ecosystems have also found initial elevations in the rate of plant growth, these have tended to level off within a few years. In most cases this has been found to be the result of some other limiting factor, such as the availability of nitrogen or water.&#8221;</p>
<p>Then, James, look at the findings of Duke University ecologist Robert Jackson and USDA Agricultural Research Service researchers, &#8220;End of &#8216;free ride&#8217; on ecosystem CO2 absorption,&#8221; May 15, 2002<br />
<a href="http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-05/du-eo051502.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.eurekalert.org/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>pub_releases/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>2002-05/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>du-eo051502.php</a></p>
<p>A quote: &#8220;We found that many of the plants&#8217; physiological processes responded fairly linearly to increases in carbon dioxide, and plant production went up,&#8221; said Jackson. &#8220;However, production and soil carbon storage basically saturated above 400 parts per million, a CO2 concentration very close to the current one. </p>
<p>&#8220;For me, this was the most interesting part of the study, because it indicates that we are now right at a threshold where the benefits of extra CO2 may not be all that great.&#8221; Particularly important, said Jackson, were the measures of soil nitrogen availability. Soil bacteria metabolize organic matter, mobilizing nitrogen as ammonia and nitrate, which serves as the plants&#8217; nitrogen nutrient source</p>
<p>&#8220;Our measurements showed that soil nitrogen decreased about threefold in a nonlinear way, such that as CO2 went up, available nitrogen went down,&#8221; said Jackson. &#8220;So that&#8217;s where the fundamental nutrient limitation of the system occurred. The decrease in nitrogen availability apparently constrains the ability of the plants to use extra CO2. &#8221;</p>
<p>And, James, stop and think about what the elevated level of atmospheric CO2 is doing to increase the acidity of our oceans. This science is disputed by no one, not even the most strident climate change deniers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
