“Cricketer – is that some sort of insect fancier?”

A counter view, that lots of small earthquakes can help seal sequestered carbon, has been reported since my post on Scientific American (2008-07-14). (Gotta point to decent rebuttals, updates and clarifications - I’m not omniscient!).
Out of Sight, Out of Clime: Burying Carbon In a Vault of Sea and Rock

The best place to store all that carbon dioxide from power plants might turn out to be volcanic formations off the U.S. west coast  ….  Such technologies have been demonstrated on a small scale to enhance the recovery of oil from tapped out fields;  pumping down the CO2 pushes up more of the black gold.  But geophysicist David Goldberg of Columbia University’s Lamont–Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., and his colleagues found that pumping such CO2 into basalt rock beneath the ocean floor might be a better solution.

Mind you, an earlier (2007-05-14) Sci Am Article "Future of ‘clean coal’ power tied to (Uncertain) success of carbon capture and storage" points to other worries (and I DIDN’T add quotes and braces in the title of this article, although bolding in the following quote is mine:

The difficulty is capturing it at the power plant without sapping too much energy or pushing electric costs up too high… Adding carbon capture technology to that plant sucks up 40 percent of the power it can produce and adds at least 2.7 cents to the retail price of that electricity.  …. But even the small projects are already turning up surprises, such as the relative permeability of various rocks and the ability of CO2 to mix with saline and form carbonic acid, which eats away surrounding rock. And, of course, no one knows exactly how long the carbon dioxide could be contained.

What we need is less lawyers and more scientists, engineers, mathematicians, programmers and the like.

The only reason CFCs got banned was because Thatcher talked Regan into it. And that only happened because Thatcher held a chemistry degree and understood the science rather than getting doses of lobbying from all sides.

So why bother then? It’s just another bureaucratic mess.

Of course one could try this simple course of action

http://sustento.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/climate-control.pdf

We will end up having to take the same approach with water and money for that matter.

Ahem…. This points to data (much of it from the CIA) indicating ONE country (and only one) meets both UNDP minimum human development and environmental requirements. Data a bit old, but this the following speech is more recent, and less data-intensive….

Take the following snippet from “New Economics Foundation”, part of this speech….
"We can learn from Cuba, nef tells the UN"
Cuba has already faced the energy, climate and credit crunch, and we can learn from their experience nef policy director, Andrew Simms, told a special session of the UN on the impact of climate change on human development.

The success of small farms, and urban farms and gardens was at the heart of the transistion after 1990, when Cuban oil imports dropped by more than half, and the use of chemicals and fertilisers dropped by 80 per cent. Immediate crisis was averted by food programmes that targetted the most vulnerable, and a rationing programme that guaranteed a minimum amount of food to everyone. The threat of serious food shortages was overome within five years, demonstrating that is it possible to feed a population under extreme economic stress, with very few fossil fuels.

Snippet from my nef newsletter had the following abstract.
We can learn from Cuba, nef tells the UN
Cuba has already faced the energy, climate and credit crunch, and we can learn from their experience nef policy director, Andrew Simms, told a special session of the UN on the impact of climate change on human development.

The success of small farms, and urban farms and gardens was at the heart of the transistion after 1990, when Cuban oil imports dropped by more than half, and the use of chemicals and fertilisers dropped by 80 per cent. Immediate crisis was averted by food programmes that targetted the most vulnerable, and a rationing programme that guaranteed a minimum amount of food to everyone. The threat of serious food shortages was overome within five years, demonstrating that is it possible to feed a population under extreme economic stress, with very few fossil fuels.

It’s not as if Industry could use electricity more efficiently.

It’s not as if the insane proliferation of energy hungry computer servers and storage arrays could be controlled by responsible buyers like government.

It’s not as if more consumption services the national debt.

It’s not s if we really need to burn brown coal.

It’s not as if any government any where ever cared.

So whoever it is that is levelling $5K fines is obviously not very Christian, what about turning the other cheek!

In the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus says:

You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
—Matthew 5:38-42, NIV

A parallel version is offered in the Sermon on the Plain in the Gospel of Luke:

But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.
—Luke 6:27-31. NIV

These passages are viewed as promoting nonresistance, pacifism or nonviolence.

The Pope and Pell must be fuming at the laws or don’t they care as a good Christian shouldn’t!

Arian baby factories sure why not, you see the more people in a country, the more tax payed, so the more tax relief those poor church coffers can enjoy.

The Vatican Bank which relies on the Purple Economy is what is at risk.

“Max Wallice argues the separation of secular authority from supernatural authority should be understood as the first separation of powers in a democracy, prior to, and equivalent to, the separation between the executive, legislature and judiciary.

The failure of democracies to fully realise this distinction constitutionally has seen churches become immensely wealthy as a consequence of their centuries old tax-exempt status as charities that ‘advance religion.’ Their wealth is now a recognisable financial phenomenon”

Now it was the Howard government that made it illegal for a student to be forced to pay the University Union Fees, fair enough I think.

So my taxes are subsidising the Tax Free sector and I am forced to pay, how does that work, Why don’t I get a choice, like in Germany that provides a tax refund if you don’t support the Purple Economy!

So yes more people any kind of people; donations or not, just as long as they are paying tax the church is safe and secure.

Sorry just a bit of silliness - Also if a holy consecrated church which is usually at the beginning donated to the church is sold (obviously because the church needs the profit to do gods work) does the ground get un-consecrated, excommunicated or made un-holy? of is it perpetually holy, if so and I buy a church and live there can I declare that I am sovereign by virtue of the god given holiness of land that I now own and stand on and refuse to pay taxes?