I'm tiptoeing a bit on this one, but since each human requires a certain amount of space to live and to use for the growing of food (common sense), and each human exhales approximately 1 kg (2.2 lbs) of CO2 each day; it seems reasonable to conclude that the only practical way to reduce environmental pollution and the "greenhouse effect" would be for humans to limit their numbers. I doubt that any serious effort in that direction (with the exception of China) will happen in my lifetime. This ain't political - it's basic math. Comments? And I'm still planning to drive my Buick-powered pickup.
Silly man, thingys rule. As far as question 2 goes, at least 2, maybe 3 horses, and I will give you a tax credit for that purchase. No matter how much it costs, no matter how small the gain...
Nice Detective work Ted. Even though I was only 9 or 10 I remember this well. Was that a Hot Rod magazine floating in the water next to his canoe?
hahaha, no bob. What I was trying to do is keep the time constraints the same. Environmentalists want people to walk more, jog more, bike more, etc. However, those things are MORE detrimental to the environment that an equal amount of time driving a gas guzzler. How so? Well, doing the first set of tasks makes a person hungrier. He/she eats more. He/she exhales more. He/she farts more. He/she uses the bathroom more. In the end, he/she is creating more waste. Hence they are more detrimental to the environment overall than if they just drove a car.
As far as I can see, the problem will always involve politics. The math always adds up differently depending on who's counting. What happens to that CO2 after its exhaled? Who knows? How do you want to spin it? How's this for a big picture? As long as we have events like war, genocide, tidal waves, earthquakes etc... we may never have to worry about limiting the numbers of man...
Those truely are fun facts. I'm balking at the idea that public education is supposed to solve issues of intellect and apathy. It's a funny joke, I guess. Golly! those teachers should be doing more to validate their salary! They should teach everybody about the EPA. Shoot. If educators were really useful, they'd teach all the kiddies about law and lobbying before anything else. If you want to experience true intellect, simply tune into one of V8Buicks political threads. It gots it in spades.
The environmental thing is a BIG JOAK. If the USA cuts it's pollution,which it basically has since 1970. There are still places like China,Mexico,etc making plenty of pollution. There is a huge area of mostly plastic garbage in the Pacific Ocean. We are somewhat getting the blame for this as coming from the west coast. But in reality,this crap is more than likely coming from the Asian countries where they toss ALL of their garbage into their river systems which eventually ends up in the oceans. China,Bangledesh, and India have more people than most of the rest of the world. Lots of CO2 coming from there. I doubt if CO2 is the big problem,though. This is mostly absorbed by plant life and the rest is absorbed into the ground and oceans. CO2 is heavier than O2. Now, how about all these commercial aircraft spewing out tons of carbons all day long,7 days a week all year long? Here in the USA,they keep targeting cars/trucks but the frigging airlines get a free pass and none of the blame? Not to mention space rockets being launched all over the world. Just think of all the toxins in rocket fuel. We ALL have to breath that crap. Commercial jet pollution, all you have to do is look up in the skies on most days and notice all the jet trails criss crossing and ever expanding until the whole blue sky is gray. We ALL have to breath that crap,too. Yet nothing is done about it by any of the governments or the damned UN. Yet these idiots are worried about humans exhaling. What a bunch of bull$#it. It's all about money and control. " Do as we say,not as we do".:rant:
I think what we can agree with is man-made destruction is real, so screw the marginal amount of degrees (F or C) and look at it from the perspective of whether the amount of money being spent is the best use of our money. With all the rivers and crap polluted to the extent where the ecosystem has been corrupted, what is the proper amount of money required to restore the equilibrium? Like all things, there are costs (environmental, social, financial, etc.) that need to be considered. Regardless of whether you believe in global warming or not, do you think the amount spent is going to right the wrongs from past transgressions? Or is there a point where the amount being spent is not going to show any returns? Put that in your pipe next time you go to Hartford.
I think we should be taking all this Global Warming money and put it in education. :grin: (You can't say that you didn't ask for it, eh? :bla: :beer )
Hey, I was watching "Smokey and the Bandit II" the other night and that's how the Snowman Jerry Reed spells joke. OK?:bglasses: :error:
Wow. Here is another environmental tv ad I remember. "Pitch In -America". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1P6EdhgmegY
I respect honest environentalism. What I despise is using environmentalism to advance political, economic or social engineering agendas, things normal people would never accept if they were presented openly. Regarding the EPA. It has become -specially after classifying CO2 as a pollutant- an incredibly powerful agency. They now have power to regulate vast parts of our lives. And these are unelected bureaucrats, not democratically elected officials. Mikel
All of the state DEP agencies are tied in with the EPA. They abuse their "authority" as any other policing agency does. I was pulled a couple of years ago over for speeding by a Florida DEP (Dept of Environmental Protection) officer on I-10 near Tallahassee. I gave him a very hard time after locking my brakes on him when he got 8 ft from my trailer. He freaked out when I started taking pics of his Explorer and him to use for a future court date. I dusted them down pretty good when I took off. No citation of course.
Planting trees is not really the solution to air pollution or "greenhouse gasses". A bit of high school chemistry is in order. Trees (and virtually all plants) absorb CO2 and give off Oxygen (O2). What happens to the Carbon (the C)? It is absorbed by the plant. When the plant dies and decomposes, the Carbon recombines with Oxygen in our atmosphere to form CO2. Plants store Carbon, they do not remove it. Decaying plant life is the largest contributor of CO2 to our atmosphere.
My girlfriend and I were at the local "Whole Foods" market last week; unfortunately she is lactose intolerant, and if she wants simple things like pizza and ice cream, she has to shop for soy and rice substitute products that no one else in this area has. Anyway, we were just browsing around, and since we love seafood, and since the store is right next to the water, we figured they might have some good deals...........yeah right. Everything was of course marked up, but what got us the most, was what they had marked as "Organic Haddock," for three times the going rate. So please, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought we only had five oceans. The Atlantic, Pacific, Indian, Southern, and Arctic..........since when did we have The Organic Ocean? :moonu:
bob k. mando Wow, who'da thunk some one on a car forum would reference Malthusian economic theory:eek2: For the unwashed, Malthus was an economist/philosipher whos theories of economic struggle led to Darwinism (ie speices struggle) and Marxism (ie class struggle)and is now the underlying philosphy of Envromentalism (ie environental struggle):Smarty:
They're talking farm raised Haddck. It's done all the time. Fish farms created with barriers near the shore, and they are fed manually instead of them foraging naturally. What are they feeding them? Even if it is organic feed, if it is grain it is sh!t. It is a known fact that farm raised fish lacks by far in every nutrient department than wild caught fish. Don't fall for it without doing some research. Anyway, to your point, where there is a dime to be made, honesty and forthrightness will always take a back seat.
