Ivan
|
| posted on 2/5/10 at 06:59 AM |
|
|
Carbon footprint - sounds like BS to me
Just read this in our local CAR magazine which is normaly a fairly reliable source of information:
"The car has been vlified as a major contributer to harmful emmissions to the extent that we are expected to pay carbon tax. The truth however
reveals a different picture. Planet Earth pumps out 186 billion tons of carbon into the air every year. Natures contribution to this is 180 billion
tons, 90 billion from the oceans and 90 billion from decaying plants, volcanoes and other natural actitvity. The contribution from transportation
fuels amounts to 0.003% of the total CO2 released into the atmosphere which is less than that emitted by cattle."
Makes you think doesn't it.
|
|
|
|
|
55ant
|
| posted on 2/5/10 at 07:18 AM |
|
|
going on a tangent from that, eatingmeat is whats 'destroying' our planet. if we all where vegetarians the production of food would be
much less harmfull. the amount of food we grow to feed all these cattle etc is huge
away from cars, now cycling and building TT bikes
|
|
|
LBMEFM
|
| posted on 2/5/10 at 07:37 AM |
|
|
"The origin of these climatic trends... is a difficult subject: by long tradition the happy hunting ground for robust speculation, it suffers
because so few can separate fact from fancy." — G.S. Callendar(1)
|
|
|
MakeEverything
|
| posted on 2/5/10 at 07:44 AM |
|
|
it is all bollocks.
Ive worked with some clients that participate in Carbon Trading, whereby they can "Buy and Sell" Carbon Credits to other companies to
offload their statistics, making a mockery of the whole system.
This means that the companies with the most cash, can pay the premium for not reducing their footprint.
There has been a discussion on here before about the production and disposal of batteries, though they are considered an environmentally friendly
source of energy. Another falsity in the scheme.
Im not sure preventing the eating of meat is going to stop the world from falling apart. We do give them lots of feed, but a lot of it is natural
produce in the first place and the process isnt that great. The majority of animal feed is "Animal Grade Human food" that isnt fit for
human consumption.
Kindest Regards,
Richard.
...You can make it foolProof, but youll never make it Idiot Proof!...
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 2/5/10 at 08:23 AM |
|
|
The problem with the now widespread eating of meat (in previous centurys it was rare except for the super rich to eat meat every day) is the number of
animals being reared and the methane they produce. Methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Anonymous
|
|
|
Ninehigh
|
| posted on 2/5/10 at 08:33 AM |
|
|
What he said ^^
Twas on QI not long ago that cows contribute more to global warming than anything else we do.
The moral of the story? Take your V8 to the KFC drive-in and not the Maccies one 
|
|
|
bi22le
|
| posted on 2/5/10 at 08:37 AM |
|
|
as ian said. I always thought that it was methane from the feeding cattle that is particularly bad for the environment. Due to the number of stomaches
they have it comes from their mouth instead of their a*se which is a common misconception. So never kiss a cow, they have terrible breath!
Track days ARE the best thing since sliced bread, until I get a supercharger that is!
Please read my ring story:
http://www.locostbuilders.co.uk/forum/13/viewthread.php?tid=139152&page=1
Me doing a sub 56sec lap around Brands Indy. I need a geo set up! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHksfvIGB3I
|
|
|
MakeEverything
|
| posted on 2/5/10 at 09:06 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by bi22le
as ian said. I always thought that it was methane from the feeding cattle that is particularly bad for the environment. Due to the number of stomaches
they have it comes from their mouth instead of their a*se which is a common misconception. So never kiss a cow, they have terrible breath!
.....Never marry one either....
Kindest Regards,
Richard.
...You can make it foolProof, but youll never make it Idiot Proof!...
|
|
|
BenB
|
| posted on 2/5/10 at 09:56 AM |
|
|
I think the favoured approach is just to sneak up on them from behind Then again this may have changed, I haven't been to Wales for a long
time
|
|
|
UncleFista
|
| posted on 2/5/10 at 09:56 AM |
|
|
There is no problem facing humanity which wouldn't be solved or at least made much better by cutting the human population by a few billions.
Wars etc. don't do the job anymore, all we can hope for is a disease of some kind 
Tony Bond / UncleFista
Love is like a snowmobile, speeding across the frozen tundra.
Which suddenly flips, pinning you underneath.
At night the ice-weasels come...
|
|
|
nitram38
|
| posted on 2/5/10 at 10:46 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by 55ant
going on a tangent from that, eatingmeat is whats 'destroying' our planet. if we all where vegetarians the production of food would be
much less harmfull. the amount of food we grow to feed all these cattle etc is huge
Knowing the nature of the earth, green stuff grows with or without cattle to eat it?
Isn't green stuff required to feed us instead if the cows don't eat it?
Doesn't this green stuff produce oxygen?
The trouble with all these quotes of facts and figures is that you need to see the bigger picture, not focus on one item.
I think its all so we pay more taxes, the end
|
|
|
hoots_min
|
| posted on 2/5/10 at 10:51 AM |
|
|
its actually sheep that are bigger methane producers from burping! Methane being 5 times worse than CO2 in global warming. I remember reading a while
back that human influence on the impact of global warming (through farming, industry, cars, etc.) is only about 15% with the remainder being produced
by nature. So no matter what we do, we only impact a small amount of the total CO2 produced.
However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't take steps to reduce the impact we do make. Global warming is a natural phenomenon that has been
going on for millennia. But it is happening, there is enough proof out there if you peel away all the bullshit from the different factions with their
own agendas. We do have an impact and are increasing the temperature of the planet faster than it would be if we weren't here but it is going to
happen anyway.
Morally where do we stand? There is also conjecture that there will be a massive natural event that will result in a huge amount of methane, so should
we try and reduce as much as possible? Or just not worry about it as it wont make any difference in the end?
Whether you believe the hype or not, should it make a difference???
Today is a good day: I achieved new heights of ineptitude.
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 2/5/10 at 11:18 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nitram38
quote:
Originally posted by 55ant
going on a tangent from that, eatingmeat is whats 'destroying' our planet. if we all where vegetarians the production of food would be
much less harmfull. the amount of food we grow to feed all these cattle etc is huge
Knowing the nature of the earth, green stuff grows with or without cattle to eat it?
Isn't green stuff required to feed us instead if the cows don't eat it?
Doesn't this green stuff produce oxygen?
The trouble with all these quotes of facts and figures is that you need to see the bigger picture, not focus on one item.
I think its all so we pay more taxes, the end
I believe that meat does waste a lot of energy, if for no other reason than the fact that animals walk around their fields wasting energy whilst
plants tend to stay in one place.
To make up figures from memory, its something like 5 times as much land/sunlight is required for a kilo of meat than a kilo of veg with similar energy
content. In fact, it could even be 13 times, i might stroll off for a google.
Beware! Bourettes is binfectious.
|
|
|
craig1410
|
| posted on 2/5/10 at 11:21 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by 55ant
going on a tangent from that, eatingmeat is whats 'destroying' our planet. if we all where vegetarians the production of food would be
much less harmfull. the amount of food we grow to feed all these cattle etc is huge
Yeah a nice big bean-burger doesn't produce any gas now does it...
In my view it is "waste" in all forms which is killing the planet. Whether it be packaging, waste food, paper, plastic.
And having crude oil pumping into the gulf of mexico doesn't help much either...
|
|
|
dlatch
|
| posted on 2/5/10 at 05:40 PM |
|
|
its definatley all there to tax us to death
meanwhile the real issues are not being addressed like the destruction of rain forrests worldwide, added to the fact there is too many of us on this
planet which causes more demand than the planet can sustain
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 2/5/10 at 06:14 PM |
|
|
what really annoys me is the sky vans that say 'sky is carbon neutral' on the back - bollocks. That van is moving by burning fossil fuel,
so unless they are actually removing CO2 from the air and turning it back into oil, and then burying it, they most certainly are not carbon neutral.
Undoubtedly they derive that claim from carbon trading, which as said above is total nonsense.
As dlatch says, the biggest problem we face is simple overpopulation. Burning oil wouldnt be a problem if there were only 1bn of us, not 6 or 7 all at
it.
[Edited on 2/5/10 by JoelP]
Beware! Bourettes is binfectious.
|
|
|
craig1410
|
| posted on 2/5/10 at 06:19 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
what really annoys me is the sky vans that say 'sky is carbon neutral' on the back - bollocks. That van is moving by burning fossil fuel,
so unless they are actually removing CO2 from the air and turning it back into oil, and then burying it, they most certainly are not carbon neutral.
Undoubtedly they derive that claim from carbon trading, which as said above is total nonsense.
As dlatch says, the biggest problem we face is simple overpopulation. Burning oil wouldnt be a problem if there were only 1bn of us, not 6 or 7 all at
it.
[Edited on 2/5/10 by JoelP]
It is possible to be carbon neutral by planting trees which turn CO2 into O2.
|
|
|
Confused but excited.
|
| posted on 2/5/10 at 06:54 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by 55ant
going on a tangent from that, eatingmeat is whats 'destroying' our planet. if we all where vegetarians the production of food would be
much less harmfull. the amount of food we grow to feed all these cattle etc is huge
"the amount of food we grow to feed all these cattle etc is huge".
What, all that grass?
Cattle and other plant eating animals produce huge amounts of methane, which is a major greenhouse gas.
So buy eating them we meat eaters are actually helping the ecology.
So, 'Save the planet, eat a vegetarian today!'
Tell them about the bent treacle edges!
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 2/5/10 at 06:58 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by craig1410
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
what really annoys me is the sky vans that say 'sky is carbon neutral' on the back - bollocks. That van is moving by burning fossil fuel,
so unless they are actually removing CO2 from the air and turning it back into oil, and then burying it, they most certainly are not carbon neutral.
Undoubtedly they derive that claim from carbon trading, which as said above is total nonsense.
As dlatch says, the biggest problem we face is simple overpopulation. Burning oil wouldnt be a problem if there were only 1bn of us, not 6 or 7 all at
it.
[Edited on 2/5/10 by JoelP]
It is possible to be carbon neutral by planting trees which turn CO2 into O2.
no its nots! Most trees will eventually die and rot, re-releasing the CO2. Very little will go on to form coal. So by planting a tree, you have
overall moved carbon from a perminant store to a transient store.
Beware! Bourettes is binfectious.
|
|
|
Badger_McLetcher
|
| posted on 2/5/10 at 07:07 PM |
|
|
TBH there's so much bull manure said about global warming that I don't know what to believe.
As far as I am concerned the bigger problems are overpopulation and Peak Oil.
If disfunction is a function, then I must be some kind of genius.
|
|
|
