What's the Carbon Footprint difference?

[thegamerslink]

I'm curious, there is such a big push to avoid carbon foot prints, there is such an urgency as to how close the irreparable point is. What is the carbon foot print of the continuous burning of 100's of thousands of acres of trees, weeds, and grass versus the carbon foot print of yearly vehicle driving?

And what purpose does rain, plants and trees serve? What is it they feed on?

[pgzn]

Burning trees doesn't net the atmosphere any addtional co2. The plants were only storing what they took out of the atmosphere.

[thegamerslink]

Your logic is flawed I think

[homebizseo]

Originally Posted by thegamerslink

I'm curious, there is such a big push to avoid carbon foot prints, there is such an urgency as to how close the irreparable point is. What is the carbon foot print of the continuous burning of 100's of thousands of acres of trees, weeds, and grass versus the carbon foot print of yearly vehicle driving?

And what purpose does rain, plants and trees serve? What is it they feed on?

I think Carbon footprinting is the new catch phrase. We all do need to reduce waste and conserve natural resources, energy and reduce waste. If not for the enviroment do it cause it puts more money in your pocket to conserve.

[pgzn]

Originally Posted by thegamerslink

Your logic is flawed I think

It isn't my logic, it is fact

Tell me where else a plant gets co2 if not from what it absorbs. The problem the glowarmers have with co2 is that the additional co2 comes from fossile fuel.

[thegamerslink]

Additional CO2 comes from billions of people and trillions of animals breathing. I guess we should reduce that as well?

[SEO Eclectic]

Mankind is learning the hard way that it's dominion over the earth does not mean to rape the earth of it's resources and to pollute the atmosphere with impunity, and then blast off to another planet in an effort to escape what has been done to this planet. Dominion means responsibility.

Nature is the most powerful force to our senses and will clean herself out when threatened. This may or may not happen in our lifetimes. For every action there is a consequence.


Yosha

[thegamerslink]

In the early '70's a massive push towards cleaning the environment. Anti-polution and recycling etc was going on. It was desperate that we did these things immediately in order to prevent the nearly preventable Ice Age due to drastically change our planet and it's set up within 10-20 years. Now 30+ years later we are being told that we have to stop anything and everything that we do or we will be seeing drastic changes on this planet due to global warming due to hit within the next 20-50 years(readjusted recently because a 10 year cooling trend has just started).

Does conservation and recycling make sense? Of course it does, I mean it's completely illogical to think that you can just go full barrel without regard to consequences to what it is you are doing, that is what technological advancement does, it allows for us to do the things we want or need to do while using less resources and causing less pollution while doing it. Take an American car from 1968 and compare it to one from 1978, 1988,1998, and 2008. There are drastic advancements there, not only in the decreased amount of pollution but also the increase in efficiency. That's what it's all about. We now, starting this year have Hybrid vehicles hitting the market. Vehicles that can run off used cooking oil, vehicles using hydrogen cells, electric vehicles and more. The time that vehicles no longer require hydrocarbons and are the majority vehicle on the road are within my lifetime and they will soon be affordable enough for the majority. The demand that the government takes over and prevents oil drilling, or anything else for that fact is ridiculous and asking for catastrophy well into the future. After all, it's the oil/energy legislations that started in the mid to late 70's that have ultimately brought us to where we are now when it comes to gas prices. The hybrid vehicles etc were on the drawing boards and being worked on long before gas prices hit $3 a gallon, that's why they are able to be hitting the markets viably now, they've been working on them for years waiting for technology to catch up and for them to become affordable.

We are no closer today at running out of natural resources or at a catastrophic global warming process caused by mankind's footprint than we were back in the 70's when they were talking about the Ice Age, and an unbreathable unsurvivable atmosphere by the beginning of the 21st century. Actually We have access to more resources and less pollution than we ever did back then due to the new technologies that the free market has made possible.

[Harveyj]

Originally Posted by thegamerslink

Additional CO2 comes from billions of people and trillions of animals breathing. I guess we should reduce that as well?

Actually, we should.
The livestock industry creates more greenhouse warming than nearly anything other than energy production and transport. This is from methane release by livestock that exist in unnaturally large numbers due to intensive farming practices.

A vegetarian lifestyle, whilst undesirable for culinary reasons (but arguably desirable for health), would actually do the world a LOT of good.
Less emissions from fewer head of cattle, as well as more area for re-forestation to act as carbon sinks, means less green house gas.
There are other flow on effects as well, such as less emissions created from transporting produce.

Methane stores roughly 20x the amount of heat of CO2.
America's beef farming produces nearly as many tonnes of methane as all the cars on the road produce in CO2.
Similar figures exist in Australia.

However, it's unlikely we'll be going vego simply because:
a) People like to eat meat... it's delicious after all (but admit it, not healthy when there are perfectly good protein and b12 alternatives)
b) Countries such as North America & Australia have massive agricultural lobbies that see meet and dairy production as their only livelihoods (as they blatantly ignore other agricultural possibilities)

[thegamerslink]

Originally Posted by Harveyj

Actually, we should.
The livestock industry creates more greenhouse warming than nearly anything other than energy production and transport. This is from methane release by livestock that exist in unnaturally large numbers due to intensive farming practices.

A vegetarian lifestyle, whilst undesirable for culinary reasons (but arguably desirable for health), would actually do the world a LOT of good.
Less emissions from fewer head of cattle, as well as more area for re-forestation to act as carbon sinks, means less green house gas.
There are other flow on effects as well, such as less emissions created from transporting produce.

Methane stores roughly 20x the amount of heat of CO2.
America's beef farming produces nearly as many tonnes of methane as all the cars on the road produce in CO2.
Similar figures exist in Australia.

However, it's unlikely we'll be going vego simply because:
a) People like to eat meat... it's delicious after all (but admit it, not healthy when there are perfectly good protein and b12 alternatives)
b) Countries such as North America & Australia have massive agricultural lobbies that see meet and dairy production as their only livelihoods (as they blatantly ignore other agricultural possibilities)

I really do my best not to be derrogatory to others, but sometimes such trash gets posted by some I have no choice but to point out the idiocy of their views.

Firstly, the human race(homosapiens) are carnivores and have been since their beginnings. The reason? Is it merely because it tastes good? Let's look at this, do Wolves eat meat merely because it tastes good to them? Do bears eat fish only because they prefer the taste? Actually you would have to answer both yes and no to these questions. I mean why is it that things taste good to a particular species? Why is it certain foods are more part of the usual diet for a species as a whole? And yes that includes humans. It's because of the substance and nutrients the diet provides on a whole. Meat to humans provides Iron, Protein, and amino acids we need in order to stay healthy. It's been proven time and time again that a a strictly vegetarian diet is not as well rounded and healthy as a diet that includes meat to some degree. That's not meaning eating hamburger and steak every single night so don't bother with that argument.

As for the waste of animals, well, if we didn't have the cow farms, and we were all carnivores then where would you find animal population control falling in? There's going to be fecal waste from all animals including we humans. The logical thing would be not to try and figure out a way to get completely rid of it but to put it to good use. Methane gas, I wonder what excellent uses we could find for such a thing?? I guess we should also only allow couples to have 1 or maybe 2 children maximum. I mean after all, why do they need so many kids any way? All it does is increase the amount of Co2 put into the air, the amount of energy we need to provide for them, the amount of waste caused by their living needs. So limit the number a couple can have. And if they really want children all that bad, instead of actually having one and increasing the population they should first look into adopting some that have already been born...........all the sarcasm is heavily intentional in the previous statement just for the record.........

This global warming world is coming to an end we have to stop everything we do and change the ways that we live or we die tomorrow talk is getting beyond ridiculous. I mean give 2-4 decades 5 at the most and we will most likely be completely off fossil fuel type energy. During the process of getting to that point we use all resources to keep things functional, and growing. We use the resources we have at hand now, and we convert as the abilities become possible and we use what we have responsibly but not so restrictively that we can't live or be free. The global warming scare is just that, a scare tactic so that people can have control. The planet earth is up to 4.5 billion years old, a couple hundred years of mankinds growth into industrialization on the way to an even better way isn't going to destroy it. And to buy into it all lock stock and barrel is just uncontrolled stupidity.

[Harveyj]

You know what, I had a whole post written up.
A reply that had links to articles from independent (as in actually, not funded by corporate welfare) scientific groups and advisory panels, such as the CSIRO, about how you're misinformed...

But there's no point in posting it... The thing about people that sit on the right side of politics is that they always believe they're right, and that anyone that is centrist, or open to reason is wrong or a "flip-flopper".

Enjoy an economy that's going to hell in a hand basket because of such adamant views from the people you voted for...

[pgzn]

If the economy is going to hell, it is probably due to energy prices doubling in the last 12 months. Why are they doubling? I'd venture to guess it's people pushing the GW hoax, and restricting supply at ANY cost. Isn't that your kind's agenda. ANY COST, and the higher the better. Then sit around whining about the economy you created. How do you like your country's main co2 beancounter defecting from the hoax this week? Did those evil oil companies finally get to him?

Dr. David Evans, consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005, designer of the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Aussie compliance with the Kyoto Protocol and good member in standing of the manmade global warming scientific "consensus," wrote a devastating bit of apostasy for The Australian newspaper.

I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office...

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

And note I said - IF the economy is going bad. Mine is going fricking great! I can afford another doubling of gas prices, and will gladly pay it, because it'll set your cause back 50 years~forever.

[Harveyj]

I love how some of you people can't seem to unwrap totally unrelated concepts from around each other because they've been hijacked by an ignorant mass media...

"My kind" is actually pushing for nuclear power, and research into hot-fusion...
"My kind" are what you'd call "pseudo-intellectuals" (if you can pronounce it).
We're the ones that solved the Y2K bug, while years later you belittle our efforts because we worked our arses off to make sure nothing actually went wrong, and that if something did, you wouldn't notice.

[pgzn]

Y2K bug? I don't get it. Why would someone work their ass off to fix a Windows bug? It's a lot easier to install Linux. Even us dumb asses figured that out

And you didn't answer any of the questions I put out.

[Harveyj]

Although Windows was running on roughly 90% of the worlds computer systems at the time (hence making it something people had to work their arses off to fix), Y2K wasn't a Windows only problem... It was systemic thanks to someone being tight arsed with the number of bits assigned to date place holders when reading the system clock, and no one thinking to fix the problem until about 2 years before hand.
Contrary to popular belief, planes were never going to fall out of the sky and nukes weren't going to launch themselves. But you wouldn't have been able to get ON that plane as your booking would have happened some 30 years previously, and the people assigned to watch the nukes would probably have launched them out of frustration as their subscription to the playboy channel was revoked their accounts were flagged as non-existent for another 26 years.

And Linux users have the 2038 bug to look forward to thanks to the 32bit integer being used for its date stamping... Caused by pretty much the exact same lack of foresight.
At least there's plenty of heads up time on this one and more than enough memory and processing power to deal with a 64bit integer.
So thank you for displaying your amazing ignorance of the situation...

[pgzn]

2038 is a long time away. And according to the hoax we'll all be dead by then. I find it amusing the a psuedo-intellectual doesn't believe his own hoax. According to the hoax, we HAD 10 years to "fix" this so called "earth fever" that "we" caused. hahahahahaha!!! There's like 8 years left to "fix" the weather by raising taxes. No chance in hell we'll fix it by then. Assuming "we" caused it or can fix it.

Give it up dude, you can't call yourself smart in one sentence and say you believe any of that hoax in another sentence. There is no such thing as a smart glowarmer. They have no thinking skills. Only feeling skill. Sorry if it sounds rude, but it's pure truth. Someone had to tell you. Also, it's perfectly fine to not be very smart, so long as they have no say in my life.