anybody read up on what the carbon footprint was of hosting the summit meeting for climate change?
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Negative Environmental Impact of Pets
- Thread starter Dr. Cheese
- Start date
anybody read up on what the carbon footprint was of hosting the summit meeting for climate change?
anybody read up on what the carbon footprint was of hosting the summit meeting for climate change?
Nope. Did they need another 40 foot long table made of rainforest wood?
lol......i think it had something to do with the baby seals they were burning for heat. which if you think about it would make more sense than burning adult seals, since adult seals would have had a chance to have a larger negative impact on the environment due to their gobbling of natural resources the older they get.
Pretty much my view. I'm all for responsible pet ownership as I have seen the effects of irresponsible pet ownership. But as humans I think we're getting a bit full of our selves when we choose to use plastic instead of paper or have or pet neutered to "save the planet". Are we really that desperate to try to attach some significance to our meager lives?
LOL! So we're full of ourselves if we try to reduce our impact on the planet. I guess using that logic, polluting is a selfless, humble act then.
Since we are on the topic of animals and climate change, I'd like to point out that the single fastest and possibly most significant way we could cut greenhouse gasses is by eating our way through our current inventory of cows, chickens, pigs and the like. We would also raise no more animals for products like cheese and milk.
In other words, we'll eat what we have [let's say it takes 18 months] and we'll see a dramatic drop in the very potent [more-so than CO2] greenhouse gas methane. Since cow farts don't linger as long in the atmosphere as CO2, we could see a change over the short-term. This could give us the breathing room [so to speak] to bridge us to new efficient CO2 replacing technologies, which BTW, aren't ready yet, at least not at prices that appeal to most people.
So why the focus on anthropogenic CO2 when anthropogenic farts [via billions of farm animals] may be a huge factor? We could switch our diets faster than we can overhaul our energy infrastructure. [And we'd also have the added bonus of less CO2 because of all the energy it takes to produce, refrigerat/freeze and transport animal flesh.]
Just some food for thought.
In other words, we'll eat what we have [let's say it takes 18 months] and we'll see a dramatic drop in the very potent [more-so than CO2] greenhouse gas methane. Since cow farts don't linger as long in the atmosphere as CO2, we could see a change over the short-term. This could give us the breathing room [so to speak] to bridge us to new efficient CO2 replacing technologies, which BTW, aren't ready yet, at least not at prices that appeal to most people.
So why the focus on anthropogenic CO2 when anthropogenic farts [via billions of farm animals] may be a huge factor? We could switch our diets faster than we can overhaul our energy infrastructure. [And we'd also have the added bonus of less CO2 because of all the energy it takes to produce, refrigerat/freeze and transport animal flesh.]
Just some food for thought.
Farts are just the beginning. Growing the crops to feed the animals also generates huge amounts of CO2 due to the production of fertilizer.
A less proscriptive approach would be simply to eliminate the subsidies on meat production, and let the free market do the rest.
Funniest misspelling I've seen in a while.
Hmmmm.. An oversight on my part, and now that you've brought to my attention is actually funny as all get out.. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I stand corrected..
I believe the biggest threat to the environment and to all living species on our planet are those who refuse to exercise the ability to actually think and use some common sense
I bet all tghe private jets taken to the Copenhagen show had more of a "footprint" than all the puppies. I'll believe it's a crisis when all the people who keep telling me it's a crisis start acting like it's a crisis.
Oh, crap. Now someone is going to have to correct your punctuation . . .
LOL!!!!
Anyway.. These are the people that want you all to buy into this garbage. Enjoy.
That was real!?
Yes.. It's real.
It's crap like that, that really make me miss Frank Zappa. Oh well, at least my Zappa music library is almost complete..
LOL! So we're full of ourselves if we try to reduce our impact on the planet. I guess using that logic, polluting is a selfless, humble act then.
Pollution: A problem. AGW: A stretch at this point.
Putting the two together is wrong because pollution is an easily defined problem that is easily proved and AGW is not something that can be easily proved and has yet to be proved given all the potential factors in our climate that many scientists to this day are considering and debating.
I mean these scientists have yet to explain why the Earth heated up numerous times before the industrial revolution.
The sun? Maybe?
Besides, the issue of AGW is not hot at this moment because Copenhagen is crumbling. If it continues to get colder in the absence of government intervention it doesn't help the "science" too much, considering scientists are so prone to bring recent stats into the overall picture.
BTW - sunspot activity has hit a long time low. You know what this means? It's going to be cold as **** throughout the next decade.
And yes, I am basing my assumption that it will get colder given the positive correlation between sunspot activity and the Earth's surface temperature. The same way that scientists use a supposed positive correlation between increased C02 and the Earth's temperature.
