On the lighter side of recent topics

[tabasco_joe]

flybum wrote:
That is hilarious......what are they going to come up with next.

I have an idea, how about we stop driving cars and ride moose......there has to be a benefit......That's it, we won't have to make ethanol out of the corn, we can just use it as feed. Maybe that will cut down on the Methane emissions :-D

I'll shut up now.........

Flybum

We need a car that can run on moose gas. Actually not far fetched since there are already small fuel cells that run on butane. Now who is going to collect the gas?

 

[littlejuniata]

With the happenings and information on the www, there is little need to be spoonfed the party line, no matter the party.

 

[cce114]

I'm not sure how the moose story shows bias.

From the UN's website:

29 November 2006 – Cattle-rearing generates more global warming greenhouse gases, as measured in CO2 equivalent, than transportation, and smarter production methods, including improved animal diets to reduce enteric fermentation and consequent methane emissions, are urgently needed, according to a new United Nations report released today.

“Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems,” senior UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) official Henning Steinfeld said. “Urgent action is required to remedy the situation.”


UN Livestock Article

 

[FarmerDave]

littlejuniata wrote:
With the happenings and information on the www, there is little need to be spoonfed the party line, no matter the party.

Oh yea, and we all know that nothing on the web is biased. :roll:

 

[tabasco_joe]

Wetlands are the #1 source for methane. termites are listed as the second largest natural producer. It's interesting that animals are not considered "natural".

 

[cce114]

This is a completely serious question, what happened to the hole in the ozone layer? When I was a kid it seemed to be on the news every night about the impending doom we were all facing. Was there ever a "hole"? did it go away? what exactly was the story there?

 

[FarmerDave]

cce114 wrote:
I'm not sure how the moose story shows bias.

It doesn't. the anti-Fox people simply see "Fox News" and automatically jump to the conclusion that it is bias. It happens quite often.

The last three words of the first sentence say "der Spiegel reported." Maybe they are right wing, too, I don't know. :lol:

 

[zuno412]

cce114, to answer your questions: Yes, there was indeed a serious issue with the depletion of the ozone layer; there was and still are seasonal holes. However, thanks to widespread international collaboration in signing and following the Montreal Protocol, scientists are observing smaller and smaller holes annually. The ozone problem and resolution is the posterchild so-to-speak of environmental success stories.

A similar type of collaboration is taking place today through the Kyoto protocol. It is basically a treaty that outlines what signatory nations must do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Last I read, there were around 160 nations that have ratified it. Australia and the United States are the two biggest holdouts, neither of which have ratified it.

 

[tabasco_joe]

The ozone issue related to CFCs is quite different from the Global Warming Debate. The science related to the ozone issue was more straight forward and alternates to CFCs were available for a much more modest cost. CFCs were not vital to our economic system, just a fringe factor. In that case it made sense to use alternate materials.

The Kyoto Protocol is an effort where international bureaucrats sit around a campfire singing kumbia while sticking it to the Americans. The goals were set up to be virtually impossible to meet except for the Russians who sandbagged their contribution. I’m not aware of any large industrial country that is meeting or will meet their quota. The large third world countries were excluded. The US would have been forced to pay tens of billions in “fines” while accepting drastic cuts in economic activity. Even the dumbest senator got the point when they rejected it by 95-5 vote. Even most senators that strongly believe that global warming is a result of mans production of CO2 don't support kyoto.

 

[cce114]

Here's my problem with Kyoto, even if we sign it, how could we ever meet the requirements? Our nation runs off of coal. I mean one silo of a power plant in Seward, PA burns 650 tons of coal an hour. Our manufacturing base (whats left of it) could never meet the requirements.

I've heard economists say to meet the requirements, it'd cost the country $400 billion and almost 5 million jobs. China sure as heck isn't going to comply, and that is where that pollution is going to shift to.

Why not put the insentives in place for change, rather than trying to regulate it?

 

[zuno412]

In addition to the cost it would take us to comply, the US won't ratify until India and China are required to reduce emissions; currently they aren't required to do so. Also, the United Kingdom and Germany are the only countries on track to meet, and most likely exceed, their Kyoto quotas.

We [USA] are moving in the right direction though. The National Energy Technology Lab is investing some significant effort in developing clean coal technologies. I was at their Pgh facility a couple weeks ago and they have a ton going on in that area--although their target date for implementing the tech is far off (2020). It is promising to think that the US might be able to continue running on coal and lower CO2 emissions to near 0.