Jump to content

Recommended Posts

thats actually a boon to the developed countries. They don't use all their carbon rations, because they do not pollute as much. They then can sell their extra rations to developed countries, whcih levels the playing field a bit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 207
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I just see it as a scheme from developed countries in search for an excuse to their incompetence to reduce CO2 emissions.

 

Soo, we can not reduce the CO2 emissions and the rest of the world blames us for Global warming what should we do? confused.gif

 

I know what should we do, lets introduce a CO2 market. Once some money flows into the poor countries by selling the amount of CO2 we should have been trying to eliminate instead of exporting, then everyone will be happy.

 

Plus it will make for a good excuse to stop founding the undeveloped countries, "we are giving you money for our CO2 emission, you bugers what more??? mad.gif "

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Originally Posted By: spook
i actually think it's fair. it creates a commodity that those who don't pollute can sell to others.
but who is going to mointor CO2 emission levels in far flung corners of the globe?


former cattle ranchers? ;\)

gotta go, chat about this tomorrow. At any rate, its still nowhere near reality, so we don't need to get too serious about it.
Link to post
Share on other sites

shelling it doesn't mean that the already emitted CO2 magically vanishes from the atmosphere. It is emitted, it is still there!

So instead of spending money trying to export it, spend the same amount trying reducing it by introducing clean technologies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But meat tastes goooooood!!!

 

I agree that we should eat less meat and more veg but purely from a dietary point of view. I think there are probably worse offenders than the meat industry but they aren't as easy to attack.

 

I won't be stopping from eating meat but I am gonna try and eat less purely from a dietary perspective. After all we are an omnivorous animal and we should eat a balanced diet of meat and veg

Link to post
Share on other sites

If we are talking about being realistic here, then FT has a point. We are being taught about how we can reduce global warming though means that won't severely effect our day to day lives.

 

Producing vehicles that have lower emissions is something that has been part of the transport developmental footprint for some time and reducing our reliance on fossil fuels will also make a difference but I find it difficult to think it realistic to have people not consume meat and any government thoughtful enough to entertain the fact would be removed from office at the next election.

 

I think there are too many people out there who don't really care enough for the environment to implement the changes necessary to make a difference in our lifetime and that is where the battle needs to be won. \:\(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the meat industry easy to attack? I wouldn't have thought so. Most folk like meat and have always eaten it, albeit not quite in the amounts that are eaten today.

 

Ethanol as fuel is actually a very complex issue, and is actually supported by many uber-greens like permaculture people. That doesn't mean that industrial ag as practised is the best way to make it though, or that cars with one occupant are the best way to use it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its easier in the sense that it probably doesn't have as much governments in its pocket unlike the oil industry, and also its not got a global voice (that I know of) in the form of unified representation, unlike the oil industry (for example)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the issue here is simply a methane one. It has a much bigger warming effect than CO2.

 

I read somewhere that research is going on into less fart-producing cattle feed. There's also research into kangaroos, because their farts don't contain methane. Cattle fart testing doesn't sound like the most appealing of careers, but I wish the people doing it every success! Their work could have global implications.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Originally Posted By: tsondaboy
Burning methane produces CO2 and H2O, so its not a solution.

I think the solution to that would be to introduce methane absorbing suppositories.

collage_suppositories.jpg



Those will dislodge after the first discharge of the day.

CH4 has 20 times more of a greenhouse effect than CO2, so I've read somewhere. So burning would be a reduction of 20 times the normal effect of CH4.
Link to post
Share on other sites
 Originally Posted By: tsondaboy
Burning methane produces CO2 and H2O, so its not a solution.

I think the solution to that would be to introduce methane absorbing suppositories.

collage_suppositories.jpg



are they from your private collection Tsonda? ;\) lol.gif
Link to post
Share on other sites

No one is going to stop eatting meat at a rate that will cut down anything. How much wasted money did we spend studying this when that money couldve been put into other fuel research? People need to have change that doesnt effect their lives for years and put them out of jobs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the meat industry isn't easy to attack, but everyone loves a good bout of american bashing. i blame the ridiculously huge cars everyone insists on driving in the good old US of A

I will also conviniently ignore the fact that Australia produces more CO2 per capita.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your logic continues to astound me, Fatty. Sorry, i can't see your point at all. Something is extremelt carbon and energy-intensive (not to mention wasteful), and you come up with basically the same excuses the aerosol companies came up with in the 90s and the oil industry is doing now.

 

The beneficial effects of cutting down on meat have been known for a long time, especially in poor countries. And you wanna bitch about wasted money? What about the money being spent to develop SUVs and orbital sommercial aircraft?

 

Please, come down to reality. We need to live more efficiently if we are gonna stop global warming. Reducing meat is not an issue, its a fact that it cannot be sustained as it is now.

And green progress is gonna get rid of jobs that are polluting and create other jobs that are not. Deal with it. It will be the same for the transportation industry.

 

Speaking of which, what schemes for transportation do you see as rescuing us from our current predicament? I assume you must have something specific in mind, as you seem so convinced that it will save us from having to give up meat every meal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...