Want to Reduce Your Carbon Footprint?

[MrJim]

Simple - just stop breathing, says the EPA... (http://thearch-info.com/News/Science/EPA_says_STOP_BREATHING.html).

[LedZap]

I love "The Arch"... always entertaining.

[MrJim]

I agree! A little, um, exagerrated... but not by much... :D

[LedZap]

This was a good one ...

http://www.thearch-info.com/News/Politics/Barack_Hitler_Obama.html

[yee-haw]

This was a good one ...

http://www.thearch-info.com/News/Politics/Barack_Hitler_Obama.html

Zap your avater has inspired me to put my pic as an avatar!

[MrJim]

The extreme article from The Arch may be a joke, but breathing is actually on listed on the EPA's wesbite as the following FAQ:


Q:How much carbon dioxide do humans contribute through breathing?

A:The average person, through the natural process of breathing, produces approximately 2.3 pounds (1 kg) of carbon dioxide per day. The actual amount depends strongly on the person’s activity level. However, this carbon dioxide is part of a natural closed-loop cycle and does not contribute to the greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Natural processes of photosynthesis (in plants) and respiration (in plants and animals) maintain a balance of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Thus, the carbon dioxide from natural process is not included in greenhouse gas inventories.

Now I'm confused. Somehow we have balanced and unbalanced CO2... how is there a difference if it's the same chemical compound? Is something missing from this story or do carbon emmissions from cars and power plants receive misrepresentation because the clouds are symbolically ugly? It would only make sense that CO2 wouldn't be the culprit at all, but some other chemical in the emissions compound... :confused:

A mere billion people from the world's population create 2.3 Million Tons of CO2 each day, not to mention all the animals and trees... but because the process is 'natural', this form of carbon dioxide is excluded? They are also processing the 'unnatural' emission compounds in the air through their own respiration... does this inturn cleanse the air by balancing good and bad? I don't understand how there is a difference here.

Dangerous CO2 sounds like a bunch of hooey dogshit baloney on a stick...

Speaking of trees, (maybe I'll bring it to another thread later)... why all the griping about companies cutting down trees... since there is money incentive in processing the trees, for each tree a company removes it will add two more. Companies that make a profit from a resource do not want to see it depleted.

[Carrot]

The extreme article from The Arch may be a joke, but breathing is actually on listed on the EPA's wesbite as the following FAQ:



Now I'm confused. Somehow we have balanced and unbalanced CO2... how is there a difference if it's the same chemical compound? Is something missing from this story or do carbon emmissions from cars and power plants receive misrepresentation because the clouds are symbolically ugly? It would only make sense that CO2 wouldn't be the culprit at all, but some other chemical in the emissions compound... :confused:

A mere billion people from the world's population create 2.3 Million Tons of CO2 each day, not to mention all the animals and trees... but because the process is 'natural', this form of carbon dioxide is excluded? They are also processing the 'unnatural' emission compounds in the air through their own respiration... does this inturn cleanse the air by balancing good and bad? I don't understand how there is a difference here.

Dangerous CO2 sounds like a bunch of hooey dogshit baloney on a stick...

Speaking of trees, (maybe I'll bring it to another thread later)... why all the griping about companies cutting down trees... since there is money incentive in processing the trees, for each tree a company removes it will add two more. Companies that make a profit from a resource do not want to see it depleted.

There is no difference in the slightest. It's not the fact that it's "dangerous" CO2 (because it is the same compound), just that they are assuming that all CO2 from respiration would otherwise be counteracted by photosynthesis etc, and assume that the industry CO2 is the net gain etc etc.

It should be included if they really wanted to be accurate, but then the green cult couldn't be as self righteous.

But with regards to keeping trees around, only some companies do that, many are happy to keep cutting into forests that will outlast the directors/investors stay.

[MrJim]

There is no difference in the slightest. It's not the fact that it's "dangerous" CO2 (because it is the same compound), just that they are assuming that all CO2 from respiration would otherwise be counteracted by photosynthesis etc, and assume that the industry CO2 is the net gain etc etc.

It should be included if they really wanted to be accurate, but then the green cult couldn't be as self righteous.

So it's as I figured then... world leaders panicking the world based on the chemical compound we have been breathing for (insert favorite age of the earth)'s of years. Cute.

[yee-haw]

Your country is like your children. It's fundamentally important that you love them, but you need to work on any problems that come along.

[Carrot]

So it's as I figured then... world leaders panicking the world based on the chemical compound we have been breathing for (insert favorite age of the earth)'s of years. Cute.

Well, it's the fact that there's more of it. But there is no reason not to take into account CO2 due to 6 billion people if you're counting everything else.

Emissions have other stuff in it too though that you wouldn't want to breathe in obviously, but that's more to do with general pollution than climate cange.

[MrJim]

Well, it's the fact that there's more of it. But there is no reason not to take into account CO2 due to 6 billion people if you're counting everything else.

Emissions have other stuff in it too though that you wouldn't want to breathe in obviously, but that's more to do with general pollution than climate cange.

I agree 100%! At the very least if we should be drawing attention to emmissions it should be for the right reasons (the contaminants in heavily concentrated areas), NOT to create a non-existent boogeyman that has the potential to further disrupt our economic recovery, ie. cap & trade.