Question about carbon neutral living

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
May 19, 2003
Messages
2,359
Location
Texas
I found this fact: Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

I calculated this out and it comes to 3.2% of the carbon in the biosphere is related to man-made activities.

Is carbon neutrality just another red-herring? Seems to me its gonna cost me a lot for no return. If carbon were a problem, it seems we need to worry about biologic activity and volcanos much more than what I do.

Dan
 
Seeing that this is apparently an acceptable topic for discussion...

The place seemed to be getting along OK, with what was being produced "naturally" being absorbed...resulting in a relatively constant level.

i.e. what nature put in, it took out.

We come along, wipe out forests, and start burning carbon reserves (albeit at only a few percent).

We have been the cause of an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere of 50%, by destroying the mechanism for removal, while releasing stored carbon.

We have demonstrated that we can alter the mixture of the Earth's atmosphere.

Whether that leads to the verboten subject, I am in mixed minds...but would err on the side of prudence rather than abandon.
 
It appears that although "historic" CO2 that's been up there forever is from volcanoes, annual introductions of CO2 are more from man:

Quote:
The initial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the young Earth was produced by volcanic activity. This was essential for a warm and stable climate conducive to life. Volcanic activity now releases about 130 to 230 teragrams (145 million to 255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year,[6] which is less than 1% of the amount released by human activities.[7]

# ^ Gerlach, T.M., 1992, Present-day CO2 emissions from volcanoes: Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Vol. 72, No. 23, June 4, 1991, pp. 249, and 254 – 255
# ^ U.S. Geological Survey, "Volcanic Gases and Their Effects" http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html
 
Thing is, neither you nor Dan can provide any sort of conclusive backing of your assertions. Including, and especially, that we have demonstrated the ability to alter the earth's atmosphere.
Just what would you provide to back up that assertion?

I think we will also find that Co2 estimations are just that, and not facts.

The only facts that enter into this debate, are tho ones the IPCC folks forgot to use when constructing their dubious models.
In fact, their so called "facts" had them overstating the effects of Co2 level rises by 20 fold. It was found out early on, and after they released the document, it had to be edited to take into account the gross overstating of the IPCC report due to neglecting to plug in very important equations, and neglecting the laws of physics.

IMHO, this thing gets to be a mess when discussed, because so many are stating facts that are far from factual.
And erring to the side of caution may be fine for some, but do they realize what a drastic change of our societies it would be if we all decided to simply conform?

Besides, if we really take a good interest, and properly research this whole GW debate, we will clearly see what the motivation for the thing is.
Global redistribution of wealth. Nothing more, nothing less.
And many more facts point to this being the case, than point to our ultimate and untimely demise, at our own hands.
 
[/quote]Besides, if we really take a good interest, and properly research this whole GW debate, we will clearly see what the motivation for the thing is.
Global redistribution of wealth. Nothing more, nothing less.
And many more facts point to this being the case, than point to our ultimate and untimely demise, at our own hands. [/quote]

And you have conclusive proof for that? I agree that the whole debate is difficult and relies on some debatable facts, but to think that we have no impact on the earth seems a little like denial. While I am not a fanatic, I do what I can to conserve and support others who conserve. Does my little bit help- certainly not statistically relevant, but if everyone does just some simple things then the effect should be positive all the way around.

ref
 
It's very hard to measure exactly where things go and where they come from. I do know that the amount of CO2 has been increasing in the past few decades, for some reason. Reducing the amount I generate can only have one effect on this increase. If that reduction involves saving money then I do it.
 
EEK
shocked2.gif
You gave me up, Pablo!! How rude
grin2.gif


Yes, this thread is assured to be throw in the slammer. You can tell by the automatic polarization. It's always "yes it is" vs. "no it isn't". Never "well, let's see what's valid in both persuasions".

This is a common tactic in debate. The usual model (I call it shallow and cheap) is to find ONE flaw in your opponents assertion and use that to "prove" that the whole argument is false. The savvy master-debater
wink.gif
CONCEDES to the obvious and then moves on to why his view has more weight. Basically neutralizing the opponents ONLY tool.

Existence can't be filtered and polarized. Only the way you choose to view it.
 
Right on Gary. Plus CO2 output is sometimes used as a puppet for an even larger debate.
 
Originally Posted By: eljefino
Right on Gary. Plus CO2 output is sometimes used as a puppet for an even larger debate.


The larger debate is whether one wishes to live as a free man or a serf. That's the central question of our time.

And the more the Constitution is thrown out the closer we all come to being serfs.

Dan
 
I don't know if I can couple the 2, Dan. I mean, freedom is mostly an illusion. We have assured liberties that we surrendered true freedom for. Now we can surely debate that these assured liberties are getting less assured all the time ..and I'd agree with you, but there's that little nagging notion that if you live on a planet that shares space with other creatures, you've either got to "make room" for them ...or eliminate them from the effects that they infuse into "your life".

An attitude about these types of issues isn't going to alter that fundamental core reality.

Now I'm all for just going out and MAKING the world the way I'm comfortable with ..and to heck with others not liking it but that surely takes the will of more than one greedy and selfish person to implement. Not that I wish anyone any ill will on any ethnic or cultural basis ..but if it's a me vs then scenario ..well they're just not going to have a good day if I can get away with it. That is, assuming the alternative is dry and tasteless existence as some peoploid proletariat.

..but that assumes that someone else doesn't have that same design on my existence. That is, do I really think that I'm counted among "those that count"??

So, choose your camp wisely.
 
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Yes, this thread is assured to be throw in the slammer.


Don't count on it...I'm not a mod anymore.
LOL.gif
 
I see. YOU were the enforcer thought police guy, huh?



COME EEN GETIT, BOYZ!! COME EEN GETTIT!! The gate is wide open!
grin2.gif
 
Obviously you have never received a nastygram from the boss.

If someone figures out the rules, clue me in. We now have GW thread and very P thread running. Come and get it indeed.
 
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Obviously you have never received a nastygram from the boss.


As a forum sponsor you carry a bit more responsibility than the rest of us. You should set a good example and immediately bow out if RSP rears its tempting head!
LOL.gif
 
Originally Posted By: moribundman
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Obviously you have never received a nastygram from the boss.


As a forum sponsor you carry a bit more responsibility than the rest of us. You should set a good example and immediately bow out if RSP rears its tempting head!
LOL.gif



Well, I was speaking with Gary.
whistle.gif
Last time I checked we are of equal status.....perhaps a more subtle form of politics is allowed.
21.gif
:ahem:
 
If you *really* respect the concept of private property, then you should not emit anything into the atmosphere that might drift over into someone else's space. This includes water vapour. When you buy land, it should come with a large permanent plastic dome over it. If someone wants your CO2 emissions or smoke, you can build a pipeline and send it to them.
 
Originally Posted By: moribundman
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Obviously you have never received a nastygram from the boss.


As a forum sponsor you carry a bit more responsibility than the rest of us. You should set a good example and immediately bow out if RSP rears its tempting head!
LOL.gif



Instead ..he leadeth (as in vanguard) us into temptation..

Shame on you, Pablo. Now I would never do such a thing. I pride myself on being a most irritating diplomat when it comes to such "stuff".
grin2.gif


btw- I don't really see this as political. It's more "social philosophy". All of our political ramblings were based on partisanship and attacking others for their affiliations/leanings. Not basic "social" governess issues. They too can get into the "P" zone if one chooses to vent along those lines ...but you can surely behave yourself and resist the urge to get your jabs in getting the thread locked.

Kinda like my old last boss. He got hammered so bad by the upper types ...that he just needed that feel good fuzzy feeling of hammering us, his subordinates ...never pausing to figure out that we were the only thing supporting him. He was eternally upsetting the checkerboard on his own chess game for career enhancement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top